Adjournment Debate.

State Bodies.

Mr. Naughten

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for giving me the opportunity to raise this matter. The IDA invited proposals in July 2004 for collaborative groups of academic institutions to undertake the establishment of the national institute for bioprocessing research and training. The three main functions of the new institute will be training and education in bioprocessing, research in bioprocessing technologies and scale up capabilities for the stakeholder institutions. It is envisaged that the institute will be a state-of-the-art national facility designed to give Ireland a competitive advantage and act as a magnet for the attraction of further significant investment in the biopharmaceutical industry in Ireland by foreign and indigenous companies and to encourage existing foreign-owned and indigenous companies to establish start up ventures in Ireland.

One of the key elements of the proposal was the location of the institute. The documentation stated the chosen location would best facilitate the interaction of the industry and the academic institutions. Athlone in the midlands is the best location. Athlone Institute of Technology together with Dublin City University, NUI Galway and a number of other institutions made a submission to the IDA a number of years to establish the institute in Athlone. This was supported and encouraged by the IDA at the time and Mr. Sean Dorgan, its chief executive, publicly indicated the project would be developed on a campus in Athlone. The four local authorities in the midlands also supported the project.

However, a number of the larger universities and biopharmaceutical companies in the State got wind of what was happening and kicked up a stink, with the result that an expanded competition was run. The Government selected UCD as the preferred bidder for the €90 million project. The State is in negotiations with UCD, Trinity College, Dublin and Sligo Institute of Technology to develop the campus in Dublin. To date, detailed discussions have taken place but the door is still ajar in regard to the location of the proposed site and what will be the lead institution in regard to it.

I ask the Minister to reconsider the DCU bid which has been made in conjunction with Athlone Institute of Technology and other third level institutions. If it is not possible to reopen negotiations with DCU I urge the Minister to negotiate with UCD and TCD to locate in the heart of the BMW region, the town of Athlone. As yet, no decision has been taken in regard to location and it is critically important that a decision is taken. It is a significant opportunity for the midlands.

Athlone has been designated a gateway town. We should support the location of this proposed centre in Athlone. Athlone has also lost the eBay investment, which was a great blow to the town. An announcement was made recently about the location of Yahoo in Dublin.

There is too much of a focus on Dublin in the biopharmaceutical industry. Great pressure and demand already exists in this area. Centres of excellence and biotech clusters already exist in Dublin. We must start looking and expanding outside Dublin. The midlands has a strong reputation in the biopharmaceutical industry, and Athlone is the capital of that sector. The Taoiseach was in Athlone recently to open Pharmaplaz, a new indigenous biopharmaceutical company. It is critically important that the Government takes the lead in regard to this and makes a decision to locate that facility in Athlone, which is the most central location in the country that can easily feed into the other academic institutions and to the biopharmaceutical companies, not only in Dublin but also in the rest of the country. It is important that we look at expanding the clusters we have and not just continue to focus on Dublin. The Minister should ensure this vital decision is taken in favour of the midlands and Athlone.

Minister for Education and Science (Ms Hanafin)

I wish to reply on behalf of my colleague, the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Martin.

IDA Ireland is the agency with statutory responsibility for the attraction of foreign direct investment to Ireland and its regions. While the Minister may give general policy directives to the agency, he is precluded under the Acts from giving directives regarding individual undertakings or from giving preference to one area over others.

IDA Ireland has informed the Minister that, following wide consultation in the US and Europe with businesses and academia in the biotechnology industry and taking into account the key educational and industrial issues that it has identified, the agency believes that Ireland should make a strategic competitive investment and establish a national bioprocessing research, education, training and service facility.

According to IDA Ireland vision, such a facility should have three primary functions: training and education in bioprocessing; research in bioprocessing technologies; and scale-up capability to service the research, training, education and service needs of the institutes' stakeholders.

IDA Ireland envisages the facility will be a state-of-the-art national institute designed to provide, in conjunction with academic institutes, a substantive output of people with high level, best practice skills across the spectrum of bioprocessing activities, applicable in a real time scale-up environment. It is envisaged that it will undertake academic and industry collaborative research with an emphasis on advancing knowledge in bioprocessing technologies and techniques, the technical problems of scale-up and related issues. It will give Ireland a competitive advantage and act as a magnet of attraction for further significant investment in the biopharmaceutical industry in Ireland by both overseas and indigenous companies. It will also encourage the development of existing foreign-owned and indigenous biopharmaceutical sector and the establishment of new start-up ventures in Ireland.

On 23 July 2004, IDA Ireland, through a series of newspaper advertisements, invited proposals from collaborative groups of academic institutions to undertake the establishment of the national institute of bioprocessing research and training in Ireland. A detailed invitation specification document was issued to prospective applicants which outlined the background to the needs to be addressed, required elements, outputs and deliverables expected, criteria for adjudication and the proposal content details to be submitted. This invitation clearly spelled out the need for approval by the IDA Ireland board and the Government for any funding but also reserved the right not to accept any proposal.

Proposals were received from three consortia by the closing date of 15 October 2004 and a panel of international experts reviewed the quality, value and impact of the proposed activity on 15 November 2004. The panel's evaluation report, which recommended that IDA Ireland in the first instance negotiate with the consortium led by UCD, with Trinity College Dublin and Sligo Institute of Technology as partners, was considered by the board of IDA Ireland on 8 December 2004. They agreed to proceed to the next stage of the process and commence negotiations as recommended by the panel.

The Minister understands that these negotiations are well under way and are dealing with a wide range of substantive issues and recommendations identified in the evaluation report which were considered by the international experts to be necessary for the successful establishment of the institute. Needless to say, the issue of location will be an integral part of this negotiation process.

It is anticipated that a proposal which addresses all the issues for success will be considered by the board of IDA Ireland within the coming months before being recommended to Government for consideration.

Road Network.

Ms F. O’Malley

I am delighted to have the opportunity to raise this important matter. Next year the upgrading of the M50 will commence and I hope the last section in Carrickmines and Cherrywood in my constituency will be completed. The building of the port tunnel led to the belief that heavy goods vehicles would be removed from the streets of Dublin city. This dream will not be delivered if the Minister insists on leaving the Dublin port tunnel at an operational height of 4.65 m. The Dublin port tunnel is a vital strategic link in the country's transport infrastructure. We must accommodate in the port tunnel the vehicles which are accommodated on the national network. Motorway bridges around the country are constructed to a height of 5.3 m and the Luas bridge in Dundrum is at a height of 5.5 m.

At a recent public inquiry into the upgrading of the M50-M3 junction, the two tunnels that are proposed to be built at the Castleknock-Blanchardstown interchange are to an agreed height of 5.3 m. The argument that a lane width of 3.5 m is unsafe is simply wrong. The Vielha tunnel which links Spain and France and is a 5 km long tunnel is being constructed to a European standard of 5.3 m wide and a height of 5.25 m. This is international best practice and contradicts the advice that the NRA has given to the Department. The effect of not increasing the tunnel height would be to force "supercube" lorries on to our city streets with all the attendant traffic problems that would result.

On the subject of both safety and traffic management, the ventilation system requires that traffic does not stall in the tunnel so a holding bay at both ends of it, in Ringsend and at Fairview and Drumcondra on the northern side, will have to be established. This will have a direct impact on the management and functioning of the East Link bridge on the south side which currently handles a maximum capacity of 22,000 cars per day.

National Toll Roads has already flagged in the newspapers this week that traffic chaos will ensue to an already gridlocked M50 if these holding bays are to become a reality. If we add to this the five-year road works that the M50 has allowed for, the result would be catastrophic. The sum of €770 million has been invested in the tunnel to date but it will fail in its objective if we continue this approach.

In the past we did not invest in a trefoil system around the Red Cow interchange on the basis of its €65 million cost. We now regret that we did not make such an investment. It is time to call stop and for the Minister to realise that we have to make the right decision before it is too late. We cannot make short-term decisions, as was done by not investing in trefoil junctions.

Consultants estimated that the cost of making the required changes would be in the region of €30 million to €60 million, which is considerably less than their original €100 million estimate when the change was first mooted. While it may delay completion of the project, we should build a tunnel that will serve its purpose and the needs of tomorrow as well as today. The Minister has been warned and it is now time to take action to solve this problem. I urge the Minister for Transport to re-examine the Dublin Port tunnel height.

Ms Hanafin

I wish to reply on behalf of my colleague, the Minister for Transport, Deputy Cullen. The planning, design and implementation of national road improvement projects is a matter for the National Roads Authority and the local authority concerned which, in the case of the Dublin Port tunnel, is Dublin City Council. The Minister for Transport announced on 21 October 2004 that the operational height of the Dublin Port tunnel will not be changed and that its construction will be completed as planned with an operational height of 4.65 metres. That decision was based primarily on safety grounds but cost and time were also factors.

The options for increasing the height of the tunnel were considered by the National Roads Authority, independent consultants, Atkins, and Dublin City Council. In addition, the contractor, NMI, priced the work which would be involved in increasing the height of the tunnel. It was clear from this analysis that raising the height of the tunnel would not be justified having regard to safety, cost and delay factors. In so far as safety issues were concerned, the main issues related to the reduction in lane widths and increasing kerb height, which would have been required to secure an increase in tunnel height. The implications of overheight HGVs for the rest of the national road network also had to be taken into account.

The priority now is to secure completion as quickly as possible of a safe tunnel facility in line with best international practice. The operational height of the tunnel when complete at 4.65 metres will be greater than that applicable in most other EU member states. I understand from the NRA and Dublin City Council that the construction of the port tunnel is expected to be completed in December 2005 and the tunnel will be open to traffic six to eight weeks later following commissioning of the tunnel's operations and safety features. The issue of traffic management following the opening of the tunnel is a matter for Dublin City Council.

I understand that it is the view of Dublin City Council and the National Roads Authority that the Dublin Port tunnel will facilitate almost all the truck traffic using Dublin Port. Two vehicle height surveys of HGVs using Dublin Port have been carried out, one by the Dublin Port Company and one by the National Institute of Transport Logistics, which indicate that between 0.6% to 1.7% of HGVs entering and leaving the port exceed 4.65 metres. It is clear, therefore, that a very limited proportion of HGVs using the port will not be able to use the Dublin Port tunnel.

The issue of routing of vehicles greater than 4.65 metres will be addressed in the context of a HGV management strategy being prepared by Dublin City Council. I understand that the HGV management strategy, revised to take account of submissions received during a public consultation period, will be published shortly. It should also be noted that the Minister of State at the Department of Transport recently published a consultation document on the broader question of a maximum height limit for vehicles. Some 41 submissions were received from corporate entities, representative groups and individuals. These submissions are being considered with a view to a definitive position on the issue. I hope the foregoing clarifies the position for the Deputy.

School Closures.

Mr. Broughan

I thank the Minister for coming to the House. This time last year, I rose in the House to express the devastation which was felt by my constituents in Kilbarrack's Foxfield-St. John's parish and east Kilbarrack in particular at the closure of Greendale community school. Without any consultation, the trustees, namely, the Jesuit Order, Holy Faith Order and the vocational education committee, decided or advised the Department of Education and Science on a closure. The staff, principal, parents, students and the local community of Kilbarrack were devastated, especially given the school's very impressive history since 1975 and from its peak enrolment of almost 1,000 students. Currently it has more than 1,000 adult and post leaving certificate students.

It was no wonder that during last year's elections, a campaign called SOS — Save our School was mounted. It is still the wish of the district that Greendale community school remains open. The Minister will know of some of the school's famous staff such as the great Brian Mullins, Roddy Doyle, Paul Mercier and others of a total of 30 hard-working and distinguished teachers who carried on the tradition for the people of Kilbarrack and Raheny over the past three decades.

I recently met the school stewards, Ms Niamh O'Dwyer of the TUI and Ms Maura Cullen of the ASTI, who gave me a dreadfully worrying account of the grave problems which have been imposed on the school by this precipitate closure. They outline the difficulties which will ensue for staff and students from the lack of consultation or liaison with the Minister's Department to date in regard to the future of staff and students. The 29 full-time staff and large number of part-time staff have had no communication about their future. The Minister and I both come from educational backgrounds and know how worrying and upsetting this must be for people with families and mortgages to consider. It is not good enough that we have not clearly spelt out what will be the future of the current school staff.

It is important that the Minister takes a hands-on approach to this matter, examines it urgently and liaises with the principal, Anton Carroll, and his distinguished staff. She should advise them of what will happen in the next two and a half years. We do not seem to have a modus operandi for the closure of a second level school, although we have seen closures of primary schools as the population works its way up. We need more primary level schools now but it is proposed to close no less than three very distinguished second level schools in my constituency, including Greendale community school.

The staff representatives are particularly concerned about part-time staff, some of whom have worked at the school for more than six years and have contracts of indefinite duration. Their futures are in limbo and we need to spell out clearly what will happen to them. Staff representatives also have grave concerns about the students because of what is happening in the school and because a closure date of 2007 has been indicated. There will be no first or transition year students in September and the number of students in sixth year has fallen to 28. They are very concerned as to how, when redeployment and retirement of staff comes into play, the principal, Anton Carroll, and his board will provide sufficient curriculum cover for all the students and ensure that the excellent and tremendous education which has been carried on at that campus for the past 30 years is continued until its closure.

My constituents do not want the school to close but they are very anxious that the campus remains as an educational campus. However, given that we are in this situation, it is important that the Minister liaises with the school and I appeal to her to do so. It must be disorienting and disturbing for staff, students, parents and the Kilbarrack and Raheny communities that this situation exists and I ask the Minister to take a sympathetic and considerate view of the current circumstances and ask her to have her staff immediately liaise closely with the principal, Anton Carroll, his staff, parents and pupils to try to manage this difficult situation.

Ms Hanafin

I thank Deputy Broughan for raising this issue. He is quite correct that the closure of a school has an effect not just on the staff and students in the school but on the community, particularly a school as distinguished as Greendale community school which, as the Deputy pointed out, has served the area very well from the time it was built to a peak of more than 900 pupils. The Deputy mentioned some of the more famous staff members and past pupils but the school aims to ensure that every child reached his or her potential. Therefore, I can understand that there is a great deal of sensitivity surrounding the decision by the trustees to close the school.

When one examines the demographics of the area, one can understand how they came to this decision because there has been a steady decline in enrolments over the years. Since 1996, enrolment has declined by 50%. In less than nine years, it has fallen from 449 students to 215 students in the 2003-04 school year and the current enrolment at the primary schools in the area would indicate that the decline will continue. Unfortunately, the numbers are not there.

Mr. Broughan

A new city is being built behind the school.

An Ceann Comhairle

Allow the Minister to reply without interruption.

Mr. Broughan

I needed to inform the Minister as she is a southsider.

Ms Hanafin

She also happens to be the Minister for Education and Science. The school made an application to the Department of Education and Science for major capital investment in 1999 and the study commissioned by the Department estimated that an investment of €2.5 million would be needed for the remedial works. The general decline in enrolments in the area has resulted in spare capacity in the area of 2,300 places at post-primary level. It appears that Deputy Broughan's constituency is disappearing. In the circumstances, my Department did not consider that the level of capital investment required was a viable option, but it gave grant aid for the immediate health and safety issues at the school.

Subsequent to this, the Department of Education and Science held meetings with the trustees to discuss the future of the school because there did not appear to be adequate pupil numbers in the locality to enable it to regenerate. We were also concerned at the ability of the school to offer a broad and balanced curriculum, given the relatively small number of pupils enrolled. The trustees advised the Department in March 2004 that a decision had been taken to close the school in June 2007 and that there would be no intake of pupils in September 2005.

My Department concurred with the recommendations in light of the falling enrolment and taking into consideration the surplus capacity in the general area. It was a matter for the trustees to discuss this with the board of management, teachers and parents. Unfortunately, no circumstances would allow me to re-examine the issue. In regard to the students, every effort will be made to ensure that the current students and those who will continue in the school until 2007 will continue to get the quality education and curriculum they require to pursue their academic choices.

I pay tribute to the staff of the school. It is a difficult time for them and for the community but, given that the school will be in full-time second education use until 2007, the Department has not yet made a decision on the future use of the school buildings and grounds. We must have regard to the fact that it is such a major centre for adult education, and we will consult widely in that regard.

Nuclear Safety.

Mr. Sargent

Gabhaim buíochas don Cheann Comhairle as cead a thabhairt dom an cheist seo a ardú ar an Athló agus cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Oideachais agus Eolaíochta. Labharfaidh mé leis an Aire atá freagach as seo arís.

This issue is of enormous concern not just to people in Ireland, but to anyone worldwide who is concerned about the proliferation of nuclear weapons and plutonium as a material. We want answers on this issue. In light of this morning's report from the United States Administration that terror groups are planning either chemical or nuclear attacks, it is alarming to hear on the same news reports that 30 kilograms of plutonium was reported missing at Sellafield.

The British nuclear group, part of BNFL, describes it as a paper loss. As if to reassure us, it states that it is not of concern to them because they work in tonnes, not kilograms. I doubt that would be of any comfort. The reality is that we should not tolerate the creation of plutonium in milligrams, kilograms or tonnes. The deadliness of plutonium is clear when we recall that, spread evenly around the world, six kilograms of the material would be sufficient to give everyone lung cancer. Therefore, the deadliness of the material is unquestionable. The reason plutonium was first made must be borne in mind. It was used to make bombs and weapons of mass destruction. The reason this country was happy to give succour and facilities to the bombing of Iraq was in the name of doing away with weapons of mass destruction.

What we are dealing with here is material for weapons of mass destruction. Some 14 countries are currently storing 235 metric tonnes of separated plutonium, enough for 40,000 Nagasaki-sized bombs. That amount is growing by between five and ten tonnes a year. Sellafield and the organisation that runs that plant assures us that they have safety and security in order. Even after the 11 September attacks in the United States, there were 45 security breaches last year at civil nuclear sites in the UK. While nuclear experts accept some discrepancy in the figures, Dr. Frank Barnaby said that the loss of 30 kg is a dramatic development. In 2003, there was a loss of 19 kg and over the past ten years there was an accumulated loss of 50 kg. Some 30 kilograms is a great loss of nuclear material.

I asked the Tánaiste this morning — perhaps the Minister will be able to answer me — whether the Irish Government was told about this before the media were told or the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Agency report was released. The Government claimed at the time of the court case that it had won a concession that it would be in the loop, that information would be shared about British nuclear incidents or issues of concern, and this is certainly one of them. I would like to know whether the UK ambassador has been called in to explain the matter or what action has been taken.

Given that the US wants to end reprocessing — the vast majority of people in the world would like to end reprocessing because its only use is to make bombs — and that Ireland was the author and first signatory of a non-proliferation treaty, will the Government convene an international effort to reach a consensus needed to force an end to reprocessing and thereby a reduction of the threat of nuclear weapons? Will the Government address the basic injustice in the EU where the nuclear industry is effectively being promoted and getting the lion's share of research over the combined renewable energies because the EURATOM treaty is a protocol attached to the EU constitution and continues which have favoured place? These matters must be addressed. Will the Government ensure that the sunset clause is included so that the EURATOM treaty fades into the past where it belongs?

Ms Hanafin

I thank Deputy Sargent for allowing me to take this matter on behalf of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.

I understand the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, British Nuclear Fuels plc and Urenco (Capenhurst) Limited today published details of the nuclear materials balance arising from the use of plutonium and-or uranium in their civil nuclear programmes during 2003 and 2004. Publication of these figures is a voluntary industry practice in the UK introduced in 1977 and repeated annually. On 10 December last, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, together with the British ambassador, announced the outcome to date of the discussions between the UK and Ireland arising from the legal action brought by Ireland against the UK under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

The Minister, Deputy Roche, reported previously to the House on the improved co-operation and information exchange mechanisms put in place arising from these discussions. In accordance with these improved co-operation measures, the Minister directed his officials to raise this matter with the UK authorities to establish the position regarding media reports to the effect that 30 kg of plutonium material had been "lost" or had "disappeared" at Sellafield. Arising from these contacts with the UK Administration, the Minister understands that in the figures published, 30 kg of plutonium has been attributed as "material unaccounted for". This term represents the difference between measured stock and the book account. It arises as a consequence of the accounting process for these nuclear materials and mainly from measurement uncertainties.

The Minister received assurances from the UK Government that the figures in this case relate to a "book" discrepancy arising from measurement uncertainties and that there is no evidence to suggest that any of the apparent losses reported are real losses of nuclear material. Apparently, it is not unusual for the accounting process to indicate material unaccounted for and it can have a positive or negative value. The figures published today relate to 2003 and 2004 and have all long since been reported to EURATOM and the International Atomic Energy Agency under the UK's various nuclear safeguards obligations. The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Roche, understands that the figures returned are not the subject of further inquiry by these bodies and that they are all within international standards of expected measurement accuracies for closing a nuclear balance at the type of facility concerned. The British Government does not believe the figures have any implications for the state of security at Sellafield and there is no suggestion that any of this material is unaccounted for because of theft or anything else to do with site or transport security.

Mr. Sargent

They cannot find it.

Ms Hanafin

The UK has emphasised that nuclear materials are protected at all times and levels of security at nuclear sites are very high. All sites are required to comply with a security plan approved by the Office for Civil Nuclear Security and the measures taken exceed international requirements in this area. The Minister, Deputy Roche, has asked the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland to review the information available and advise him accordingly. Should high level action be indicated arising from its advice, he will raise the matters directly with his ministerial counterparts in the UK.

With regard to the generation and stockpiling of plutonium generally, it is clear that the present security climate throughout the world is extremely difficult. In this climate, the security implications of the nuclear spent fuel reprocessing industry, in which Sellafield plays a significant role, must be critically addressed. The strong view of the Government is that reprocessing, which results in the transport of spent fuel throughout the world, the transformation of this fuel and the generation of additional nuclear waste and significant amounts of plutonium and other nuclear materials, which must then be transported back and ultimately stockpiled, is correspondingly more problematic. For this reason, the Government is opposed to the continued reprocessing of spent fuel at Sellafield and will continue to utilise all legal and diplomatic opportunities to bring it to an end.

On behalf of the Government, the Minister, Deputy Roche, will continue on a bilateral basis with the UK to articulate the concerns and protect the interests of Irish citizens regarding nuclear reprocessing and ensure these views are articulated consistently and cogently at relevant international fora such as the International Atomic Energy Agency and the European Union.

The Dáil adjourned at 5.20 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 22 February 2005.

Dáil Éireann debate - Thursday, 17 Feb 2005