Vol. 635 No. 3
6 Mr. Crowe asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the plans he has to meet British Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Mr. Alistair Darling, before the end of the Dáil session; the measures he will take to outline the State’s concerns regarding the outcome of the British energy review; the date of the proposed meeting; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13464/07]
8 Mr. Kehoe asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the result of representations and discussions with the British Government in regard to the continued operation of the Sellafield plant; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13443/07]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 6 and 8 together.
I met the Secretary of State for the Department of Trade and Industry, Mr. Alistair Darling, in London on 9 January last. I have no plans for a further meeting with him before the end of the current Dáil session — I say that without smiling.
My meeting with the Secretary of State focused on issues relating to Sellafield and, in particular, the THORP plant. I made very clear to the Secretary of State the extent of the Government's concerns regarding Sellafield. I strongly underlined our view that the operations there are uneconomic, environmentally damaging and have a particularly poor track record in safety. I also emphasised our particular concerns regarding THORP, which has been closed for nearly two years following a serious leak. I impressed upon the Secretary of State the Government's strong view that the operating life of THORP should not be extended and called upon the UK Government to undertake an international expert peer review of the safety case prior to the reopening of the THORP plant. The response of the UK Secretary of State to this proposal was, regrettably, less than positive.
I also advised the Secretary of State that while energy policy and supply was a matter for each individual State to decide, adverse consequences have arisen for Ireland as a result of nuclear policy decisions and actions taken by the UK in the past. I pointed out to him that while the outcome of the energy review was supportive of new build, it was noticeably silent on the issue of reprocessing. Clearly, continued discharges and ongoing safety concerns have been a feature of Sellafield reprocessing operations and if reprocessing is to become a feature of proposed new build then this would be of major concern to Ireland. As stakeholders, we have a right to have our concerns taken into account.
These issues had been highlighted in a written submission by my Department to the consultation process put in place by the UK Government prior to the publication of the energy review. At present, the position of the UK Government is that subject to the reopening of THORP in the near future, existing reprocessing contracts will be completed in 2010. In addition, I have been informed there are no plans to seek new contracts. I also took the opportunity to make clear to the UK Government that any proposal for additional contracts for reprocessing at Sellafield would be opposed by the Government. From my contacts with other governments in Europe, in the European Union and outside it, this would also be opposed vigorously by other governments. Mechanisms for intergovernmental notification and co-operation between the Irish and UK Governments have been greatly improved and a series of co-operative measures were developed, agreed and put in place. That is to the credit of the UK Government.
These measures are working well and represent considerable added value to the co-operative relationship to which Ireland is entitled on matters relating to nuclear issues and Sellafield in particular. These co-operative measures include the bilateral agreement on early notification of a nuclear incident, direct access to the UK radiation monitoring system, known as RIMNET, access for the Garda Síochána to Sellafield, access for the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland to Sellafield and other nuclear facilities, significantly improved information exchanges, co-operation on emergency planning with the UK and improved contacts at regulator and official level for discussion of nuclear issues.
I have little doubt that the diplomatic and legal initiatives of the Government on Sellafield have resulted in the greatly increased recognition by the British Government and its agencies of the priority accorded to the issue by the Irish Government. While there remains a significant difference in views on this issue between the two Governments, I am confident that my meeting with Secretary of State Darling served to highlight the Government's ongoing commitment to securing the safe and orderly closure of the Sellafield plant.
At the outset, I acknowledge the Minister's intervention with the British Secretary of State on this important issue and I ask him to keep at it. Does he accept that the British energy review will inevitably produce a whole chain of nuclear power plants? In turn, it is almost certain that this will feed in material for reprocessing at Sellafield and therein is the nub of the difficulty with the British energy review. Does he agree with that and the consequences it holds for the Irish people? Does the Minister accept that among the consequences for the Irish people will inevitably be an ever greater health risk to people on the eastern seaboard? Does he accept that cancer rates in my constituency of County Louth are currently running at 20% above the national average and one in five deaths is cancer related? There is no reasonable explanation for that. Is he concerned about the extraordinarily high death rate from cancer and incidences of cancer in the constituency?
Is the Minister considering the establishment of an environmental task force, perhaps in conjunction with the Department of Health and Children, to establish once and for all what exactly is the cause of the high cancer rates? We would be delighted if Sellafield was not the cause because the problem might then be easier to solve. However, at the moment we believe that it is the cause of the problem.
I am delighted the Minister is raising this case with the British at every opportunity. I accept that he is enthusiastic in doing so. However, does he agree that it is not working? We need to join with the Nordic countries and others to form one European group to fight this scourge that is a plague on many countries in northern Europe as well as on our own country on the edge of Europe.
I agree with the Deputy's latter point and I have taken steps in that direction. I have taken a number of opportunities to establish cross-community activity within the European Council of Environment Ministers. I spoke to almost all the other Environment Ministers in Europe, especially those who do not have nuclear plants. I recently convened a meeting in Dublin that was attended by Minister Pröll from Austria, colleagues from Iceland, Norway and the parliamentary secretary from Germany. A declaration was signed at the end of that meeting, which could not be signed by Germany as it holds the Presidency of the EU.
There are concerns in Germany. It is now trying to withdraw from nuclear power and we must start listening to that. Iceland seems a long way from Sellafield but its Prime Minister has echoed precisely the concerns we have about the THORP plant. This is a diplomatic initiative that should be pursued and I am grateful to the Deputy for his support in this. I am grateful also to Deputy O'Dowd who has always been supportive of any initiative in this regard.
The Austrian Minister, Mr. Pröll, has indicated that he will follow up the Dublin initiative with a further meeting to be held in Vienna in the early part of the summer. I am aware from contacts with colleagues in Norway and Iceland that discussions on this issue will take place on the margins of the next meeting of Environment Ministers in the Nordic Council. There will be difficulties to confront given that, regrettably, Finland has become involved in a nuclear build and Sweden is somewhat conflicted on the issue.
As I said at a recent meeting of the Joint Committee on Environment and Local Government, I have taken the opportunity to raise my concerns, which are shared by everybody in this House, at the manner in which the British have responded on the health issue and particularly on the question of an expert peer review. For example, I raised this matter recently with Dr. El Baradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, who indicated he would communicate our concerns to the British authorities.
The energy mix employed by any individual country is a matter for that country. However, no state can be cavalier in terms of cross-boundary issues and the long-term effects and impacts of nuclear power.
The subplot of this argument is the energy crisis in Britain, including security supply issues, Ukrainian gas and so on. The British are approaching this issue from a totally different perspective than we are. I agree that all parties in the House are ad idem in our opposition to nuclear power on our doorstep.
However, other arguments are being put forward by elements in the media, engineers and others. I do not agree with these arguments but we must confront them through a decisive debate. One of the arguments coming into play relates to carbon emissions and the carbon footprint of nuclear power versus traditional power sources. We must refute utterly in a sensible and logical way all the arguments in this regard. The first action we should take, whether in this Dáil or the next, is to arrange a round table debate at a meeting of the Joint Committee on Environment and Local Government to facilitate a comprehensive discussion of all these issues.
My greatest fear is the prospect of a terrorist incident at Sellafield. Will the Minister bring to the attention of the IAEA our deep concerns in this regard and ask for its assistance? As an independent nation, we cannot obtain the information we seek from the United Kingdom. I understand the security issues in this regard. Does the Minister agree there is a role for the IAEA as an international policing force and as guarantor of our rights in this area?
I fully agree there is a role for the IAEA. The EU also has a responsibility in this area. In addition to speaking with Dr. El Baradei, I have spoken on several occasions with Commissioners Dimas, Frattini and Piebalgs. The uniformity of views in this House is helpful in drawing their attention to our concerns.
I also agree with the Deputy that the nuclear lobby, which I regard as cynical and sinister, is using the issues relating to climate change and energy security as a means of scaremongering and encouraging a stampede back to nuclear power. After the accident at Three Mile Island, the entire build stopped. Unfortunately, however, there is now equivocation in some European states. As Deputy Morgan observed, it is a self-serving analysis that will lead Britain to decide to expand its nuclear power capacity.
We must be continually vigilant through the means available to us. I agree with Deputy O'Dowd that there is little we could do if a major incident took place at Sellafield. This is the issue we must keep bringing to the attention of the British. They have a moral responsibility in addition to their economic responsibilities. The Deputies are correct that the way forward is through more effective lobbying from the non-nuclear states in Europe.
On a point of order, when will Question Time finish?
At 4.30 p.m. We will get to the Deputy's question. I am keeping an eye on things to ensure we do not spend too long on other questions.
Thank you. I appreciate that.
The Ceann Comhairle has mentioned his anxiety in respect of Deputy Gormley several times.
7 Dr. Twomey asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government his views on the hoarding of development land; if he has a report on the extent of same; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13448/07]
In 2003, Goodbody Economic Consultants were engaged by my Department to carry out a study that considered factors affecting the supply of land to the housing market, including the possible hoarding of building land. There have been many discussions on this topic. The study considered previous analyses of the housing and land markets and sought possible evidence of hoarding based on case studies of three areas, two urban and one rural. The consultants' report, which is available in the Oireachtas Library, concluded there was no evidence, something which may surprise many people, that hoarding of land was a widespread problem or that there were excessive levels of land banking.
Considerable investment has been made in servicing of land and the inventory of zoned and serviced land taken in June 2005 indicates the availability of some 14,800 hectares nationwide, with an estimated yield of 460,000 housing units. The Government wishes to ensure that zoned land is used as promptly as feasible for residential purposes. Therefore legislation is being developed to give powers to planning authorities to act on a selective basis to accelerate the development of appropriate zoned land for housing.
The Government has approved the drafting, at my suggestion, of a designated land (housing development) Bill to provide for a "use it or lose it" scheme. The general scheme of the Bill provides powers for planning authorities to enter into a binding agreement with, or to impose requirements on, the owners of designated land in order to bring such land into housing development; an amended compensation mechanism whereby designated land, if not developed in agreement or accordance with requirements imposed by the relevant planning authority could be compulsorily acquired at below market value; and as a possible alternative to compulsory acquisition, provision for the imposition by planning authorities of an annual development incentive levy on designated land.
The general scheme also provides for mandatory registration of, and the imposition of a levy on, land purchase options.
Landownership alone is not at issue: people with options could be a stymieing factor. I hope the Bill, which will be comprehensive legislation, will get early passage through both Houses. Obviously, it will not be passed by this Dáil but hopefully it will be passed by the next one.
This is quite a radical step. I agree with the Minister in respect of many of the issues he raised. The key point is, however, that the legislation has not yet been published. The principle being established is that land which is zoned for social and affordable housing and not so used can be compulsorily acquired. Perhaps the Minister will outline what will be the effect on me if, say, I own 20 acres of zoned land outside Drogheda but wish to sell it for some other purpose. For how many years must I have sat on the land before the new legal instruments come into force?
The Deputy is correct. This will be a radical move. The legislation is currently being drafted. We have a long way to go to perfect it. The legislation will radically alter the situation. One can subject land to compulsory purchase order for specific purposes but one cannot do so simply because people are sitting on it. Where it is perceived the land is being sat on, which is a handy way of influencing the market, this device will be used. The Bill will dramatically change matters and will provide local authorities with significant additional powers to intervene either where people have taken land into their ownership or where people bought options in order to stymie development. I do not believe it will be necessary to use this on a wholesale basis. However, the mere fact this legislation is being introduced should give those with ideas of holding land for negative purposes pause for thought.
We are constantly told that legislation tends not to be retrospective. The Minister tells us that sufficient land has been zoned for 460,000 housing units and it cannot be interfered with. Servicing land is obviously a key issue and the Minister referred to the hoarding of land. A balance must be achieved between the industrial and residential use of land. For example, Intel has a huge capacity for water because it is a wet industry. It is important to find the balance between housing and industrial development in order keep people in one area. We must examine resources in that respect. Local authorities often over-zone land to 1.5 times or twice the projected requirements because they wish to resist the possibility of land hoarding.
The Deputy should put a question.
Given that there is such limited availability of water, as well as limited waste-water treatment capacity, does the Minister consider it advisable for local authorities to be over-zoning land?
Does the Minister agree the CPO mechanism could also be used to preserve space? We have seen the example of Dartmouth Square and such areas are becoming more essential by the day as our cities run out of green space. Does the Minister agree it is now necessary to use that mechanism to purchase compulsorily some institutional lands in order to preserve green spaces?
The Bill does not deal with the latter point but it certainly deals with the point raised by Deputy Catherine Murphy. In the lifetime of this Government we, that is, the taxpayers, have created equivalent water treatment capacity, for sewerage purposes, for an additional 3 million people. If my memory serves me correctly, drinking water capacity has been created for an additional 1.25 million people. Given that there has been a massive investment in such projects by taxpayers, it is important that their purpose cannot be stymied by hoarding land. On the other hand, the Deputy is right in saying that local authorities tend to over-zone. They do so for a positive reason, so people will not have an easy stranglehold on land. In the recent past, however, some local authorities have gone way over the top. I reluctantly intervened in two cases because of substandard planning — in one case to strike down the county development plan and in the other to issue warnings that I would strike down the plan. I do not like the idea of Ministers intervening directly but the law is the law and if people behave improperly by excessive use of zoning, it must be curtailed.
The legislation will answer the long-standing debate we have had since the Kenny report was published. As regards Deputy O'Dowd's point, I believe it will have the effect of demonstrating that the Houses of the Oireachtas are anxious to ensure that people who have significant amounts of land are not tempted to interfere with the housing market by sitting on it. I hope it is passed early in the next Dáil.
9 Mr. Gormley asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the number of radon measuring kits purchased from the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland; the resulting levels of radon; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13385/07]
I understand from the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland that it has issued almost 120,000 radon measurement detectors since the establishment of its radon measurement programme in the early 1990s. However, this does not indicate the full extent of measurements taken, as private companies also provide the service and detectors can be purchased from retail outlets.
Radon measurements undertaken by the RPII since the early 1990s have involved: over 31,000 houses, over 3,800 schools nationwide measured under a programme commissioned by the Department of Education and Science and over 1,600 workplaces.
A summary of the results, on a county basis, of the radon measurements carried out in houses up to 31 December 2006 is available on the RPII website www.rpii.ie. Approximately 13% of houses measured were above the reference level where remediation works would be recommended.
The Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland, RPII, has reported on the radon measurements found in schools, and the results on a county by county basis are also available on the RPII website. All schools which were found to have high radon levels have been remediated.
In regard to workplaces, I understand that of the 1,600 workplaces measured, approximately 10% were above the reference level for radon in workplaces. The Government, largely through the RPII, has for many years committed significant resources to assessing the extent of the radon problem throughout the country and to highlighting public awareness of radon and the health risks associated with prolonged exposure to radon concentrations. The RPII has consistently urged householders, particularly those in high radon areas, to have their homes tested for radon and, where necessary, to undertake the necessary remediation works.
Government efforts and resources, together with those of the RPII, will continue to focus on highlighting public awareness of radon and on improving information to householders to enable and encourage them to address monitoring or remedial requirements effectively and economically.
Is the Minister aware that more than 200 people die every year in Ireland from lung cancers that can be attributed directly to radon gas? Would it not make sense, in the circumstances, to waive the fee being charged for one of these kits? It has gone up from €50 to €54 and, according to my calculations, it would cost a mere €5 million to test the 90,000 homes directly affected. This would be a sensible health measure to take, aside altogether from a sensible environmental measure. Has the Minister given this any consideration? In my view people are dying from this unnecessarily.
The Deputy is correct and there is a responsibility on all of us to inform ourselves of the risks associated with radon. A study in the United States found that 90% of radon-related lung cancer deaths occur among smokers and I was not aware of that statistic.
They take it into their systems more easily.
That may be so but 10% of people do not fall into that category.
I do not agree that the charging system put in place by the RPII is excessively onerous. This issue arose previously; remediation is relatively easy and I was surprised on examining its cost. I do not contest the figures presented by the Deputy and the vast majority of radon-related deaths occur among smokers and ex smokers. I happen to be a former heavy smoker. An element of responsibility lies with householders and businesses to ensure they avail of the tests. The tests are very easy and involve a small device that is placed in two locations in a house. The device is returned to the RPII and that organisation supplies the results quickly. It is imperative that those living in areas with a high concentration of granite, such as Wicklow, where I live, get their houses tested.
Does the Minister have statistics on people who have not availed of the test? On the basis of the figures the Minister has provided it appears many people living in high radon areas are not testing and remediating. This is clearly resulting in the deaths of more than 200 people every year. It is scandalous that so many people are dying unnecessarily. Would the introduction of free testing kits not be a sensible public health measure for this Government to take? On examining the figures, €5 million is not a great deal of money if it saves lives.
The Deputy is correct but €55 to have a house tested for a lifetime is not a large amount either. The RPII website should be commended because it is clear and provides the relevant data. Every county is shown on the website along with becquerel background levels, areas of high concentration and the number of tests that have been carried out. The website shows that 2,800 houses in Kerry have been measured and the highest concentration of becquerels there was 49,000, which is astonishing.
Deputies will be aware of the case in question. A great deal of public information is available. It is important that the RPII continues to provide public information and members of the public take some responsibility in this area.
10 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the names of the companies from which carbon credits will be purchased in order to reduce penalties arising from the Kyoto Protocol; the amount that will be purchased from each company; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13470/07]
The National Climate Change Strategy 2007-2012, which I published earlier this week, includes limited provision for the purchase of Kyoto units by the State so as to assist compliance with the Kyoto Protocol in the period 2008 to 2012. Deputies will be aware that under the plan, 80% of the requirement will be met domestically. The strategy also sets out an explicit national policy framework for this purpose. This will inter alia guide the National Treasury Management Agency, which will act as a national purchasing agent for the State in the conduct of its role, as agreed in the Carbon Fund Bill. The framework requires that Kyoto unit purchases on behalf of the State shall be made with the objective of ensuring they contribute to the ultimate objective of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which is stabilisation of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system; that risk is minimised, particularly in relation to the timely delivery of credits; and they represent good value for money.
In purchasing Kyoto units the agency will also be required to ensure Ireland does not use credits generated from nuclear facilities and any surplus units at the end of the 2008-12 commitment period can be banked and used in a subsequent period of the Kyoto Protocol or any successor treaty. To date, my Department has committed to investing €20 million in the multilateral carbon credit fund operated by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and a further €20 million in funds offered by the World Bank. In the latter case, €10 million is committed to the second tranche of the biocarbon fund and €10 million to a new carbon fund for Europe.
The Carbon Fund Bill 2006, which came into effect this week, makes provision for the designation of the National Treasury Management Agency as purchasing agent for the State. Further purchases will be a matter for the agency, having regard to the purchasing framework set out in the national climate change strategy.
I thank the Minister for his reply. He indicated that Ireland would not purchase credits generated from nuclear facilities. To what extent will the credits be scrutinised to determine what other types of energy have been used to produce them?
Underlying the Deputy's question is the fact that some dodgy forms of credit are available on the market. There is, in some of the declining eastern economies, what is known as "hot air". As Deputies will be aware, it is also generated in the House on occasion. The National Treasury Management Agency will not be involved in the purchase of this or of nuclear generated credits.
It is interesting that the debate is opening up to a discussion on how carbon credits will be used. Carbon credits could be phenomenally positive and have a significant impact on developing and transitional economies. They could revolutionise living for people in sub-Saharan Africa, a region with no energy and credits to sell. The ethical application of the carbon fund will have beneficial effects in addition to helping Ireland meet its targets.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
