Vol. 589 No. 2
6 Ms Shortall asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the information available to his Department on the progress made regarding the vitrification of the highly active liquid waste stored at the Sellafield complex; when it is estimated that the process will be completed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22594/04]
The vitrification plant at Sellafield, which came into operation in 1991 with two vitrification lines, encapsulates the liquid high level radioactive waste held in storage tanks at Sellafield into glass blocks. This is a more stable form of storage and reduces the risk of leakages and subsequent radioactive contamination of the environment.
As a result of technical problems with the vitrification plant, throughput performance over the years has been well below that expected. One could say the same about BNFL. However, my Department understands from the relevant UK Government department and the UK health and safety executive that improvements have been made to the original two vitrification lines and that because of these improvements, throughput has increased steadily. A third vitrification line aimed at increasing vitrification capacity has recently gone into full operation.
As the House will be aware, British Nuclear Fuels Limited was given a direction in January 2001 by the UK health and safety executive's nuclear installations inspectorate to reduce, by way of vitrification, the amount of liquid waste in the storage tanks to a small buffer stock volume by July 2015. My Department understands that BNFL continues to comply with this direction and is on track to meet the 2015 deadline. The Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland has been asked to maintain contact with the UK's nuclear installations inspectorate with a view to monitoring progress in regard to the deadline.
The RPII and the Government are concerned about the continuing storage of this highly active waste in liquid form in tanks at Sellafield and have been pressing, and will continue to press, the UK authorities to accelerate the rate of vitrification. This liquid waste arises from the reprocessing operations at Sellafield. As such, the need for vitrification will ultimately cease when the production of the liquid waste also ceases. The Government will, therefore, continue to use available avenues, both diplomatic and legal, to bring about an end to reprocessing operations at Sellafield, an issue on which all sides of the House are in agreement.
Is the Minister satisfied with the June-July 2015 target for completion of the vitrification process? Does he have a view on how much that deadline, which is 11 years away, could be reduced? Can he give a commitment to the House that he will pursue with the UK authorities a shortening of that deadline?
I agree with the Deputy that 2015 is a long time away. As Keynes once said: "In the long run, we are all dead." This and successive Governments have been concerned about the risks associated with highly active liquid waste and have encouraged the acceleration of the vitrification process. I will remind my UK colleagues on every occasion of the concern of Members on all sides of the House and of people throughout the island on this matter. I will take on board Deputy Gilmore's advice should the opportunity present itself.
When I raised this matter with the Minister's predecessor I was told the UK authorities and, specifically, British Nuclear Fuels continue to refuse to grant the inspectorate of the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland access to certain areas of the plant. Perhaps this Minister will use this opportunity to speak with his British counterpart in an effort to gain full access for the inspectorate to areas of the plant closed to inspection.
I know that security arrangements are not available for public consumption but I have asked and suggested on a number of occasions that the Taoiseach be briefed by the British Prime Minister on the adequacies of security at Sellafield against terrorist attacks. During my last visit to Sellafield I was concerned about the admitted increased levels of discharges of radioactive waste into the Irish Sea in the future and with the lack of information regarding adequate security measures. As a sovereign State which could be affected by any incidents at Sellafield we are entitled to such information.
I agree with the Deputy. A judge of the Canadian High Court made the point many years ago that the light of public scrutiny should be allowed to fall into all areas of public administration, and that applies in the case of BNFL to all areas of Sellafield. Both the Irish and British public will be greatly assured if there is independent observation and scrutiny of what happens in that plant. It would be good if the authorities could adopt a more forward looking and progressive view. I will take any opportunity available to me to impress that upon my British colleagues.
7 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government if he will report on progress in the implementation of the recommendations of the All-Party Committee on the Constitution, in particular, with regard to the ninth progress report on private property; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21565/04]
9 Mr. Gilmore asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the progress made to date with regard to his Department’s consideration of the report of the All-Party Committee on the Constitution on property rights; his views on the findings of the committee that legislation can be introduced to cap the price of building land without the requirement for a constitutional amendment; if he intends to introduce legislation to give effect to this recommendation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22559/04]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 7 and 9 together.
I refer to the reply to Question No. 5 of today in which I indicated that my Department will consider together the ninth progress report of the All-Party Committee on the Constitution, the report on ownership and control of building land from Goodbody Economic Consultants, and the forthcoming report of the National Economic and Social Council on housing and land policy, with a view to proposing policies which can be implemented quickly and would deliver an increased supply of affordable housing.
The All-Party Committee on the Constitution concluded that, having regard to modern case law, it is likely that the central recommendation of the 1973 Kenny report — that land required for development by local authorities should be compulsory acquired at existing use value plus 25% — would not be found to be unconstitutional. Based on this assessment, the committee recommended that this designated area scheme should be re-examined with a view to its implementation, following such modifications as are necessary or desirable in the light of later experience.
The committee also identified a number of different mechanisms that could be considered as an alternative to the designated area approach to recover betterment, including development levies, planning gain and new taxation initiatives. It has also been suggested that, notwithstanding its view on the constitutionality of the Kenny proposals, change along the lines recommended in 1996 by the Constitution Review Group — that existing constitutional provisions concerning property rights would be replaced by a single new provision — may be desirable. That will require constitutional change.
Overall, these recommendations raise complex legal, financial and practical issues which merit and are receiving careful consideration by my Department. In particular, the designated area scheme proposal would have significant implications for the role of public authorities and the operation of the building and, especially, the housing markets. In this regard, the All-Party Committee on the Constitution explicitly acknowledged that even if the constitutional issue was settled, practical concerns about the proposed scheme would require rigorous analysis.
Meanwhile, the operation and future potential of Part V of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act 2000 as a mechanism for the provision of social and affordable housing should be emphasised. As a public representative, I have indicated concerns about the slow pace at which it has moved but it is now making progress. Following its amendment in December 2002, activity under Part V has increased significantly. More than 300 social and affordable housing units were acquired through Part V agreements in the first six months of 2004, and it is anticipated that some 500 units will be provided over the full year. This compares with delivery of only 46 affordable units in 2002 and 163 social and affordable units in 2003. I accept that those are low rates of completion, but everyone who has experience in this area knows that planning permissions that are already in operation were not covered by any element of retrospection. More than 2,400 social and affordable units are under construction or proposed on foot of Part V agreements, and significantly increased output under Part V is expected to continue over 2005. Like many public representatives, I have spoken to the planning authorities in my own area and urged more delivery under the Part V process which is a good system but has still not been fully tested.
I join with my colleagues in congratulating the Minister — comhghairdeas dó — and I hope we enjoy a better relationship with him than with his predecessor.
This report was handed over in April but its substance has existed for more than 30 years, since the report of Judge Kenny in 1973 identified exactly the same solutions. I agree with the Minister that the constitutional view of the committee, albeit based on the advice of senior counsel, has not been tested. Part V, however, has been tested in the Supreme Court and that has addressed much of the constitutional issue. To implement this report, therefore, the Government, specifically the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, must deliver on this issue.
The problems that pertained in the early 1970s in housing have multiplied several fold in recent years. Successive Governments since the report was published have done nothing, although the crisis was not as serious then as it has become in recent years. Will the Minister indicate when the report of the committee will be dealt with? Is there a timeframe? Is the Department actively examining it? The Taoiseach welcomed the report when it was published.
I am discouraged by the Minister's comments on Part V that he hopes it will remedy all the problems in housing. That part of the Planning and Development Act was gutted by his predecessor, leaving it worthless. It is no longer an option for local authorities.
There is no magic bullet solution to this and we must be honest about that. If there were, some Minister would have solved the problem at some point over the years. Deputy Morgan is right that there is a pressing need. One of the by-products of extraordinary economic success has been that although we have produced record numbers of houses, these difficulties still continue to exist.
The Kenny report has been debated over a long period. The contention that the constitutional issue has melted away is questionable. It would be subject to further test. I have already outlined the process I have envisaged, with the reports from Goodbody Economic Consultants and the NESC being published at the same time. I hope that will be done as quickly as possible.
Does the Minister have a date for that?
I will not venture to give a date 23 hours after my appointment but I will try to ensure there is no undue delay.
Notwithstanding the fact that the Minister has been in office less than 24 hours, this is an area about which he should have a view and he should share that with the House. Does he agree with the Taoiseach's contention when he decided to refer the issue of private building land to the all-party committee that the cost of building land is at the heart of high house prices and must be addressed? Does he accept that the Taoiseach referred the issue to the all-party committee to establish if there was a constitutional impediment to dealing with this through legislation? Will the Minister bring legislation before the House to deal with the high cost of building land, which now contributes 45% to the price of the average new house in Dublin?
I seldom disagree with anything the Taoiseach says, particularly not on my first day in office.
The Minister is still in the comfort zone.
There is a self-evident relationship between the problems of the supply of building land, the cost of building land and the thorny issues of zoning and services. It is not a simple issue. Notwithstanding the basic conclusion of the all-party committee on the constitutionality of the designated area scheme and the Kenny report of 1973, it is only one of a range of possible measures that might be undertaken. The committee itself identified various possible alternatives to designated area schemes recommended by the Kenny report and touched on issues such as development levies, planning gain — which issue I have mentioned on more than one occasion — and taxation incentives.
It is anticipated that the forthcoming NESC report on housing and land policy will identify further possible measures to promote better affordability. All of these possible options will then have to be carefully operated. Given the constituency I represent, which is next door to Deputy Gilmore's, I am acutely aware just how pressing this issue is for many of our constituents and am anxious to see progress made as rapidly as possible. I anticipate the NESC report with interest and we will see where we can go from there. I do not want to see any undue delay.
One of the mysteries of my political life over the past 23 years has been why the provisions of the Kenny report have not been implemented and why we still have archaic rules regarding ground rents. The answer is that vested interests have stifled Governments into inaction on both issues.
The Minister referred to wishing that Ministers had the answers. However, it is more important that Ministers have the political will to deal with these issues and take on vested interests to resolve them. The first test would be to deal with the question of the ownership of land. I am heartened by the Minister's commitment to publish the Goodbody report since his colleague, Minister of State, Deputy Noel Ahern, as late as last July refused to publish it and effectively suppressed its findings.
The Deputy must not make a statement.
Will the Minister deal with the report as quickly as possible and publish it rather than waiting until NESC decides to publish its findings? As quickly as possible after that, the Minister should use his political power and will to deal with the proposals contained in the three reports.
The Deputy is misrepresenting what my colleague and I said. I said the Goodbody report would be published with the NESC report. In regard to the Kenny report, the Deputy and I know that successive Administrations have not been unwilling to deal with the issue, rather there has been a constitutional process which might have proved difficult.
The builders tested Part V. The Minister should allow the constitutionality to be tested.
That is correct. We have already dealt with Part V. I hope we will see rapid progress but I do not know when to expect the NESC report. However, the Deputy can take it that there will be no undue delay in publishing it when it becomes available.
Gabhaim comhghairdeas leis an Aire san bhfreagracht nua atá aige. Tá cuma an-chompórdach air sa suíochán mór ach gan bheith ró-chompórdach, mar is eol dó.
Does the Minister have any basis for stating that the findings of the all-party committee on private property are not fact? He stated that it was a contention that it was not unconstitutional to put the recommendations of the Kenny report into effect. Does he have any basis for that assertion given that I was on the committee at the time when we had the advice of senior counsel and highly respected public servants like T.K. Whitaker and others? To suggest that they were stating anything other than fact would be quite shocking.
The Deputy must be brief since we have exceeded the time for the question.
When the Minister states that further analysis is needed, is that analysis under way and will he inform the House of its results? Will he take a similar approach and take a risk, as was the case in respect of legislation for people with disabilities who came before the courts to test the merits of their case? Why not allow the vested interests — the owners of the large banks of land — take the Government to court if they so wish, but let us not wait around and be afraid to act.
I am doing my best to observe the protocol of a Minister's first day in office and avoid acrimony with him at this early stage. However, I am disappointed with his reliance on Department-speak in response to a very direct question from me to which I expected a direct answer. Does the Minister intend to do anything to cap the price of building land, given that he has available to him a report of an all-party committee on the Constitution?
Does the Minister agree that we are fortunate his portfolio is the environment and not foreign affairs? If 31 years cannot solve what he describes as this complex issue, it just as well he is not with the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Dermot Ahern, at his meeting this afternoon.
Would that things were that simple. Almost all the political parties in this House have at some time been in power in the past 31 years and have been fully aware of the Kenny report and the difficulties. It is perhaps easier to prescribe how that can be dealt with from the Opposition benches than it is from Government's. It is not Department-speak. Rather, we are in a process and the reports will be published and a review will take place at that stage. As I stated, I will do my best to expedite the publication of those reports and the follow-up action which comes from them.
However, it is untrue to suggest that political parties in this House have been unwilling. The Supreme Court's judgment on Part V stated that it found it constitutional on the basis that it was proportionate and non-discriminatory. However, when one examines the language in the Kenny report, it does not have the same degree of certainty. It is not intended to in any way be discourteous to the people who worked on the committee. However, the committee's recommendation is a contention which has not been through any process. We will soon have the NESC report and, as soon as we do, it will be published and we will take the follow-up action.
8 Ms McManus asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government if he will report on the work undertaken to date by the internal implementation team within his Department dealing with decentralisation; his views on whether State agencies operating under the aegis of his Department may suffer a loss of key expertise if the move goes ahead; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22573/04]
My Department's decentralisation unit is co-operating actively with the decentralisation implementation group and the Department of Finance in regard to the decentralisation programme announced in the budget for 2004. An implementation plan covering all aspects of the decentralisation process for my Department has been submitted to the group. The Office of Public Works, which has general responsibility for property management in connection with the programme, is liaising with my Department on the Department's four new decentralised locations.
My Department is committed to developing innovative approaches to information management, communications and logistics to maintain and improve the quality of service to be delivered under decentralised arrangements and to minimise disruption. Its decentralisation unit is also facilitating full and timely communication with staff of the Department on the progress of the decentralisation programme through the Department's partnership committee and otherwise.
Two state agencies under the aegis of my Department are included in the decentralisation programme. The National Building Agency submitted its decentralisation implementation plan to the implementation group on 31 May. As the decision in relation to the new location for the Local Government Computer Services Board was not announced until 8 July, the board is in the process of finalising its decentralisation implementation plan. Each agency is required to put in place skills and knowledge transfer arrangements, such as in-house training and external courses and programmes, to upskill new staff to maintain and improve the quality of service to be delivered under decentralised arrangements.
I thank the Minister for his reply. I have studied the figures published by the central applications facility which demonstrate that, for the 661 jobs which are to be decentralised to the four locations, only 38 applicants are from within the Department. Having regard to the Minister's statement about the desirability to minimise disruption in the Department, what assessment has been made in his Department of the likely disruption to the work of the Department if only 38 of the Department's existing staff will be there after decentralisation and more than 600 staff will be reallocated to other Departments? Has the Accounting Officer of the Department carried out a formal risk assessment taking into account the impact of the decentralisation proposal on service to the public and the general work of the Department? How does the Minister propose to minimise disruption, to use his own phrase, if, of the 661 staff, only 38 will move and more than 600 are reallocated to the 14 other Departments of State?
While I am not in a position to answer the question on risk assessment, I will seek the relevant information for the Deputy and communicate it to him. The four locations intended to benefit from decentralisation, Wexford, Waterford, Kilkenny and New Ross, stand to gain 270, 225, 62 and 127 positions, respectively. There appears to be a discrepancy between the two sets of figures as one adds up to 681, while the other adds up to 661. The latter figure is correct because it refers to the number of staff below principal officer.
The Deputy is correct that the overall summary of applications has varied. For example, applications have been made for 92% of posts in Wexford, Kilkenny is oversubscribed with 124 applications——
The applications have not been received from within the Department.
That is correct. They are from across the range of Departments. Obviously programmes will have to be put in place, including one to train and retrain staff. This will be done as part of the process. As regards the Local Government Computer Services Board, the process is not complete. While I do not have final figures, it is clear that a considerable amount of training, retraining and redeployment of personnel will be required. This is all part of the decentralisation process.
I remind the House that we have discussed decentralisation for 40 years. The first occasion on which we had a debate on the issue was 1964 and 40 years later we are still discussing it. If anything indicates the paralysis from which we suffer when we have an idea worth implementing, it is the issue of decentralisation. This is the first Government to put together a programme to deliver it. We all subscribe to the concept of decentralisation, although what we are doing is closer to deconcentration.
I do not want to start a debate about the general theory of decentralisation. My question specifically relates to the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. How will the Department work efficiently if only 38 of the applicants for the 661 jobs to be decentralised to Kilkenny, New Ross, Waterford and Wexford are from the Department? These positions cover highly specialised areas. I do not understand how someone dealing with pensions in the Defence Forces today will be retrained to deal with complex water and sewerage schemes tomorrow.
The theory on which public administration has operated since the 1920s is that we have general service staff who are regarded as broadly transferable.
This is not the 1920s.
The Deputy has some experience in this matter and will be aware that we have career arrangements in place by which people are promoted and move from one section to another over time. Nobody is suggesting that decentralisation will be anything other than challenging but the challenge will have to be met.
I look forward to hearing how it will be met.
We will get a series of lectures.
The Taoiseach obviously views the Minister in the same light — as broadly transferable.
Question No. 9 answered with Question No. 7.
10 Mr. S. Ryan asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government if he has sought and received assurances from his British counterparts that adequate procedures are in place to prevent the hijacking of an aeroplane in British airspace to crash into the Sellafield plant, in view of the serious consequences of such a development for citizens here; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22590/04]
Due to the risk posed to Ireland by the potential transboundary effects of an accident or incident, including a terrorist attack by aircraft or otherwise at Sellafield, the security arrangements and procedures established at Sellafield by the United Kingdom authorities have been a particular ongoing concern of the Government. My predecessor repeatedly raised these concerns by direct correspondence and in face to face meetings with my UK ministerial counterparts, as have officials of my Department in meetings with their UK counterparts. The United Kingdom in response has given assurances that it is satisfied with the security arrangements and that these are subject to continuous review.
In March 2003, my predecessor, the Minister for Transport, Deputy Cullen, wrote to the UK Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Ms Patricia Hewitt, MP, regarding concerns about the possibility of terrorist attacks. She furnished a reply on 16 April 2003, which was published as an appendix to the reply to Parliamentary Question No. 141 of 14 May 2003. In her reply, the Secretary of State indicated that the UK is satisfied that arrangements for ensuring security in its civil nuclear industry are robust, additional measures put in place since September 2001 to reinforce security are appropriate, and these security arrangements are subject to continual review. In a further exchange of correspondence earlier this year on security related issues at Sellafield, the Secretary of State indicated that the Royal Air Force maintains a high state of readiness in the air defence of the UK, including the defence of particularly sensitive targets and its state of readiness is kept under constant review.
The assurances and information on nuclear security issues received from the UK authorities are welcome as far as they go. However, our legitimate concerns form a basis to develop an agreed, structured and meaningful system between the UK and Ireland for the exchange of security sensitive information without compromising the security needs and concerns of the UK with regard to such information. This point has been emphasised in exchanges with the UK and I assure the House I will continue to make this point at every opportunity.
Will the Minister elaborate on his use of the phrase "as far as they go" while referring to the assurances given by the UK authorities? May I assume from it that he does not accept their assurances or believes them to be less than adequate?
What I mean by that phrase is that we have a legitimate concern on this issue which is best addressed by developing a structured and meaningful system of exchange of clear information on it. While I fully understand the reason the administration of another jurisdiction has concerns about making available security sensitive information, it should be possible to provide the structured system of exchanging information we seek without compromising its security needs.
Do we have something to be worried about? The Department has correspondence on this issue which became critical in 2001. If someone crashed an aeroplane into Sellafield, we would all be at risk. It appears the Minister is not happy with the assurances the Department has received. Does the public have cause for serious concern that the security arrangements regarding Sellafield are not adequate?
That is incorrect. As I have stated clearly, it would be much better if we could have a process for the exchange of information, rather than simply assurances.
Does the Minister agree that assurances obtained from the British Government, which cannot protect its Parliament or Prime Minister against a flour attack or pro-hunt protesters, are dubious? Does he now agree that the only way to deal with this sensitive issue is at Prime Minister level? Will he urge the Taoiseach to demand from Tony Blair a detailed security report on Sellafield? We do not enjoy the economic benefits of Sellafield but we are exposed to all the risks.
I am not sure that the prime ministerial level is the appropriate one at which to have this exchange of information. Clearly, one would have to have people with the appropriate——
I do not mind how it is done once it is done.
As I have said to Deputy Gilmore, there is a need for some process.
To correct Deputy Allen, it was the pro-hunting lobby that invaded the Palace of Westminster, not the anti-hunting lobby.
That is what I meant to say. It is Sellafield that I am worried about.
Further to the Minister's reply, will he tell us whether his ongoing concern relates solely to the installation of Sellafield, given the number of shipments to and from it and other installations, including the flotilla making its way across the Atlantic? Is his concern simply based on the political dimension rather than the practicality? Sellafield is referred to so often in the media that it seems to draw attention when in fact other installations, which are of serious concern in their own right, such as Wylfa or Sizewell——
Will the Deputy ask a question?
Are we talking about a more comprehensive approach or is the Minister's concern just in response to media agitation?
It is unfair to suggest it is just in response to media agitation. Both sides of this House use Sellafield as an expression of our concern about a range of facilities.
I just want to be sure.
It happens to be the one that is very close to us and which is referred to frequently.
As I stated, the UK authorities have not been disposed over the years to disclosing details of security measures. They have provided assurances. It would be best, from the point of view of the two neighbours, to establish a process whereby we would have more than assurances and be part of an information exchange.
Question No. 10 is a very good question. Has the Minister applied his mind to the environmental consequences of a plane being taken from Irish airspace to be crashed into the Sellafield plant, given that we are about 70 miles from Britain and given the proximity of our airspace to the plant? Has the RAF, the British Government or any other body views on this prospect, bearing in mind that a jet airliner can travel at more than 600 mph?
OCNS, which deals with the issue in the UK, has a general responsibility in this regard, including a responsibility to deal with hazards from aeroplanes irrespective of their origin. However, Deputy Morgan's point is valid. There are many small and medium-sized airstrips not just on this side of the island but on the far side of the Irish Sea that are very close to the Sellafield installation. The Deputy's point illustrates the validity of the concerns that all parties, both in Government and Opposition, have on this issue.
There are about 30 seconds remaining in Question Time if any Member wants to ask a brief supplementary question.
Given that there are 30 seconds remaining, maybe we could talk about the real Cabinet reshuffle. Let us work on one now.
The 30 seconds have elapsed. That concludes Question Time.
The Deputy blew his 30 seconds.
