Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 1 Apr 2004

Vol. 583 No. 2

Adjournment Debate.

Children in Care.

I am disappointed that the Minister for Health and Children is not in the House. This is a matter for which he has primary responsibility. The Minister of State, Deputy Brian Lenihan, has secondary responsibility. It is unfortunate that neither Minister is in attendance.

I am concerned at the decision of the South Western Area Health Board to close the successful City Lodge facility. The decision has worrying implications for the clients who have been resident there for some time. City Lodge, which has been open for three years, was established originally as an emergency facility for children who were on the streets or exhibited chaotic behaviour. It quickly proved to be very successful and developed into a medium to long term care service. The facility developed what could be described as a reasonably liberal regime to accommodate the chaotic nature of its clients. It had the added advantage of round-the-clock nursing cover which was important given the drug problems of some clients. Last year, the facility was inspected by the health board's inspectorate which recommended its relocation from its unsuitable premises while acknowledging the success of the service. To date, no plans have been brought forward by any health board in the eastern region to relocate the service and provide a similar service elsewhere.

I raise the case of one young person who has been in the care of the State for most of his life. In recent years, this 17 year old boy's difficulties have included a problem with heroin. The child's case has been before the courts on a number of recent occasions and has been covered in the media. The boy in question was doing well in the centre when, for purely administrative reasons, a decision was made somewhere within the health board to close the facility and provide an alternative placement. In reply to a question I submitted to the Minister for Health and Children a couple of weeks ago, I was told that suitable alternative placements had been identified for all clients. I challenge that. In the case of the 17 year old boy in question, a suitable alternative was not found. One must bear in mind that this young person experienced very serious difficulties in trying to cope over an extended period. He has been in care for a long time. He was used to a relatively secure setting which was stable, safe and supportive and which met his needs. He was making considerable progress.

The alternative placement provided was the caretaker hostel which is very much an emergency service. Its intended purpose was to provide respite for children who could not engage with services from life on the streets. It is by no means a suitable place for someone used to being in and progressing in a stable environment. Young people are required to be in the facility by 8.15 p.m. to book a bed on a nightly basis. Nightly booking is hardly the basis of a stable environment for a young person. They must leave the facility by 9.30 a.m. That is completely unsuitable for the young person in question, but it was all that was on offer to him when the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy Brian Lenihan, said last week that a suitable alternative placement had been found. That was rubbish.

Since the question I submitted was answered, the case has been before the courts on a couple of occasions. When Focus Ireland, which originally offered the place, realised it was unsuitable, it withdrew the offer. Focus Ireland has made the alternative offer of a placement in the off-the-streets facility. None of the representatives of the young man in question have had a chance to assess the offer yet.

I am concerned that decisions on care for young people are taken on an ad hoc basis. The decisions are being taken on the basis of administrative concerns rather than concern for the young people. The health boards, overseen by the Minister responsible, are getting into a habit of delaying the process of formulating proper care plans for young people until that person gets close to 18 years of age, at which point the board can wash its hands of all responsibility. By standing over such a regime, the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Lenihan, and the Minister, Deputy Martin, are seriously reneging on their statutory responsibility for providing care for these young people. The regime is completely ad hoc and inadequate for meeting the statutory needs of the young people concerned.

Neither the Minister, Deputy Martin, nor the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Lenihan, is in the precincts of the House and they are not in a position to come to the Chamber.

It is an important issue and they should have made themselves available.

They have long-standing commitments and this item only came on the agenda today.

The provision of child care and youth homelessness services in the eastern region is the responsibility of the Eastern Regional Health Authority and the area health boards. The South Western Area Health Board has operational responsibility for City Lodge and has informed me that the facility was established on an interim basis in the context of the development of services for young people out of home. It was never envisaged that the facility would be used on a long-term basis due to the constraints of the building and its location on the grounds of the former Meath Hospital. I am delighted the former Meath Hospital is in a position to offer facilities. Some €10 million is being invested in the development of services there. I was heavily involved in ensuring that the facility would continue to operate. It was due to be sold and disposed of.

City Lodge was established in December 2000 to fulfil the need, on a temporary basis, for additional emergency accommodation for homeless young people in the Dublin area. It was opened to cater for young homeless people who could not be accommodated elsewhere as they presented with behavioural and management difficulties. It was envisaged that City Lodge would provide a temporary service as the building was considered unsuitable to house the service on a long-term basis.

The social services inspectorate inspected City Lodge in March 2003 under section 69(2) of the Child Care Act 1991. The social services inspectorate report recommended that the purpose and function of City Lodge should be reviewed urgently. The report states:

Inspectors were of the view that since it had functioned beyond half of its potential capacity for only a brief period during 2001, and there was only one young person remaining in the hostel at the time of the inspection, its purpose and function should be reviewed urgently by the board, and decisive action taken about its future.

Following a review of the Eastern Regional Health Authority's youth homelessness strategy, the recommendations of the social service inspectorate report, and a reduction in the number of young homeless people in the Dublin area, the South Western Area Health Board took the decision to close City Lodge.

It is not appropriate for me to comment in detail on individual cases such as that referred to by the Deputy. However, the authority informs me that the unit is due to close early this month and that there are currently three young people accommodated in it. The authority assures me that appropriate alternative arrangements for residential care have been made for these young people that will continue to meet their individual needs, including those of the young person referred to by the Deputy.

Will the Minister of State take a question?

There is no provision in Standing Orders for asking a question at this time. We cannot create a precedent on this matter.

How does the Minister of State know this is the case? The young person's guardians have not had a chance to consider the placement. On what basis is the Minister of State saying the accommodation is appropriate?

I will abide by the ruling of the Chair. The authority has indicated that City Lodge shall not close until the young people are satisfactorily transferred to new accommodation. If the Deputy is concerned that what I said is not true, I assure her that nothing will happen the person she referred to until he or she is satisfactorily transferred to new accommodation.

Does this mean 9 April is not a deadline?

That is correct. Current best practice suggests that the needs of homeless young people who cannot return to their own families and require alternative accommodation are best provided for in their own community, family placements or small residential placements. This is echoed in the Youth Homelessness Strategy 2001 whose goal is "to reduce and if possible eliminate youth homelessness through preventative strategies and where a child becomes homeless to ensure that he or she benefits from a comprehensive range of services aimed at reintegrating him or her into his or her community as quickly as possible." Where youth homelessness occurs the strategy stresses the need for a prompt responsive child-focused service. It recognises the importance of co-ordinated interagency work in tackling this complex multi-dimensional issue.

Significant funding has been made available by the Government to tackle youth homelessness. Since 1997, approximately €18.5 million has been invested in youth homelessness and related child care services. As Members are aware, the main difficulty in regard to youth homelessness has been in the Dublin area and approximately €12.4 million has been made available to date to the Eastern Regional Health Authority to address this problem.

A comprehensive package of child care service developments was agreed in 2000 to tackle youth homelessness in the eastern region and I want to mention some of the key provisions.

The Minister of State's five minutes have elapsed.

A director of homelessness and an assistant chief executive has been appointed in each of the area boards.

We must proceed to the next item.

Outreach services have been restructured and extended and multi-disciplinary teams have been developed. These actions have been taken to ensure there is an appropriate service, including a crisis intervention services, to meet the needs.

We must proceed to the next item.

Everything about it is theoretical. It is simply biding time until the young people reach the age of 18.

It is not.

National Treatment Purchase Fund.

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for allowing me to raise this important issue. In the Dáil debate on health on 3 March, the Government claimed to be committed to the provision of high quality health care for those most in need. It stated that equity of access was its key objective, underlining its health strategy. In my experience, equity of access to health care does not exist in this State for public patients who must endure the demeaning indignity of waiting lists in our public hospitals. The circumstances I wish to raise seem exceptional, even in the context of the inequity of the two-tier system in this State.

During the debate on 3 March, I referred to the case of a family from my constituency that had contacted me during that week. They asked me to help their son, whom they feared might become suicidal because of his urgent medical need. This young man, who is in his early 20s, had been admitted to the accident and emergency unit of the Mater Hospital in June 2003. Having spent Sunday and part of Monday in casualty, his condition required immediate surgery when he was finally seen and a colostomy operation was performed. This was both psychologically and physically traumatic for the young man. He was assured a reverse procedure would be possible and would be carried out within two to three months.

The young man and his family counted every day until the three months were up. He heard nothing and contacted the hospital only to be told there were no beds as a ward had been closed and that he would have to wait. He waited and waited and heard nothing. Despite repeated calls to the hospital and the traumatic nature of his condition, nine months have now passed and this unfortunate young man is still waiting. The answer he got was always the same — there were no beds available for a patient like him who would require one for seven days or more.

When his family contacted me I checked with the hospital administration and was given the same response. I spoke to his consultant who told me that the chance of dealing with the young man was "remote". Wards were closed, beds were in short supply and taken up by accident and emergency and urgent cancer patients. Incredibly, although he had been waiting more than the required six months, nobody told him to apply to the national treatment purchase fund, and I then put him in touch with the service. The staff there are doing their best for him. They are most helpful and sympathetic.

They rightly believe that, due to the nature of the patient's condition and the possibility of recurring medical problems, it would be in his best interest to be treated again in the same hospital, namely, the Mater.

While they have contacted his consultant in the Mater Hospital, apparently the problem now is that the particular consultant is not prepared to co-operate with the national treatment purchase fund for some unknown reason. He has refused to treat his own patient under the auspices of the fund. When I checked today, the young man had still heard nothing and both he and his parents are now desperate. This is why I sought permission to again raise his plight in this House.

This young man's treatment — or lack of treatment — demands immediate action. I expect the Minister of State to intervene today as a matter of urgency in this case. Who would have believed that the Ireland of today, one of the most affluent countries in the world, could treat its citizens in this despicable manner? How could any Minister for Health and Children stand over such a disgraceful situation? While on this occasion I did not want to give the young man's name or other details for obvious reasons, the Minister of State has those details. If he has not already taken action today, I hope he will take action immediately.

I am delighted to have the opportunity to respond to the Deputy. I support the principle he has raised regarding an appropriate response for those awaiting a reverse procedure such as he outlined. I concur with his view that there should be no delay. The Deputy will be aware that responsibility for the provision of hospital services to those living in the area in which the person involved resides rests with the Eastern Regional Health Authority, and services at the Mater Hospital are provided under an arrangement with the authority. Since this matter was brought to my attention, my Department has asked the regional chief executive of the authority to investigate the case raised by the Deputy and to reply to him directly.

I am advised that the patient in question presented to the emergency department at the Mater Hospital on 22 June last year and was subsequently admitted. He underwent surgery in June 2003 following which he was discharged with a view to returning in 2004 for closure of stoma. I would be happy to enter into further discussion with the Deputy, should it be of benefit to him, to indicate clearly that, in line with the contracts that are in place regarding physicians, surgeons etc., the timing of re-admission is a clinical decision rather than one of available capacity at the hospital. While the Deputy indicated there may on occasions be pressure on beds in the Mater Hospital arising from those who come in through the accident and emergency department——

I have quoted this man's consultant. I hope the Minister of State is not trying to disturb this issue.

Not at all. I am merely outlining the position regarding the timing.

The clinical decision was made nearly nine months ago.

The Deputy has had his five minutes.

If that is the case——

It is a disgrace and a scandal and the Minister of State should act on it. I am not interested in prepared scripts.

The Deputy has had his five minutes and is not in order in interrupting the Minister of State.

The ultimate decision to admit patients is a clinical one made in the context of available capacity, patient prioritisation and the demands of urgent elective and routine workloads. My understanding from the brief I have received from the chief executive officer is that the hospital will endeavour to admit the patient as soon as possible.

The Deputy referred to the national treatment purchase fund, NTPF. I am advised that the NTPF was approached about a reverse procedure in this case. I am delighted to hear the Deputy's positive comments about its involvement. I understand he has had direct discussion with representatives of the NTPF on this case.

They cannot help because the consultant refuses to co-operate.

The Deputy is not entitled to intervene at this stage.

The Minister of State should respond to the issue. This is no laughing matter. It is a serious issue.

The Deputy took his five minutes and is not entitled to another intervention.

This is a serious matter and the Deputy asked me to intervene. I would be happy to intervene. I hear what the Deputy is saying and will repeat it in case I am picking him up incorrectly. The Deputy is saying that the consultant with responsibility for the clinical decision in this case refuses to co-operate with people such as——

He refuses to co-operate with the national treatment purchase fund and not "people such as".

Significant progress has been achieved in reducing waiting times for adults and children. The number of adults waiting more than 12 months for in-patient treatment in the nine target surgical specialties has fallen by approximately 42% between September 2002 and September 2003. The number of children waiting more than six months for in-patient treatment in the nine target surgical specialties has decreased by 39% in the same period. The national treatment purchase fund continues to target adults and children waiting longest for treatment who are prepared to avail of the services of made available via the NTPF.

In most instances now, adults waiting more than six months for an operation and children waiting more than three months will be facilitated by the fund. We should take this opportunity to let those waiting more than six months know——

The time allocated has now expired.

Will the Minister of State do anything about the case?

I have said I would be happy to intervene and assist the Deputy and the patient.

Waste Management.

I thank the Minister of State for coming to the House to listen to the Adjournment debate. The matter I wish to raise is the urgent need for the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to overrule the Dublin city manager, Mr. John Fitzgerald, in the proposed material contravention of the 1999 development plan affecting St. Anne's Park.

Many people, even those outside Dublin, will know that St. Anne's Park is a famous northside park and is the largest park administered by the Dublin city administration. It is a wonderful area of recreation including many football pitches, a par-three golf course, tennis courts etc., which have used by many citizens of north Dublin for generations. My great predecessor, representing the Labour Party, big Jim Larkin, as chairman of the Dublin Corporation housing committee, succeeded in securing St. Anne's Park for the city.

Seven or eight years ago saw the introduction of a small green waste facility for recycling Christmas trees, which the people in the area accepted. However, about five years ago, this changed dramatically and illegally into a major industrial waste management process with juggernauts and trucks of all kinds arriving not just from the four Dublin counties and neighbouring counties but from all over Ireland with wooden pallets and other items being dragged through the small pleasant estate of St. Anne's in Raheny village and brought into a large section of the park.

The result was ongoing major pollution with wood chippings spewing out all over the neighbourhood, including the par-three golf course and the football pitches, with resulting major health problems. While Standing Orders do not allow me to display pictures, I have several photographs showing plumes of wood dust and other pollution spewing out over Raheny, accompanied by a strong acidic odour and loud whining noise every day. As already stated, all of this was carried out without planning permission or an EPA licence.

As the city manager and the local north central area manager should have known, wood spores, particularly the dangerous Aspergillus spore, are allowed to drift out over people's houses and cars. As stated earlier, I have in my possession many photographs of houses with the windowsills and the owners' cars covered in dust. Such dust can cause major problems for people coming out of hospital after operations, for children and for vulnerable adults.

St. Anne's residents' association, which has put up a valiant fight on this issue in the past four to five years, has been obliged to bring the matter to the High Court in order to obtain a determination from a judge. The association kept daily logs of what occurred at the site and I presented these to the city council when I was a member. These logs showed exactly what sort of pollution is released by the turning and shredding operations at that location.

Legislators have a grave duty to ensure that the law is respected and enforced and surely the manager of a local authority has a similar job. The city manager, John Fitzgerald, opened and operated this centre without planning permission of any kind, even from his own local authority, and in defiance of Dublin city's Z9 high amenity zoning. The Minister of State, my old colleague from the city council, is aware that red lines are drawn through the green areas on the map of St. Anne's Park to show that it is designated high amenity. However, in a huge area of this high amenity park, such an operation was put in place. The operation commenced in defiance of the Environmental Protection Agency and without a licence. That is an appalling state of affairs. In light of the inactivity of the Minister of State and his senior colleague, I referred this matter to Commissioner Margot Wallström in the past six months and asked her to take action.

In late 2001 and early 2002 I put forward a motion for closure to the north central committee of Dublin City Council. The proposal was unanimously accepted on a vote of ten for and none against. However, when it was referred to the city council, representatives of Fianna Fáil, Sinn Féin, the Green Party and the Independents defeated it on the basis of spurious ‘NIMBYism'. Members of the Green Party tied themselves to the trees in O'Connell Street when they had voted to cut them down. Last weekend we heard from them about their concerns for St. Anne's Park when they are responsible for what has happened there.

The Minister of State is familiar with this issue. Like me, he played hurling and football on the pitches in St. Anne's Park. He is aware of what has happened in the park. There are many sites on industrial estates on the north side of the city at which industrial waste could be managed, processed and recycled. We could return to having a small green bring centre as was previously the case, but there should be no more of this outrageous and illegal nonsense. Is it any wonder that my party has had to propose that city and county managers be abolished and replaced by elected officials?

I wish to outline the principal legislative provisions relevant to the proposed development referred to by Deputy Broughan. The Waste Management (Amendment) Act 2001 made a number of changes to the legislative powers governing the making and implementation of waste management plans. Deputies may recall the background to this. Essentially, the elected members in a number of local authorities failed to adopt waste management plans, as required under both EU and national legislation.

Faced with legal proceedings against Ireland in this regard in the European Court of Justice and because of the urgency of putting plans in place so that the process of modernising our waste infrastructure could begin, the Government was left with little option but to——

Treat people like adults.

——introduce legislation in 2001 to bring the waste management planning process to a conclusion. Accordingly, the Act provided that, for good or ill, the power to make a waste management plan would transfer from the elected members to the local authority manager.

In addition, the Act addressed certain issues associated with the implementation of waste management plans. In particular, in cases where a local authority proposes to carry out development which is consistent with the waste management plan, and which is required for its implementation but which would materially contravene the development plan, the Act provided power for the manager, following a process of public consultation, to decide whether to proceed with the development.

While I am aware that a waste recovery operation has been in place at St. Anne's Park for a number of years, I do not wish to comment on the facility concerned——

The Minister of State should do so. He is a local and he understands the problem.

I am aware of the problem but the Deputy does not really want my personal view.

The Minister of State also played sports in the park when he was younger.

Was he any good?

As a former member of the city council, I have heard the Deputy and others speak about this matter in the past and I am well aware of the situation. However, in my official capacity I should not comment on it, particularly as it is the subject of legal proceedings.

I understand that Dublin City Council is pursuing the material contravention procedure outlined above in respect of the new waste facility. However, it must be borne in mind that the 2001 Act requires developments subject to this procedure to comply also with the relevant procedures of section 175 or 179 of the Planning and Development Act 2000. I understand that the development in question is to be subject to the section 175 procedure which means that an environmental impact statement will be prepared in respect of it and the approval of An Bord Pleanála will be required before it can proceed.

The facility will also be subject to approval by the EPA. Following the withdrawal of a previous waste licence application, I understand that a fresh application relating to the proposed facility has been submitted to the agency.

Why was the previous application withdrawn?

As the board and the agency are independent in the performance of their functions and the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is precluded from any involvement in particular cases of this kind, it would not be appropriate for me to comment further. However, I would point out that the planning approval and waste licensing processes to which I have referred provide for extensive opportunities for public participation before decisions on the relevant applications are made.

The Deputy has accurately reflected the views of local people on this matter. However, they have had ample opportunities through the public consultation process to make their input.

Are not their views reasonable?

I will answer that question afterwards and I might agree with the Deputy.

The Minister of State should speak up now.

As part of this formal reply, however, I should not say anything further. I am speaking here on behalf of the Department.

People have ample opportunities to make their views known and the residents and the public representatives should use the process that is in place. I am long enough involved in politics to know that the process usually works if people engage properly with it.

It has not done so to date. We have been treated disgracefully.

Case Against BNFL.

The operation of the plant at Sellafield in Cumbria has been a source of great discontent to the people of Ireland, particularly those who live in County Louth and other areas on the east coast. Successive Governments have fought the battle in a non-political way. The parties in Government and Opposition have always worked together to put forward the strongest possible case.

Loyola de Palacio, the vice-president responsible for energy and transport at the European Commission stated that the Commission is responsible for checking that member states comply with the provisions agreed by the member states in the framework of the EURATOM Treaty and that it is essential that checks be carried out on installations. The Commission analysis has found that British Nuclear Fuels has failed to comply with the provisions of the EURATOM Treaty. This problem, which has not been addressed, has been known about for a long period but no concrete initiative has been taken by the operator to rectify it. The situation has, therefore, become untenable for the Commission.

The ultimate aim of the inspections is to ensure that the nuclear material used is not diverted from peaceful uses, namely, the generation of nuclear energy for non-military uses. If Sellafield was situated in Iraq, Iran, Libya or North Korea, President Bush would surely be on the airwaves every day to outline the disgraceful operations of British Nuclear Fuels at the installation. Would what is happening at Sellafield not be a reason for him, in his search for weapons of mass destruction, to go to war? The EURATOM inspectors do not know what is happening to the plutonium, the uranium and the other radioactive material on-site. They do not even know the quantities of such materials kept at the plant. Everyone in the House is concerned about the lackadaisical attitude of British Nuclear Fuels in the operation of Sellafield.

Another issue that arises is the role of the British nuclear inspectorate in its capacity as health and safety inspectors of this installation. We have not heard from them and do not know what, if anything, they are doing in this regard. We cannot trust British Nuclear Fuels and, it now appears, neither can the European Commission inspectors who are deeply unhappy and dissatisfied with what is going on there.

I urge the Minister and the Government to deal with this problem in a manner not yet tried, to seek the introduction of internationally binding protocols operated by the International Atomic Energy Agency or some other such agency in respect of nuclear materials in any part of the world, be they operational, available or in the form of waste storage. Governments and operators would then be mandated to follow through on these directives. The manner in which British Nuclear Fuels has operated Sellafield is unacceptable.

Officials from BNFL had the cheek last week, while attending a meeting of Louth County Council, to tell me as a Deputy that I had no right to raise my concerns at that meeting. I exercised my right to do so, as I will here and in every possible forum. The Irish Government and people will not tolerate the lackadaisical lack of interest and concern which British Nuclear Fuels has for the health and safety of its workers and, in particular, the Irish people in the operation of this plant.

I urge the Minister to take all possible action immediately to ensure BNFL acknowledges the strongly held views of the Irish public that Sellafield must be closed or subjected to minute international scrutiny to ensure it complies with the highest possible standards in terms of the disposal, transport and storage of nuclear materials and radioactive waste. The current position is not good enough and the Irish people will not put up with it any more.

I welcome Tuesday's European Commission decision on the B30 plant at Sellafield. While I have not yet seen the text of the decision which is being addressed by the Commission to the UK Government, I am aware of its substance from various reports already available to me and I express my support for the Commission's decision.

The Commission has imposed binding measures on the UK for its failure to take adequate measures to comply with the provisions of the EURATOM Treaty concerning nuclear material at Sellafield. The plant in question, known as B30, is a fuel storage pond for spent Magnox fuel and has been in use since the 1950s. Although the Commission has inspected this plant regularly since the 1980s, the physical condition of the plant and high radioactivity in the area has made it impossible for it accurately to verify the quantities of material held in the facility.

Under the safeguards provisions of EURATOM, the Commission has the right to inspect facilities — and their records — which store nuclear fuel cycle material to verify that the material has not been diverted to non-peaceful uses. The UK has until 1 June 2004 to submit a plan to the Commission proposing measures to deal with the problem and must submit progress reports to it every six months thereafter.

As Members will be aware, the Irish Government has adopted a consistent approach, politically, diplomatically, scientifically and legally against operations at Sellafield. It has repeatedly expressed to the UK authorities its concerns regarding the culture of secrecy operated at Sellafield. While BNFL argues it has made major changes to the way Sellafield is run, it is clear from the Commission's decision that it has much more to do.

In a press release on the decision, Commissioner de Palacio said that although the problem has been known for some time, no concrete initiative has been taken by BNFL to rectify it. This is completely unacceptable from the point of view of safety and, more importantly, the role of the Commission in ensuring safeguards on nuclear material in the EU. Given the climate of enhanced security in which we now live in terms of our concerns about terrorism, it is fundamentally important that international inspectors are allowed to conduct their inspections in as thorough and as rigorous a manner as possible.

My Department has been informed by the UK Ambassador to Ireland that the Commission safeguards inspectors are present at Sellafield virtually all year round and that it has found no evidence that materials subjected to safeguards have been diverted. The Ambassador has also informed my Department that his Government will ensure that remediation works at B30 will be guided first and foremost by safety and environment-related considerations. While this is indeed reassuring, my Department will be seeking his Government's further reassurances on the speedy implementation of the Commission's decision and, when available, the Commission's findings will be closely studied.

The Commission decision reflects the seriousness with which the Irish Government has treated safety at nuclear plants in general and at Sellafield in particular. In an EU context, the Irish Presidency has been focused in its efforts to seek progress on proposals for a package of nuclear safety measures aimed at EU-wide standards in regard to the safety of nuclear installations. This package consists of a directive to establish EU nuclear safety principles in respect of nuclear installations and a directive on the management and disposal of radioactive waste and spent fuel. These are intended to address public concerns regarding nuclear safety.

The Irish Government took the notable step of taking the United Kingdom to court on Sellafield under two separate international environmental conventions. I believe that our concerns are increased in the Commission's decision which also highlights the urgency of tackling the problems at Sellafield. Access to information about Sellafield was one of Ireland's central claims in the two legal challenges at the UN Court of Arbitration. These legal actions have resulted in a much greater appreciation by the UK Government of Irish concerns about Sellafield.

I assure the House that my Department will continue to work towards the cessation of operations at Sellafield. I am aware of the Deputy's concerns and know that his constituents were pleased with the decision. That decision is but one step forward but it is an important one which will boost the confidence of all concerned. It is hoped greater measures of control will be introduced in this area, though ultimately we would all like to see the plant closed.

The Dáil adjourned at 5.30 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 6 April 2004.
Top
Share