Barry Andrews (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 208: To ask the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the improvements in cooperation between Ireland and UK on the matter of Sellafield, arising from the legal actions to date; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6986/07]

Dick Roche (Wicklow, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Ireland has long been concerned about the threat posed by the large and complex nuclear installation site at Sellafield.

In 2001, and in response to the imminent commissioning of a further plant at the site, the MOX plant, Ireland instituted legal proceedings against the United Kingdom under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

The action related, inter alia, to the inadequacy of the environmental impact assessment carried out by the United Kingdom for the MOX Plant, the failure of the United Kingdom to take all steps necessary to protect and preserve the marine environment of the Irish Sea, and the failure to co-operate with Ireland in taking the steps necessary to protect and preserve the marine environment of the Irish Sea.

The UNCLOS Tribunal hearing began in June 2003 but was suspended to facilitate resolution of an issue raised by the European Commission that the case was more appropriate to matters of EU competence rather than UNCLOS.

Pending hearing of the substantive case, and following an application by Ireland, the UNCLOS Tribunal issued a Provisional Measures Order, which made provision for, inter alia, a review by Ireland and the UK of the mechanisms for inter-Governmental notification and co-operation. Under this process a series of co-operative measures have been developed, agreed and put in place.

These measures are valuable from Ireland's viewpoint, are working well and represent distinct real added value to the necessary co-operative relationship to which Ireland considers is its entitlement on this issue. The Bi-Lateral Agreement on Early Notification of a Nuclear Incident, direct access to the UK Radiation Monitoring System (RIMNET), access for the Garda Síochána to Sellafield, access for the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland (RPII) to Sellafield and other facilities, significantly improved information exchanges, co-operation on emergency planning with the UK, and improved contacts at regulator and official level on nuclear issues, all provide objective evidence of real improvements.

The judgment of the European Court of Justice of 30 May 2006, inter alia, declared that Ireland, by instituting proceedings against the UK under UNCLOS, failed to fulfil its obligations under Community Law. This judgment established that certain provisions of UNCLOS form part of the Community legal order and that the ECJ has exclusive jurisdiction to determine disputes between Member States on their interpretation and application.

Following the judgment, there was an exchange of correspondence between Ireland and the European Commission on the matter, and the Commission has now clarified the legal situation. Following consultation with the Attorney General, the case taken by Ireland against the UK under UNCLOS will not now proceed. The Commission and the UNCLOS Tribunal were informed accordingly on the 16 February last.

The case taken by Ireland under UNCLOS has served the purpose of identifying the concerns of Ireland in relation to Sellafield on the international stage and more particularly at EU level. It has also led to significant improvements in the level of co-operation and information received from the UK in relation to Sellafield. Lack of co-operation and information from the UK on the issue was one of the significant claims made by Ireland in the UNCLOS case.

The ECJ in its judgement against Ireland had provided clarity in that certain international agreements now fall exclusively within the Court's remit insofar as disputes arise under them. This applies not only to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (which was in dispute in this case) but also potentially to other international conventions whose aim is to protect the environment. Accordingly, the ECJ and the European Commission are now placed centre stage in respect of Ireland's concerns regarding discharges and safety at Sellafield. In my meeting with Commissioner Piebalgs in January 2006, I made clear to the Commissioner that the Commission needs to respond to these concerns and become more proactive on the Sellafield issue.

Since Ireland began its case against the UK under UNCLOS in 2001, the Commission has instituted two actions against the UK in relation to Sellafield under the terms of the EURATOM Treaty. Following my meeting with Commissioner Piebalgs, the Commission issued a Decision (15 February 2006) against Sellafield in respect of the THORP leak. This follows the Directive issued by the Commission against the UK in March 2004 in respect of the B30 ponds.

The UK have lodged an appeal in the ECJ (April 2006) against the Commission Decision on the THORP leak claiming inter alia that the Commission does not have the competence to adopt the decision because it is based on safety concerns.

While the broad legal landscape regarding disputes between Member States has changed, this Government's fundamental position has not. Our policy continues to reflect the firm position that Sellafield is an unacceptable threat to Ireland and that it should be closed in a safe and orderly manner.

I will continue to ensure that the concerns of Ireland are represented directly to the European Commission in relation to Sellafield at Commissioner and Senior Official level and that the current actions against Sellafield by the Commission are continuously monitored to ensure that they are sustained and effective. The Attorney General will also monitor developments at the European Court of Justice.