Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 10 Feb 1971

Vol. 69 No. 7

Nuclear Energy (An Bord Fuinnimh Núicléigh) Bill, 1971: Committee Stage.

SECTION 1.

Amendments Nos. 1, 4, 7 and 9 are related and I suggest that they be taken together.

Government amendment No. 1:
In subsection (1), page 2, between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following:
"‘fissile fuel' means a material capable of acting as a source of energy because of its ability to propogate a neutron chain reaction;".

This amendment is designed to meet the point of view put forward by Senator Dooge on the Second Stage. It is a valid point in this connection. The purpose is to define "fissile fuel". Fissile fuel means a material capable of acting as a source of energy because of its ability to propagate a neutron chain reaction. Subsequent amendments, being taken with this amendment, flow from this specific definition of "fissile fuel" that Senator Dooge suggested should be made.

In regard to the definition of "fissile fuel", there is only one difficulty in regard to the definition proposed here. It is a difficulty that I would raise later on in the section in regard to the definition of "nuclear reactor". The general point is that we only define "fissile fuel" here; we only define a "nuclear reactor" in the section as being a reactor in which fission takes place. While it is true that the development of nuclear power by other than fission is still at the experimental stage, nevertheless it might be appropriate at this particular stage to include a definition of "nuclear fuel", a definition of "nuclear reactor", which would include fusion processes as well as fission processes.

In the world of destruction, we have both the H-bomb and the A-bomb In spite of the great hopes, the thermonuclear fusion process, which is at the basis of the H-bomb, has not yet been harnessed and contained for peaceful use. Even within the last few weeks, news items have appeared that scientists in Japan and in the United States have announced discoveries which indicate that they may be achieving the technological break through which would enable them to harness nuclear fusion for power purposes.

It may be that this hope is as unfounded as were the hopes some ten years ago of the Zeta reaction in Britain. On the other hand, if they are well-founded, there is no doubt that the nuclear fusion processes—which, with fuel demands, are so immensely cheaper than the fuels required in nuclear fission—would soon replace nuclear fission as a source for power. What would worry me in regard to this Bill is that if somebody commenced to experiment here on nuclear fusion the danger would be that his operations would not be controlled by this Bill. The control of nuclear fusion for peaceful purposes, for the production of power, is not yet a technological reality. Accordingly, there would be adequate time for the board which is being set up under this Bill to recommend an amendment of the Bill to the Minister to cover it. In the meantime, it would appear that any research work in our universities or under this new nuclear board in regard to nuclear fusion development might fall outside the control of this legislation because the only type of fuel we would be talking about would be fissile fuel and the only type of reactor we would be talking about would be one in which nuclear fission can occur. This may well be a serious gap in this legislation.

There is no doubt about what Senator Dooge says with regard to the future. We hope that in ten or 15 years time the nuclear fusion process will be the great source of power supply, and will be the unending source of power supply as far as the board is concerned. Technologists and scientists are working towards this. However, it is very much in the future, as the Senator will agree. This Bill is designed to deal with a very specific and immediate situation where we require a board immediately to deal with the matter, in view of the imminence of the erection of a nuclear power station by the ESB based on the nuclear fission process, the present known process for creating nuclear energy. The training and education of technicians, technologists and scientists in connection with this nuclear fission process needs to be standardised. Overall safety precautions have to be devised. Advice can be given to the Minister for Transport and Power and the Government by such a board concerned with the immediate prospect relating to nuclear energy from the process of nuclear fission.

From the long-term point of view, as far as mankind is concerned, nuclear fusion, although very much in the early stages of development, will offer the great opportunity of immediate power availability. However, we will have time when that comes about to devise the appropriate statutory measures. We will have a board set up under this legislation and they will be able to keep the Minister and Government advised as to the future of developments in the whole nuclear field. Undoubtedly, these developments will in the future move into the nuclear fusion field as well as the nuclear fission field.

While I agree with a lot of what Senator Dooge has said, I do not think it is quite appropriate at this stage. We are dealing with the immediate problem of establishing a board to deal with an immediate situation which would be very much our concern over the next ten years. I feel we will have enough on our plates in that regard and there will be no problem about bringing in legislation within that period to deal with any developments that may arise in the nuclear fusion field. However, if the Bill can be amended easily to incorporate dealing with nuclear fusion— I will have the Bill examined with a view to doing this between now and the Report Stage—I see no reason why it should not be done. I will look at the Bill with a view to doing that.

A small point, and indeed it may not even be good, as I have not the Oxford Dictionary with me, but is that spelling right "propogate"? Is it not "propagate"?

Line 4 of amendment (1).

Well it is "o" in the amendment. I will go down in history as having spoken on the Nuclear Energy Bill.

The spelling will be corrected as a matter of course in the event of the amendment being accepted.

I am grateful to the Minister for undertaking to look into this particular point. If I might say, at the risk of being slightly irrelevant, but with the advantage of saving perhaps a second discussion on the section, I think the anxieties that I have expressed in regard to the scope of the Bill are much more important in regard to the definition of what is a nuclear reactor rather than to the particular definition of fuel types with which the amendment is concerned.

Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 2:
In subsection (1), between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following:
"‘radioactive substance' means a substance which consists of or contains any radioactive chemical element, whether natural or artificial;".

Again this amendment arises out of a point made by Senator Dooge on the Second Stage debate. It concerns his desire to have "radioactive substance" defined. We have it defined here that it means a substance which consists of, or contains, any radioactive chemical element, whether natural or artificial. I am putting that amendment to the Seanad to define precisely what radioactive substance is.

I am grateful to the Minister for having met this point and I am sorry if I appear churlish having got an amendment inserted, to go on to object to the amendment which has been inserted. The definition which is now being inserted is a very broad, general definition. The radioactive substance is one that contains any radioactive chemical element, whether natural or artificial. As I indicated the last day, the substance of the Minister's body, the substance of my body, contains radioactive material. If we take a broad definition of radioactive material such as we have here then, in fact, we are defining everything to be radioactive. We might end up by finding out that our Nuclear Energy Board has got control over the transportation of the Minister or control over the transportation of every Member of this House, because the board has control over the transportation of all radioactive material.

Might I put the point in this particular way. We can look on radioactive materials, radioactive substances as being, as it were in the natural sense, eccentric substances. They may behave in a peculiar fashion. In regard to these substances as in regard to human individuals a certain degree of eccentricity is tolerable, a certain degree of eccentricity calls for no control. If, indeed, one called for the control of the slightest degree of eccentricity I think our mental health services would be even more overburdened than they are at the moment. As in the case of the eccentricity of human individuals, it is when they go beyond certain bounds that control is necessary, and similarly, too, with the question of radioactive elements and radioactive materials. It is when their radioactivity is in excess of a certain level that the need for control arises.

The history of legislation in other countries has been that they have started their legislation in terms of broad general definitions such as we have here. They have gone on then in later legislation, having found this unworkable, to define more tightly, to define in terms of levels of radioactivity. I do not know what the quantitative measure in regard to the eccentricity of humans is. Perhaps our colleague, Senator Jessop, might help us on this point. In regard to radioactive elements their eccentricity in behaviour in this particular regard is measured in something like micro-curies per gramme or measures of this sort. Recent legislation in Britain prints, in the Schedule to the Act, the level of radiation in a particular element which brings it within the scope of the Act, which brings it within the definition of being a radioactive substance. It may well be that it is sufficient for us to take a general definition such as we have here now. It may well be that we can take a broad general definition and then in the application of the Act we can only apply the orders that are made, the regulations that are made, to certain classes of radioactive substances and define these classes in terms of the level of radioactive activity. This may be difficult to do, may cause difficulties, and may be the reason why legislation in other countries has changed. It is probable that we need a body, such as the board that is proposed, to tell us exactly how we should schedule this but I think there is a very real difficulty here. The definition as drawn here is better than having no definition at all but it is so wide a definition that it may well be unsatisfactory.

The amendment which I have introduced, and which has been partially welcomed by Senator Dooge, is in line with legislation which we have examined in Norway, Sweden and in the early British legislation. I appreciate that in the British Act of 1960 they went into greater detail in their Schedule, specifying the various solid, liquid, gas or vapour ingredients involved, like actinium, lead, polonium, protoactinium, radium, radon, thorium and uranium. These type of definitions are variables in my view and this is precisely why the board has been established to advise the Minister for Transport and Power on the up-to-date situation in regard to these variables so that when it comes down, in future legislation, to making a precise definition of radioactive substance we will be in a position to make such a definition that is appropriate to the most up-to-date and recent advice given by such a board.

I feel at this stage, that as this is our first legislation in this field, it is better to leave the definition reasonably broad while bringing in a definition, as we are doing in this amendment, and have the board then advise the Minister as to what would be the appropriate further definitions or limitations within this whole field of nuclear energy that should be adopted for future legislation. I indicated on Second Stage that I regarded this Bill primarily to get this board moving, to get this whole investigation proceeding and this whole area of nuclear energy to be investigated having regard to the immediate power generation requirements of the community and the safety and training requirements.

I am quite certain that the investigations of this board will throw up the need for more detailed, possibly different legislation in detail than what is contained here. It is important for the initial legislation to be as broad as possible. I agree with Senator Dooge that if one had the precise information it would be desirable to do what he suggests. I would say that this precise information would be coming from the board to the Minister in the years ahead when legislation on more precise lines and lines more appropriate to the requirements of the particular time can be brought before the Oireachtas.

I do not entirely agree with Senator Dooge when he says that this amendment is better than no amendment at all. I think it would be better to have no amendment at all than to have this one because it leaves the field completely open and, as he says, nearly anybody can be radioactive at any time and there is the question of the amount of radioactivity and how he gets it. Of course radioactive substances vary in the length of time which their radioactivity persists. This is a very important consideration which is not mentioned at all in this amendment. From what the Minister has said I think it would be improved greatly if some phrase were added, such as admitting radiation above a level to be decided by the Minister on the advice of the board from time to time.

I agree with Senator Jessop in this particular regard. While we can appreciate the Minister's point of view, his anxiety to get the board established and afterwards to listen to what the board have to say, nevertheless this is legislation. This legislation will leave our hands. We should make the legislation as good as we can and anticipate as many difficulties as we can. We can take the definition which is in the Minister's amendment and look forward, for example, to section 6 (1), where the Minister can make certain orders in regard to the custody, use, manufacture, importation, distribution, transportation, exportation or other disposal of radioactive substances.

Perhaps it is possible to get over the difficulty which Senator Jessop mentioned of materials having markedly different half-lives and therefore being dangerous for varying lengths of time. This might be got over if in these orders certain chemical elements or certain chemical isotopes were specified. I think it would be difficult, looking at section 6 (1), to draft an order which would not only distinguish between various isotopes which would have different effects on persons who were exposed to them but on the different levels of radioactivity in different substances. Either we should broaden the definition, as Senator Jessop has said, to define radioactive substances as being above a certain level or else we should, in section 6 and elsewhere, where control comes in, put in an additional subsection which says that such orders, such regulations, such control may take account of the varying radioactivity of the elements specified in them. I think with Senator Jessop that the Bill needs amendment in some regard. To talk about radioactivity in the absolute is, I think, not realistic. It is, perhaps, salutary that we should do so because the indications are that some of the greatest dangers of radioactivity, some of the genetic affects of it do not appear to have a threshhold value. Nevertheless, any realistic approach to the problem of regulation must take into account the level of radioactivity of the particular substance, the particular isotope being controlled, and I think this must be written into the Bill either in the definition of radioactive substances as Senator Jessop has suggested or else in the individual sections to make it clear that these distinctions can be made in the orders and in the regulations.

The sort of discussion we have been having highlights the need for this particular board because in my view the correct way to approach a highly technical matter of this kind is to establish a board, have a highly professional board, staff and so on, and have the board advise the Minister in the immediate years ahead as to what needs to be done administratively along the various lines I have mentioned and also advise the Minister as to what needs to be done legislatively along the lines suggested by Senator Dooge and Senator Jessop, if the board so consider. It would be dangerous at this stage for a deliberative assembly to take on itself the more precise definitions in this particular field. In view of the fact that we are setting up this board to advise on this precise field we are the body to advise on the drafting of legislation. That is the purpose of any parliamentary assembly. But when it comes down to scientific definition of this kind I would prefer that we have the definitions by all means but keep them as broad as possible, establish the board and then take the advice from the board of experts that we will establish (a) as to what sort of administrative decisions are needed and (b) what legislative provisions are required to make the Bill more precise in this or that aspect and taking into account the type of view put forward here both by Senator Dooge and Senator Jessop.

That is the more commonsense approach. I certainly would not be fully competent—very few people in either House would be—to advise otherwise. This is the sensible approach. In saying that, I appreciate fully the views that have been put forward both by Senator Dooge and Senator Jessop, but I feel that we should adopt this approach first to get our board going, have it deal with the immediate problems I have mentioned which will arise from the administration point of view. Then the board having had a look, as I am sure they will, at the particular statute governing their operations, would come back to the Government and say: "This Bill is deficient in these aspects." Then we will be drafting legislation in some years time that will be based on the very best advice available, based on advice that has arisen out of, we hope, the administration by that time of power station development, the administration of the other developments I envisage taking place in the immediate years ahead in regard to nuclear development here in Ireland. On the basis of that advice we can then bring forward legislation which is appropriate to the requirements of the particular time in which that advice is given. From a commonsense point of view I consider that is the better approach.

I am sorry to rise again but I am concerned about the anxieties of people who use radioactive materials and ionising radiations in various ways as part of their ordinary daily work in medicine and in science one way or another. I had the misfortune about 12 or 14 years ago to the the honorary secretary of a board, body or council trying to control radioactive materials in this country. They were set up by the Medical Research Council when we first started using isotopes for medicine and for experimental purposes and it was realised these were dangerous materials if not handled properly. This body was asked by the Medical Research Council to supervise the importation, use and disposal of these materials. We had a very frustrating five or six years because we were the target for all sorts of people who felt they knew more about these materials than we did. Why should they not use them? Why should they be controlled in this way by us? We eventually, of course, ceased to try to operate in these circumstances.

If there was something put into this definition on the lines I suggested it would reassure people that the decision as to what level of radiation was to be regarded as within the meaning of this control should be decided by the board, or by the Minister on the advice of the board. I am thinking of the people who use these things, who have been using them for years, who have a lot of expertise in this matter and are a little bit irked by the idea that their activities are to be controlled. If they knew that there was this safeguard, even a vague safeguard, it would reassure them.

I feel the Minister is misunderstanding what has been urged in regard to this particular point. If the Minister is saying: surely this board is more competent than Members of the Oireachtas to deal with this particular point, and if the Minister is saying that the board is more competent to say what should be the particular level allowed in regard to a particular isotope of actinium in either its solid, its liquid or its gaseous forms, then he is perfectly and absolutely correct. Even though I have mentioned that it was done in the latest British Act, we are not seeking here to put in a Schedule which will list all isotopes and list particular levels. What is being sought here is to ensure that there is sufficient flexibility in this Bill to ensure that regulations can take account of the varying levels.

I do not think it would be very nice if the advice which the Minister had to get from his board was not advice about the particular levels of isotopes, which are permissible, but advice about the drafting of legislation and advice about how to draft a Bill in order to make it flexible. Certainly, I, as a Member of this House, would not like to be instructed on the way in which legislation should be drafted by a board consisting of nuclear engineers and health physicists, however eminent. There is a need for some flexibility here. It must be clear beyond any doubt that the level of radioactivity can be taken account of, whether it be in definition or whether it be in regulation. I would urge the Minister to look at this point between now and Report Stage.

I will certainly do that. We can wait to amend this.

It is much better to amend the Bill. Perhaps it is true to say, as Professor Jessop says, that we may have made things worse in making this all embracing but perhaps it is giving the board power to control everything whereas if we left it out they might have power to control nothing?

We will leave the amendment in and between now and Report Stage I will consider any additional amendment that may be necessary to meet the points made by Senator Dooge.

That is agreeable to me.

Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 3:
In subsection (1), between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following:
"‘substance' means a natural or artificial substance, whether in solid or liquid form or in the form of a gas or vapour, and includes a preparation or manufactured article or article which has been subjected to any artificial treatment or process;".

This amendment flows from what has already been decided and defines "substance". Again it was suggested by Senator Dooge on the Second Stage debate. The purpose of it is to define "substance" as meaning a natural or artificial substance whether in solid or liquid form or in the form of a gas or a vapour and includes a preparation or manufactured article, or article which has been subjected to any artificial treatment or process. It is following out the same line of reasoning put forward by Senator Dooge in regard to defining "fissile fuel" and "radioactive substances".

I think that the House, having agreed to amendment No. 2, should agree also to amendment No. 3. My curiosity, however, is aroused by the distinction which the parliamentary draftsman makes between a gas and a vapour.

A Senator

It is the difference between the Seanad and the Dáil.

I understood only three phases of matter were commonly accounted for: solids, liquids and gases and of course in modern times plasmas. Indeed, I would not be at all averse to talking about solids, liquids, gases and plasmas because of the possibility of having to cover fusion processes in the future but to make a distinction between gas and vapour is certainly a distinction which is not clear to me.

It is not clear to me either.

If the Minister is worried about the way in which the scientists are imposing on him in this way I should just like to draw his attention to the remarkable fact that the scientists now talk about four types of matter, which are solid, liquid, gas and vapour, and that these correspond largely to the four elements of earth, water, air and fire which were the traditional four elements on which the Greek philosophers first started to construct their philosophy.

The politicians should stay away from fire.

Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 1, as amended, stand part of the Bill".

I mentioned when we were discussing amendment No. 1 that there would be some difficulty in regard to the definition of nuclear reactor but if the decision is made to expand the Bill to cover fusion processes a definition is necessary here. There is another point, however, in regard to the definition of nuclear reactor that I should like to draw attention to. The definition as it stands is:

"Nuclear reactor" means a structure containing nuclear fuel and in which a self-sustaining and controlled process of nuclear fission can occur;

Now it is quite certain that, unless we have a self-sustaining and controlled process of nuclear fission we are not going to have a very economic power plant.

However, this Bill covers more than nuclear power plants. The Minister is perhaps misdirecting himself a little at times in thinking completely in terms of the application of the Bill to nuclear power plants. If we look at section 5, subsection (1), the Bill here talks of this board advising the Government on the acquisition of nuclear reactors for training or research purposes. In fact, there existed, and as far as I know still exists, nuclear reactors for training purposes which would not be covered by the definition in section 1.

Section 1 talks of a reactor in which there is a self-sustaining and controlled process of nuclear fission. Many research reactors are of such a nature that they can be moderated so that they operate at a sub-critical level. They will then never become dangerous. In these particular circumstances they need the presence of an active source all the time in order for them to operate at all. Such a reactor is probably covered by the definition, if it is possible at all for these moderating elements to be withdrawn, so that the training reactor could possibly reach a critical and self-sustaining reaction. However, there are also training reactors which could never become critical, sub-critical reactors which are always sub-critical and can never be anything else. If this is so I do not see how such a reactor could come within this definition because it is, by its very design, incapable of maintaining a self-sustaining reaction. If I am correct in this, then the new nuclear board would have no control over the acquisition or the operation of such sub-critical training reactors.

It may well be that the Minister would be satisfied with this position. It may well be that he would feel that, if such nuclear reactors are incapable of being modified so as to sustain a critical reaction, and therefore of being dangerous, there is no need to control them. However, it might be wiser if all nuclear reactors, all training reactors, even the very safest type—what the modern exponent of nuclear engineering might consider now as merely being a toy—did come under the scope of this particular legislation and under the control of the board. For this reason it might be as well if the Minister would take advice on the question of whether all sub-critical training reactors are covered by the definition, and if the definition could be easily modified to cover them.

I put it to Senator Dooge, as an expert in this field, do the subsequent amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 8 not meet the point of view expressed by him—I feel they do—where we seek to insert "or devices" after "substances" wherever "substances" appears, both in 5 (1) (c), 5 (2) (a) and 5 (2) (e)? That is the purpose of the amendments I put down. The Senator expressed this precise point of view on the Second Stage debate and I devised amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 8 to meet the point of view that the Senator has again expressed now.

Perhaps the Chair would allow me a moment to examine the effect of the point the Minister has drawn my attention to.

In the meantime I should like to ask a question about subsection (2). What does the word "provision" mean? Does it mean section?

Subsection (2) of section 1?

A section makes provision for something and it is in the section that the reference is found to the paragraph of the subsection. It is not in the provision, which is the effect of the section.

It means section in that context. I will have a look at that. I would take it to mean section.

I appreciate that the further amendments the Minister has drawn my attention to meet, to a large extent, the case in regard to the control of the operation of such sub-critical reactors. I had been directing my attention, in what I said a few moments ago, more on the effect of section 1 on section 5 (1) (a), where we are concerned with the question of the acquisition of these reactors. I may have things to say later on about the relation of the Nuclear Energy Board to the Higher Education Authority in regard to the acquisition of research reactors. I would hate that anything I should say at any stage of this Bill would indicate that the Government, or any of its agencies other than the Higher Education Authority, might interfere with the direction of development of research in university departments. Perhaps I had better say no more at this particular time on that point.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill."

On this section I have merely a small comment to make and that is to congratulate the Minister on the fact that, even though he is talking here in our first language of An Bord Fuinnimh Núicléigh, he has talked throughout this Bill on nuclear power. I had feared that we would never get away from the term atomic power which, of course, was essentially a misnomer because in all our fuel it is the chemical reaction between the atoms which give rise to the energy. It is in fact the great difference between atomic energy and nuclear energy as such, the energy released in the nucleus of the atom that makes nuclear power such a terrible and wonderful thing. Indeed, it looked as if the day was lost in regard to this nomenclature and I am glad the Minister has taken the more correct term here.

Could I just mention a small point on that? It is quite a simple point. As I read sections 2 and 3, this Bill does not, in fact, establish the body that is to be established by virtue of it. This Bill will come into operation and this body will be established when the Minister makes an order establishing it. If I am correct in that, then I think, it will not be a body within the list of persons who are qualified to acquire land under section 45 of the Land Act, 1965, and the Nuclear Energy Board would have to be added to that list by this Bill. Am I correct in that? The Minister might like to have a look at that.

It is a very valid point. I will certainly look at it.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill."

Section 4 deals with the general functions of the board. Indeed it is the very heart of the Bill. I hasten to assure the Minister that I do not intend to indulge in another Second Stage excursion in regard to it. However, I should like to make one comment. It is very welcome, very salutory, to find highlighted here in the general powers that not only is this a board which is being set up to advise the Government but, in paragraph (b), it is being told that it is not just to give any old advice it happens to have lying around but that this board is given the general function and the specific duty to keep itself informed of developments in nuclear energy.

This is welcome and I trust that when the Minister, under a later section, in consultation with the Minister for Finance, is providing the necessary funds for this particular board, he will keep in mind that this board requires not only sufficient funds to enable it to advise the Minister but sufficient funds to keep itself informed of developments in regard to nuclear energy, so that this advice is the best possible and the most up-to-date advice that is available.

I should like, also arising under this section, to ask the Minister a question. It is a general question which could be asked on many Bills in which the phrase occurs. What is the particular force of subsection (2): "...such other things as arise out of or are consequential on..."? One can, perhaps, accept that to give a person power to do something and not to do something which is a natural invariable and inescapable consequence of what they have been authorised to do already is perhaps admissable. I do not know if consequential is interpreted as being an inescapable consequence.

Certainly such other matters as arise seem to broaden the scope. We have in subsection (1) given this board very wide powers. We give them further specific powers in subsection (5). We also say they can do all such other things as arise by trying to do something and finding that this something cannot be classed as advising the Minister or as keeping themselves informed, but is something the board would like to do. Shall we say a temptation which arises out of their other activities? Does subsection (2) authorise them to yield to that temptation or how, in fact, is the scope of subsection (2) governed by the scope of subsection (1)? Is our only defence here the Statutory Instruments Committee? If they operate other than through statutory instruments is this an open-ended subsection?

As the Senator has stated, it is a usual provision in Bills of this kind where we are seeking to give powers to a new authority. One must make sure that they can function. It is an omnibus global provision, if you like. It is designed to cover mundane matters like renting offices and matters of that kind which may not be covered by some strict reading of sections 4 (1) (a) and (b) as to what the board are empowered to do under the subsections. As the House are well aware, it is a usual provision in Bills of this kind, where you are giving new functions and new powers, to make sure that a too tight legal definition of the powers which you give cannot be taken and it is quite clear that other practical matters can be dealt with which may be consequential on the major functions assigned to them.

I should like to ask the Minister, again on subsection (2), if the question of liability and insurance arises here? In section 5 the functions of the board are set out in great detail. I raised this on Second Reading last week. No mention is made in section 5 of the very complex problem of liability in the event of some nuclear catastrophy. Presumably the Minister intends this question to be dealt with by the board. Under which heading does this question of liability come? We are dealing in millions of pounds. Under which subsection does the Minister mean the board to deal with this?

That matter was raised by Senator West on the Second Reading debate. We do not think it is appropriate to this Bill, but it will have to be introduced. It may be introduced in another context, as an amendment to the Insurance Acts to ensure that this authority is clearly incorporated into the third party liability insurance scheme. It will involve an amendment of the existing insurance legislation rather than an amendment to this Bill. This is a matter involving international conventions as well. Third party liability in this field has been the subject matter of an International Convention, 1960, by members of the OECD and ratified by a number of countries. We will have to bring in legislation which will attach ourselves to that convention. It will be some kind of a separate Bill.

This is the point I raised on the last day regarding a general European or international convention. I presume that, even though liability is not mentioned in this Bill, the Minister will be taking the advice of the board formally or informally on this matter.

We are already working on such matters.

Arising out of the Minister's reply, do I understand correctly that we have not yet adhered to the OECD and other conventions in regard to this liability?

We have not adhered to that particular convention. As a follow on from this legislation we will obviously have to adhere to it and draft the appropriate insurance legislation that will adhere us to the convention in regard to third party liability, so far as nuclear energy problems are concerned.

In this context again may I ask if our non-adherence to this convention leaves us in the position of difficulties of claiming in the event of a major nuclear disaster in a neighbouring island which might affect us? If so, the Minister should not delay too long in adhering to the convention and should not wait too long for the advice of the Nuclear Energy Board.

You can take it that, since the introduction of the Bill, we have been pursuing this matter and the convention will be signed and the legislation drafted and brought before both Houses of the Oireachtas.

Question put and agreed to.

In view of the fact that there are only one or two points left on this, does the House think it would be advisable to sit on and finish this Stage now?

Could Senator Dooge give some indication as to how long he expects the Bill will take?

I would respectfully suggest that this is a Bill to set up a board. We have talked about its broad powers. We have not been talking about its special functions. We have not talked about its membership. We have not talked about its officers. I think it would be entirely inappropriate to carry on now. This would have the inevitable effect of putting pressure on Senators to telescope their remarks. It might be a bad headline for the treatment to be expected in the Seanad when a Minister does us the courtesy of introducing Bills here.

I have no objection. I though it might convenience Senators. I did not intend by any means to curb the discussion.

Business suspended at 6.05 p.m. and resumed at 7.30 p.m.

SECTION 5.

Government amendment No. 4:
In subsection (1), page 3, line 19, after "fissile" to insert "fuel".
Amendment agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 5, 6, 8 and 10 relate to the same matter and may be discussed together.

Government amendment No. 5:
In subsection (1), line 20, after "substances" to insert "or devices".

We have already discussed this matter as being related to a point raised by Senator Dooge on section 1, which is the definition section. He went a long way. He made particular points in his contribution to the debate on section 1 which may be relevant to possible improvement of the amendment between now and Report Stage. The inclusion of "or devices" does enlarge the definition.

I accept that the amendment which the Minister has produced does improve the section but, as usual, I have my doubts if it does fully the job it set out to do. The question turns on how broad a term "devices" is. One can certainly say that if we have such things as nuclear hair dryers in the future, one might refer to them as devices. Whether one could take the very substantial sub-critical reactor, which is what I was talking about earlier, as being a device is, I think, doubtful. The word "device" is not defined in the definition section so I take it we are driven back on other legislation or on the common meaning of the word "device". I would still be worried about whether "device" would include all of the things which should properly be included.

I am also a bit worried about whether the insertion here of the word "device" on its own, or the word "devices" on its own, is really sufficient. The section would read now: "Dealing with fissile fuel or other radioactive substances or devices and irradiating apparatus." I think we have a problem in construction here which will be quite as difficult as is the mathematical problem of removing brackets in an appropriate order. The word "device" indeed might in a certain sense here become too broad. Whether the word "device" being preceded by an "or" and followed by an "and" is sufficient to tie it into radioactive substances and make sure it is governed by "radioactive", is a matter, I think, of the legal construction. I wonder if it would not be safer to put in here "radioactive substances or radioactive devices" to make sure that no manner of construction here would in fact give to the word "device" such a meaning that it would include non-radioactive devices. I am not an expert on legal construction but when I do insert the words in the Minister's amendment this certainly comes to my mind.

The other point in regard to the amendment is the one which I mentioned earlier: the specific case of whether a sub-critical nuclear reactor, which is a most substantial thing— something which would need to be heavily shielded, something which is potentially dangerous but which cannot of its nature produce a self-sustaining reaction, cannot of itself produce isotopes, breed isotopes—whether in fact this is of such a nature that it would be covered by the term "devices".

The whole purpose of the use of "devices" is designed to cover precisely what Senator Dooge was talking about, because after he spoke on the Second Stage in this context, in which he recommended the incorporation of sub-critical nuclear reactors within the scope of the Bill, we took advice from a leading physicist and also from the draftsman and we married the views of the two, as it were—the scientific and the legal view. The joint view was that as it is now drafted in the amendment the phrase "or devices" does cover a sub-critical nuclear reactor.

My concern is not with the Minister's intentions, which are of the best, or with reckoning that he has not done well in marrying a nuclear physicist and a parliamentary draftsman. However, there are diriment impediments against certain marriages. The ability of the nuclear physicist and the parliamentary draftsman to communicate with one another might well constitute a diriment impediment against the production of meaningful legislation. Consequently, I find myself still with some doubts in this regard. I would just ask the Minister if he would perhaps have the question examined, whether it might not be better to make this doubly sure by examining once again this amendment in conjunction with the definition of "nuclear reactor" in section 1, because what I intended to do during the Second Stage was to suggest the broadening of the definition of "nuclear reactor". It may well be that this marriage is indeed one which can take place and it may well be one which in this case has been fully consummated and the fruit of the marriage may well be a meaningful sentence in this particular subsection.

I will certainly look into that and examine the Senator's views as now recorded.

I should be grateful if the Minister would.

Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 6:
In subsection (2), line 38, after "substances" to insert "or devices".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 7:
In subsection (2), line 57, after "fissile" to insert "fuel".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 8:
In subsection (2), line 57, after "substances" to insert "or devices".
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 5, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

I should just like to ask the Minister which section takes precedence, 4 or 5. As I read section 4, the board are given complete power to advise the Government, the Minister and any other Ministers, not only on nuclear energy but on matters connected therewith, whereas in section 5 (1), on two or three occasions this advice is only to be tendered on request. I am wondering what the Minister's argument is that if the board are given full powers to advise on everything connected with nuclear energy, what happens if they start giving this advice without being requested by the Minister under paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of section 5. Under paragraph (c), suppose they start advising some other Ministers of State about safety codes under section 4, and the Minister says: "I did not ask you." The two sections appear to me to contradict one another somewhat in that full wide powers are given.

I know section 5 begins to say "without prejudice to the generality", but that does not necessarily mean very much. If you have the generality then why make these other things subject to request by various Ministers? I would have thought that the board would have power under section 4 to do these things without waiting for a ministerial request and I would have thought that that was the wise way to have it. It does not prevent a Minister asking them to look into some matter that they may have overlooked or in something where he has not come across it, but I think it is particularly dangerous when you come to paragraph 5 (e). I would have thought it should be very much a function of the board to have relation to international agreements on nuclear energy and so on without waiting for the Minister for External Affairs to ask them would they have a look at it. Just what the precise intention behind this is I would be glad to hear from the Minister.

First of all, section 4 is the general functions section of course, giving overall status and power to the authority without any request or permission to advise the Government in paragraph (a), and to keep themselves informed of developments in nuclear energy and so on, in paragraph (b) of subsection (1). The point made by Senator Sheldon is that he has already anticipated it. I think he has not noted the start of section 5, "without prejudice to the generality of section 4". Apart from section 4, which gives the overall authority, there are specific functions given to the authority under paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) of subsection (1) of section 5.

Paragraph (a) concerns the Minister for Transport and Power and in that there is no "at the request of the Minister" clause to advise the Government. Paragraph (b) is "if so requested", because here, under the provision for the construction of nuclear power stations and all aspects of the installation, operation, and supervision of such stations, the ESB come into play for consideration and consultation. In paragraph (c), in regard to the preparation of safety codes and regulations, the Minister for Local Government is concerned. There is no request aspect written into paragraph (d); it is to promote knowledge, proficiency and research in nuclear science. That is absolutely their field. Paragraph (e) is, again, to advise the Minister for External Affairs and the Minister for Transport and Power regarding representation of the State on international bodies. The point I am making is that anywhere the phrase "if so requested" arises in regard to dealing with other bodies and other Departments already established who have a major or sole interest in this particular field, the differentiation is that we are giving in certain aspects complete power to the board to put forward to the Government any other aspects where they impinge on the functions of existing authorities and administrations. This can only arise on request. That is the purpose.

This is what I was afraid of. I was hoping the Minister would say that this is merely to draw attention to particular aspects but he is now going to say that these functions which are discharged on request under section 5 supersede the wide power given in paragraph (a) subsection (1) of section 4. This is what bothered me. I took it that once this wide power exists to advise the Government, the Minister and any other Minister of State, on nuclear energy and matters connected therewith, this is full power to advise without being requested at all and that what all this long tarradiddle in section 5 really meant was the sort of pious things you frequently get in Bills and Acts. They always begin "without prejudice to the generality" and then you find that none of them ever operates because they always rely on the generality anyway. I was hoping the Minister would say that it was drawing attention to certain aspects where other bodies would be interested and might nudge the board's elbow. If he is to take the stand that these supersede in some way the powers given under——

I did not say that. They do not supersede. It is desirable that where there are other authorities already established within the State there would be consultation between the board that would be established under this legislation and the existing authorities concerned, such as the Department of Local Government on the safety aspect.

I agree. I can see the sense of that. All I am anxious to secure is that it will not happen when the Bill becomes law. The board may not give advice to the Government on representation of the State on international bodies dealing with nuclear energy.

Section 4 is the superseding section.

That is all I wanted to be sure about.

If we take the example which Senator Sheldon has made, which comes under paragraph (e) of subsection (1) of section 5, that if the Minister appoints a representative on an international body without the advice of the board the board are perfectly free to advise the Minister that he is making a mistake——

Oh, yes. That is a practical example of what Senator Sheldon said.

I am not happy with section 5 at all. As I said on the Second Reading of the Bill, I think there are several contradictory features in this section. I should like to take them one by one. The most important is the fact that the board will be drawing up regulations for the safe running of the nuclear power station and also, of course, of other radioactive materials used in science or industry, but especially this deals with a nuclear power station. The board will be drawing up safety regulations and at the same time will be very much involved in advising the Minister on the actual running, the actual location, the actual installation and also, under subsection (2) (a), the supply of fuel for the station.

There are several incompatibilities that can arise. For example, the board will be interested in the cheapest possible fuel. It may not be the safest. What line do they take in this sort of case? I feel that these two items, in particular the safety function, should be the function of drawing up rules and making a code for the safe running of the nuclear station. It should be completely independent from the other functions of the board.

In the United Kingdom the bodies that make safety regulations are completely separate from the bodies involved in the actual running and installation of a nuclear station. This is very important not only for the board but because people naturally have a psychological fear of the unknown, in this case the problems associated with disaster if such a terrible thing should occur in a nuclear power station. It is very much a public relations exercise to see that not only the station is safe but that it should be seen to be safe. It will not be seen to be safe if the nuclear energy board are involved in these two incompatible functions.

There are various other ways in which the drawing up of a safety code can be regarded as incompatible with the functions of the board under subsection (1) (a), (b) and (c). One does not have to go into them all. The board are so much involved in the actual advice to the Minister on proposals of installation, location, supervision et cetera, that it will be very difficult to give advice on the two things which in some sense does not conflict. That is the first of the difficulties I see as far as section 5 is concerned.

The second is a less difficult one. It is the fact that the board will be operating on two completely different scales. They will be dealing with the macro scale involving large radiation units, terrific expenditure of money in a nuclear power station. They will be also involved in drawing up a completely different set of regulations for the small radioactive sources that one can carry around virtually in one's hand. They are used in science in universities, perhaps they will be used in schools shortly, certainly they are used in hospitals and in industry. These are two completely different things. We want to be clear that the board will have two completely different functions with respect to drawing up the codes to deal with large and small quantities of radioactive substances.

Also, I should like to mention subsection (2) (a). Because the board will be involved in the supply of fuel, they will presumably make some arrangement with the ESB. Whether it will be in the form of a contract or whether it will be some other arrangement, the board will be responsible for obtaining the fuel from outside this country. There may be political problems here. At the moment the United Kingdom obtains the bulk of its fuel from South Africa and this could cause a considerable political problem. Therefore, this is a difficulty which the board must face. I should like also to mention that the board are interested in the running of sub-critical reactors for training purposes. Again we want to keep this completely separate from the running of a reactor for commercial purposes. There is absolutely no possibility of combining these two functions in the same installation. In the first place the cost would be prohibitive, and in the second, safety regulations could not be drawn up to cover such an installation, so that the board must keep this very firmly in mind. There are two separate functions: the running of reactors for commercial purposes, for the production of power, and the running of sub-critical reactors for teaching or training purposes.

I should particularly like to hear the Minister's views on these points and especially on the safety one. Can this board be responsible for drawing up safety codes as well as advising the Minister on the running and installation of a station?

Níl ach cupla focal le rádh agamsa. Ní fisicí mé ach táim fada imbun na ndaoine ins na cúrsaí sin. I am particularly pleased with paragraphs (a) and (d) of subsection (1). They are of primary importance and indicate a very sensible approach to the whole question. The board shall have the following particular functions:

to advise the Government on the acquisition of nuclear reactors for training or for research purposes...

That is of paramount importance because we have many excellent budding physicists in this country and what they badly need is a chance, on the spot so to speak, on the site, to get the know-how and do the research that is necessary if they are to blossom forth as first-class men. The same idea is continued in paragraph (d):

to promote knowledge, proficiency and research in nuclear science and technology and to act as an agency for the collection and dissemination of information on matters relating to nuclear science.

That is of the greatest importance because so many people are confused if one mentions nuclear energy at the moment. They look at one and say "Has that something to do with the atomic bomb?" That is what is in people's minds. They seem never to advert to the fact that, if our coal and turf and oil supplies are in danger of disappearing within the foreseeable future, the Almighty has given us another source of energy. Therefore, these two paragraphs are very important and show much foresight on the part of those who framed them. Maybe it is not so strange that I find almost the identical wording here in this book published by the European Information Service, Europe and Energy, in connection with the European Economic Community and the six nations involved there. I quote:

With regard to nuclear energy the government are prepared to promote and intensify research and experimental work and foster the industrial development of nuclear energy in the Community in order that this new energy source may make its full contribution as soon as possible at economic cost to the coverage of the Community's energy requirements.

That is very enlightening indeed, especially in view of the fact that we have been knocking at the door and hope to be admitted to the European Economic Community. I commend the Minister and I commend the framers of these paragraphs.

Senator West raised a very valid point concerning the differentiation between the various categories of utilisation, as it were, to which nuclear energy can be put. You have the generation aspect, the health aspect, the teacher training aspect for which the sub-critical reactors are so important, you have the whole research aspect as well as the safety aspect. Therefore, you have a number of categories. The British have got around to making a separation between the safety aspect and the rest, as it were, in the form of two separate public authorities. It was only last year, 1970, that they set up a public authority called the National Radiological Protection Board to deal with protection and safety in regard to the effects of radiation and so on.

This has come a long number of years after they established their own Atomic Energy Authority. While I agree we may reach the stage here where we may have to do this, I think, at this early stage it would be putting the cart before the horse to start setting up separate authorities to cover the various fields involved. That we may develop into that situation in years to come is very likely, because there is an obvious separation, particularly between the medical safety side and the power generating side and the separation between each of these and the whole training, research and education side. For the present it is important that we realise precisely where we are. We are starting out on this field; we are bringing in initial legislation to cover the whole field and to set up a board of people who will be able to advise in an expert fashion on what should be done.

There is a certain urgency in the matter in so far as the ESB have already advanced considerably in developing positive plans for the erection of a nuclear power station. They have researched the matter and have had a team of people working on it. Therefore, this is going to become of practical importance next year. The medical side is already with us; the safety side will become of growing importance as we move further and further into this field. All of this will be within the compass of the board itself as they examine in the years ahead the progress of events in the various directions I have mentioned. But at this stage it would be rather fruitless to set up separate authorities, although I do agree with Senator West that we will arrive at a stage when this will be necessary. It is a question of timing. It will probably arise in five or ten years time but the immediate matter is to get this authority going, get the expert board appointed, get the personnel appointed and get the whole structure established. We can go from there on the lines of what has been said here by both Senator Dooge and Senator West. Undoubtedly the two Senators concerned have a very substantial knowledge in this particular field. They are raising points that I am certain will be considered by the board when we establish the board. There is no question about that. However, first things first. Let us get the board going first and then these matters will come up for consideration. Certainly, there will be legislation in the years to come along the lines mentioned by Senators.

What Senator Cranitch said is very true: that the particular phraseology here is in line with the general international phraseology in this particular field. I am concerned about the whole field of knowledge and training aspects. You might notice from the phraseology of this section that on this particular aspect the board have absolute power. There is no question of their being requested by any Minister in this particular field. So far as promoting knowledge or proficiency in research in this field of nuclear science is concerned, the board will be the agency for the collection and dissemination of information on matters relating to nuclear science. It is very important that this should be so because, in my view, it will be the great issue of the future. This particular form of energy that started off in a destructive manner will—if we organise it properly— emerge as the great constructive way to help mankind in the future.

The Minister has again adduced the argument that we might, perhaps, relax our scrutiny of this particular measure to some degree on the grounds that this is the first of a number of Bills. As soon as the board are operating, an amending Bill will be introduced. Perhaps I should explain to the Minister, in case he thinks we are being discourteous to him in continuing to scrutinise the Bill carefully, that we are conscious of the very severe limitations that a Member of the House is under when an amending Bill comes to the House. If, after two years, the board consider that, say, section 17 of this Bill— if it has a section 17—should be amended, we will have a Bill brought into this House to amend section 17. The Cathaoirleach, myself or whoever may be in the chair will use the Rules of the House to prevent Senator West from discussing section 5 under the amending Bill. We cannot assume that because an amending Bill is liable to come forward on some aspects of this —and what aspects it comes forward on are unknown; this is the very argument made by the Minister: that we cannot tell what recommendations the board would make with regard to amendment. If we cannot tell it then the only thing this House can do, at the first passage of a Bill, when every section is before it, and may not be before it again, is to scrutinise every section carefully. I just make this point now and I will leave it at that for the moment although I am not finished with section 5.

I was delighted to hear the Minister make the point that in the question of training and research the board would really have the authority and initiative to act independently of any Government request. In this regard I should like to refer to a point I made on the Second Stage discussion. I raised the question as to what relationship was envisaged, at this stage, in the research area between the board and the National Science Council which also have responsibilities in this area. I would be interested to hear any view the Minister may have in this matter because it seems to me to be important, particularly at a time when our investment resources in most fields are limited, that we should not have machinery handling requests in a particular area—in this case the area of scientific research—divided at the very start. It seems to me that there must be some argument for having the distribution of resources for scientific research under one body or, particularly if there is more than one body in one field, that we should be reasonably clear about the relationship between those bodies.

The other point I should like to make also relates to this business of the independence of the new board. On many occasions when we establish boards the Departments which will work most closely with the boards often seem very anxious to hold some control over areas which are to be vested in the new boards. Where subsection (3) is concerned, what exactly has the Minister in mind here? I noted that in subsection (2) "the Minister may from time to time by order assign to the Board" a series of functions. Again, in subsection (3):

Where in an order under this section the Minister prescribes conditions, the Board shall comply with such conditions.

I am not quite clear what the idea is behind subsection (3). It seems to me that, if the functions listed in subsection (2) are within the Minister's province to request the Board to deal with, surely that is all the control he needs in that area, without having conditions for dealing with particular functions? I may not be getting the point on this but I would be interested, from the point of view of clarity, in hearing the Minister's views on this point also.

I am glad it is the Minister's opinion that safety regulations may eventually be split off from the other functions of the board. As he said, this has just happened in Britain and I believe it is about to happen in the US; the Atomic Energy Commission are going to split. I would like to raise a further point in connection with the safety regulations. It is one of the things that the board will have to get on with straight away because I know that in placing the contract, which will obviously be placed with a firm outside this country, the regulations are needed as a stick to beat the contractor with. Regulations must be set down by a Government body so that the contractor can be forced to fit into these regulations, to fit into this code and to obey the rules that we set up to satisfy ourselves, giving the board, the ESB, or whoever is actually the body signing the contract, some control over the firm actually building the installation.

I doubt if anyone in the Seanad feels less possessed of nuclear energy than myself this evening. However, I thought that it might be no harm if I did express a view on this section. We are making law and it is true that, as the law stands, the judge cannot look, professionally at least, at what is said in Parliament as to what was intended. Therefore, the Minister says "is intended" with regard to sections 4 and 5 but this cannot be looked at by any judge who comes to construe what this Bill, when enacted, means. I would express the view, and invite other people who are affected, whether positively or negatively, by our qualifications, to consider how you construe the two sections together. I do not think that you can assume that the legislation was intended to have no meaning when it introduced the words "if so requested by a Minister of State" or "if requested by the Minister" and so on. In other words, it is probable if someone wanted to tabulate my view at the moment, that the words "without prejudice to the generality" should not, in fact, prevent the Minister in question from saying, if he got a piece of advice that he did not want to listen to, that, despite the generality of the powers of the board, he had to listen to it because the Legislature had gone on to particularise certain functions of the board, but had gone on to restrict the performance of these functions as being only possible to the board if requested by the Minister. We cannot here depend on what I am sure is a sincere ministerial assurance. We have to look at this piece of proposed legislation and see how it would be construed. I think it would be construed in relation to those paragraphs of subsection (1) of section 5, that in fact they would be prevented from doing the things which are allocated to them unless they were requested by the Minister in question, despite the fact that these particular functions are allocated to them without prejudice to the generality of section 4.

Might I, in supporting the general point made by Senator Sheldon and Senator Alexis FitzGerald, suggest that the Minister's intentions in this regard might possibly be better met if the drafting were somewhat along the lines that the board "may and if requested by the Minister shall", advise the Minister. This would leave it perfectly clear that the board may of their own volition, tender advice and also leave it that the board have no option but to tender advice which the Minister thinks it is necessary to have.

There is a little difficulty here in that there are specific functions residing in the Minister for Local Government, the Minister for Health, and the Minister for Labour. These are the three Ministers involved, apart from the ESB. The laws are there by virtue of statutory authority so we cannot breach the legislation that has established these particular Departments and State-sponsored organisations. That is the difficulty we are in and that is why I feel that the phrase "without prejudice to the generality" is open to enable the board, under section 4, to do pretty well the whole range of objectives set out in section 4, subsection (1) and subsection (2). Between these two subsections there is a total permission as far as the board is concerned, irrespective of what is said in section 5. This is, in effect, what I said in reply to Senator Sheldon. It has to be spelled out in section 5 in that manner by reason of the existing statutory functions residing in the particular Ministries and the State-sponsored organisations concerned.

I wish to come in again on this net point. The Minister has certainly clarified the issue, but clarified it to an extent which has almost horrified me. I had not realised what the Minister was going to do in regard the control of standards under the Bill. I had the impression that, with the possible exception of health, he was going to consolidate all of the controlling regulations in regard to radioactive substances. It would appear from what the Minister has just said that, whereas he said earlier to Senator West that we should have one body dealing with both nuclear installations and radioactive substances, we are going to have one body which deals with nuclear installations and part of the control of radioactive substances. We are to have three other bodies in the persons of the Ministers for Health, Labour and Local Government also controlling.

I cannot do anything about that. They are there at the moment.

The Minister could do something about it in this Bill.

Surely if we are to control radioactive substances, we should control them in a unified, coherent, logical manner?

Let us be practical about it. We are now setting up a new organisation. At the moment there are no staff, no personnel, no finance. This is all to flow from statutory authority which the Oireachtas will give to the establishment of such an organisation. At the present time there are existing Departments who have personnel, finance and statutory authority and who have division in their own fields.

But have no special expertise.

I mentioned this in my Second Reading speech and I should again like to emphasise that this is a new measure. We are starting out on a new endeavour. We are setting up a new organisation. There are existing organisations within the State who are impinging on this field already and have the staff, finance and statutory authority. We just cannot, by a single legislative stroke of the pen, wipe out these organisations and set up a new authority. This new authority must first be set up, got under way, and then we can have what has been mentioned by Senator Dooge just now and what has been mentioned in other contexts. Within the next few years, I, or whoever is in my place, will be here before the Oireachtas bringing forward a measure dealing in a more comprehensive way with this whole matter. There is no point in setting up legislation for the sake of setting up legislation unless there is a practical apparatus at hand. There is no practical apparatus at hand here. We are setting up legislation and from the legislation will flow the practical apparatus. From that will develop the ideas from which will germinate a new legislative measure comprehending many of the points put forward here by the Senators. There is no point in setting up automatically an organisation which, in fact, cannot work because you have existing statutory powers, existing Departments and existing organisations who are already advanced in various areas of this particular field. What I am proposing in this Bill is no more and no less than the establishment of an authority that can advise me and advise the Government and set about the whole co-ordination of this field. We can then co-ordinate the work that is being carried out by the ESB at present; the work that is being done by the Department of Labour on the safety side, the Department of Local Government on the same side, the Department of Health on the health side and by the various universities as well, on the research and clinical side.

So we have set up an organisation to advise me on how best all of this can be co-ordinated—how to organise it. This is a matter that must be approached step by step and I should like the Seanad to see it in that perspective. That is in answer to Senator Dooge.

With respect, that is no answer to what Senator Dooge has said. It is true, as the Minister has said, that in his Second Reading speech he had regard to the fact that these things were dealt with at the moment by the Minister for Local Government in certain aspects, by the Minister for Health in other aspects and by the Minister for Labour in yet other aspects. I took it that the Minister was describing the mess he was going to clear up and not a mess he was going to perpetuate. The whole point in having special legislation in regard to radioactive substances is that they are peculiar substances needing special treatment. At the moment, because there is no legislation of this type it is necessary for health inspectors to be charged with certain additional duties. Because there is no legislation of this type, the Minister for Labour has to use powers and authority that were designed for other purposes to cover the unloading of radioactive materials at the docks—the transport of radioactive materials. I said somewhat facetiously on the Second Stage that I was sure we would meet our friend, the alkali inspector, before the debates were over. Here we are now meeting him apparently as someone whom the Minister thinks is expert enough to still carry on the monitoring of possible radioactivity after we have a nuclear reactor and a nuclear power plant installed in the country. The Minister says that there is already statutory authority and that there are already staffs dealing with it. There are persons dealing with it as part of far greater responsibilities. There are persons dealing with it because there was nobody else to deal with it and it was tacked on to their work. These people have the authority but, as I have interjected, they have not the expertise. If a proper job is to be made of the control of radioactive material from the day it is landed at our ports or airports until the day when the spent fuel is reexported, it is necessary that this be done under a single authority.

If one reads the debates which took place in the House of Commons on several Bills in connection with the control of radioactive substances in Britain, there was one point on which all members there were united, and quite a number of these members were speaking with special knowledge. It was this: there was a welcome for the present dispensation in Britain whereby the principle is adopted of one single national authority to deal with radioactive substances. The Minister says that it is hardly possible to do it under this Bill. Surely it is possible to do it under the Bill? Surely it is possible to state that the Minister may make an order at any time which will transfer to the new nuclear board and to its inspectorial staff along with their other functions the functions now performed as an appendage to their other functions by inspectors in the Department of Local Government, in the Department of Health and in the Department of Labour? From the point of view of the control of radioactive substances, this Bill will be a bad one if the Minister only uses it to fill in certain gaps in regard to the control of radioactive substances. Therefore, I would urge the Minister that he should, if necessary, discuss with his colleagues the question of putting in a section here which would allow him, even at some future date, to transfer these functions to where they belong within the expert organisation—the organisation that will have the expert knowledge on the monitoring and control of these substances.

I should like to strongly back Senator Dooge in what he says about this single authority. It is absolutely vital. Obviously, changes and amendments will have to be made to this Bill, but we do want the Nuclear Energy Board to get off to a really good start; there is no point in doing it if it does not get off to a good start. Otherwise, our work is going to be wasted. This means that the Minister has to give this board teeth; he has to give them the control over the radioactive substances during the passage of these substances through this country. If the board are set up and are hamstrung by relations with other bodies, the whole point of having a nuclear energy board vanishes. If there was an amount of inter-play between the Nuclear Energy Board and other authorities, the only person who would be fit to sit on the board would be the legitimate offspring of the draftsmen and physicists who were discussed earlier in the debate. I would make a very strong plea to give the board the teeth and the authority to deal with the whole of the nuclear problem, when it arises. This is apart from the radioactive substances which are in the country at the moment. With the problem of a nuclear generating station it is necessary to give the board the authority to deal with the problem in its entirety. This is absolutely vital if we are going to have a nuclear energy board that is to function at all well.

We are often accused in the Government of bringing in legislation without consultation, that is, legislation that is too directive and too regulatory. I am in the situation where I am bringing in a Bill that is designed to ensure that we ease into a situation where we will have a single authority to deal with nuclear energy generally, and all its facets that have been discussed here in the Seanad, by a gradual process of consultation and fusion of the various interests and agencies already concerned with it. This is a sensible approach. If you set up, by legislation, a nuclear energy board, per se, I do not see what particular purpose can be achieved by it. The logical thing to do is to set up the board, give them the sort of functions that we have under section 4, where, as their general function, they would advise the Government, the Minister and any other Minister of State, on nuclear energy and matters concerned with it; under (b) of the same subsection they would have to keep themselves informed of developments; and under subsection (2) to do anything consequential on that. There is a wide-ranging general power vested in the board under that section.

Then, under section 5, subsection (1) there are absolute powers vested in the board, without the request of any Government Minister, to advise the Government on the acquisition of nuclear reactors for training or research purposes—that is under (a) of subsection (1). Under paragraph (b) they have the function to advise the Minister, if requested, and rightly so, on the construction of nuclear power stations. Again, the ESB are involved here in a very active way, and there has to be co-ordination between the ESB and the nuclear energy board and the Minister in regard to such construction. Paragraph (c) is very properly a link up between the board and the Departments of Local Government and Labour, who are concerned with safety codes and regulations. Under (d) they have total and absolute power themselves in a field which would be particular to themselves to promote knowledge of efficiency and research, nuclear science and technology; then under (e) they are linked up again with the Minister for External Affairs.

This all makes sense to me. They are all existing agencies where they have to co-ordinate; where they do not have to co-ordinate with an existing agency, they have absolute powers to go ahead. Then under section 4 they have the overall general power to proceed. Furthermore, under subsection (2) of section 5 you have very strong power— Senator West talked about teeth— where "The Minister may, from time to time, by order, assign to the board the following functions". The Minister may, under subsection (2) (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e), assign absolutely basic arrangements and responsibilities for the operation of supply of fissile fuel or such other radioactive substances or devices, the responsibility for the safe custody of such fuel and disposal of radioactive waste products, responsibility for the safe operation of nuclear power reactors, the safety of the public, responsibility for the safe operation of nuclear training reactors and performance of functions mentioned in paragraph (b) ranging from control, custody, use, manufacture and importation et cetera of radioactive substances and/or devices. If you want teeth I cannot see what more teeth you can give to the board or give to the Bill than you see incorporated under subsection (2) of section 5. I should like to say again to the Seanad that there is no point in passing legislation that cannot be effective.

We have fully discussed this whole matter with all the people already in the country who are concerned with nuclear energy. This Bill has been the result of mature deliberation with all interests concerned, both academic and professional. It has been done after consultation with the International Atomic Energy Agency who approved fully of the Bill as the right way to approach the matter and they are the leading people in the world on the matter. We have had full discussion with the National Science Council on the matter. They are quite happy about the position. One must get down to a sense of reality about these matters. What the Bill is designed to do is to make a start on this matter. You do not make a start on a matter of this kind by sitting on top of interests; you make a start on a matter of this kind by consulting with interests internally and taking the advice of people externally who have experience of it. As I have said, we have discussed with the International Atomic Energy Agency, discussed with and examined the various types of organisation and types of administration that have been established elsewhere throughout the world. We feel that in our circumstances this is the way to go about it for a start. It is nothing more and nothing less than that. We cannot make a wrong start. It is designed to make a right start.

I simply would not like to ask the Minister to comment, as he has not done, on the point I have made that in terms of law the courts must give some meaning to the words "if so requested" and that the meaning which the courts are likely to give to these words is that the only reason for these words being there is that they cut down the ability of the board to do things thereby particularised.

That would be my view of what the law would be on this but I am speaking simply as a Senator and I can be very wrong on that. In practice if the Minister receives representations from the board of the views of international bodies on paragraph (e) dealing with nuclear energy, is not his obvious response, the advised response, going to be "But you have not been so requested by me"? If this is not his response, not likely to be or intended to be his response, may I suggest the deletion of the words—or, in due course acceptance of the amendment proposed by Senator Dooge—"if so requested". The Minister did not deal with this point.

I do not think the general functions set out in section 4 are paramount. There is merit in what Senator FitzGerald says on "if so requested by a Minister of State" as it arises in subsection (1) (b), (c) and (e). It would make for cleaner drafting and cleaner administration under the board.

I go a certain bit of the way with the Senator in this respect. Subsection (e), as regards the Minister for External Affairs, must remain: we are dealing there with external arrangements. Similarly, under subsection (2) (a): that would apply as well. In each case, we are dealing with external arrangements and the Minister for External Affairs would have to stay there. I do think a reasonably valid case has been made by the Seanad in regard to subsection (1) (b) and (c) and if a deletion can be made in both of these cases I would feel I should be going some of the way. I will examine whether or not we can delete these.

I am grateful to the Minister for that. On looking at paragraph (e) the Minister will find the request is not in fact a request to come from the Minister for External Affairs: it is a question of a request which presumably is coming from the Minister for Transport and Power—to advise the Minister and the Minister for External Affairs. The Minister for External Affairs is not being given any statutory obligation to make a request here.

That is right. The same applies to subsection (2) (a). The criticism of the section really arises in regard to paragraphs (b) and (c) of subsection (1). Is not that right? They are the ones with which I propose to deal, that is, to the other ministerial request in regard to (b) and (c).

Paragraph (d) should go. However, the Minister will have time to think it out.

I shall work on that between now and Report Stage.

I am grateful to the Minister.

Still on section 5, subsection (1) (a), I should like the Minister, in the light of this paragraph, to inform us whether, firstly, the intention and, secondly, the effect, of this paragraph, would be to restrict advice, in regard to reactors for training and research purposes to advice tendered to the Government. It seems to me that, in the matter of research reactors, a body such as the Higher Education Authority, now being born, in another place, might well be very thankful, for advice from a body, such as the Nuclear Energy Board, on questions of the purchase of research reactors.

It would seem to me, on a first reading of this paragraph, that the board can advise the Government. Furthermore, it would appear that it can advise the Government on whether or not the Government should acquire a research reactor. This might well be construed as indicating that they could not advise anybody else on the acquisition of a research reactor. In the report, published in 1958, by the Atomic Energy Committee here on the purchase of a research reactor, the majority of the members suggested that a research reactor should be operated within a particular university department; certain other members signed a minority report that it should be operated by the Nuclear Energy Board itself. However, it would appear, on a first reading of this paragraph, that there is a possibility of the Government itself acquiring, operating and supervising such a reactor because, under this paragraph, the Government can seek the advice of the Nuclear Energy Board.

Yes. That could happen. It is to cover that eventuality.

My concern would be that it is confined to this— it is confined to advising the Government. Does this preclude advising the Higher Education Authority, or any other body?

I do not think the Senator has read the subsection properly. Subsection (1) (a) reads:

to advise the Government on the acquisition of nuclear reactors for training or research purposes.

That is global. It covers the acquisition of such reactors for training and research purposes, in my reading of it, by any body such as the Higher Education Authority, such as any university or other academic institution or any type of scientific or other institution or firm, or any body, any agents, you like to think of. The acquisition by the Government of such reactors and all aspects of their location, installation, operation and supervision are, I think, two separate matters.

I would be happy if the High Court agreed with the Minister on that. I am somewhat worried about a degree of ambiguity in this regard.

Perhaps we could tighten up the draft.

I think perhaps we could take a look at it.

Perhaps if it were something like "to advise the Government and any statutory bodies concerned on the acquisition of nuclear reactors for training and research".

We can tighten up the drafting between now and Report Stage.

It is a point that might well be looked at. In conclusion, I might say that in particular the function of the Higher Education Authority, the function of the National Science Council mentioned earlier by Senator Keery are very much concerned with the question of fostering centres of excellence in different spheres of research. This council and the Higher Education Authority would be concerned. Rather than have advice coming to the Government, who might then have to turn to the other bodies for further advice on this, it might be well if this Nuclear Energy Board plus the National Science Council plus the Higher Education Authority were to come together at an early stage and either jointly or separately advise the Government.

That would be wise, certainly.

Section 5 (1) (c). This, I think, can be read with section 6. I revive my anxiety which arose when we were discussing this question of requesting by Ministers in regard to the question of regulation. I understand from the Minister that he intends to delete, if there are no serious objections, "if so requested by a Minister of State" from paragraph (c) but I would urge him to go further: I would express the hope that it is not too late to examine the question of having one authority controlling. I would particularly direct the Minister's attention to the radioactive substances Bill in the House of Commons in 1969 and in particular the report of the working party which formed the major part of the White Paper on which that Bill was based. Both in that working party report and in the discussions in the House the principle of one single authority was taken as a paramount principle for the efficient operation. Let us learn by Britain's mistake. It is not enough to say that Britain only did this after ten years of experience. Britain did it after ten years of experience, acknowledging that a mistake had been made in not doing this at an earlier stage. I would ask the Minister to look carefully at that between now and Report Stage.

I see a situation in which we move into the sort of sole authority field mentioned by Senator Dooge. At this stage I will meet the views expressed by the Seanad by making the deletions which I think are valid—the various requests by anybody else. I will delete these on Report Stage so as to give more clear power and more authority. On the practical aspects of launching straight away into taking over all personnel and functions and statutory operations at the moment carried on by other personnel and sections of other Departments and organisations in this field, I do not think the time is ripe yet. We have sufficient power under sections 4 and 5 to lead to a situation where this will happen. It will undoubtedly happen when we start developing in this field to a greater extent, as we will be very shortly. I feel that that is the best way to go about it. There is no point in setting up an absolute authority in the present time incorporating everybody engaged in this field unless there is something to do. What I want to do is to set up an authority that can advise me on what it can do and how it should be constituted to do what needs to be done. It is a pragmatic approach, but I think it is the most practical way to go about it.

Might I clarify what I said in asking the Minister to look at this. I am not necessarily asking him, though I might think it the proper thing to do, that this board should, from the very first day, deal with everything. Rather I am asking him to consider something that I mentioned earlier: that he might provide in this Bill for the transfer of functions by order at a particular time. The Minister seems to think that the present position is adequate. I might ask him what are the safety codes and regulations which now deal with radioactive substances? What are these codes that the Minister is content to rely on and leave to be operated by his colleagues?

I am not quite certain if they are adequate or not. This is precisely why I want to establish this board. I am giving this board sufficient power under sections 4 and 5 to advise me as to their inadequacy or otherwise. This is what the whole purpose behind the establishment of this board is. I am not competent at this stage to advise the House on their adequacy. I am quite certain there are many faults and flaws. It is up to such a board as this, with full authority, full expertise, to deliberate, make decisions, come forward with the appropriate recommendations, and they have the authority to do that under sections 4 and 5. Then, after a period, having ascertained that in the whole field, we can examine the situation and incorporate into legislation the type of authority which the Senator is recommending.

I appreciate the Minister's view here but I cannot help thinking when I look at the particular document in my hand at the moment: the report of the Radioactivity Consultative Council established by the Minister for Health. This council reported in February, 1959, which was 12 years ago. I mentioned on the Second Stage that as far as I was aware the draft health regulations have not yet been enacted by the Department of Health.

That is why we want this Bill.

But why do you want this Bill? My argument is that a Department which 12 years ago, received from an expert committee draft regulations which covered all that required to be covered but has not yet made an order putting these regulations into force does not give a high priority to the matter.

Surely the Senator will appreciate that that highlights the need for precisely the measure which is here before us?

It highlights the need for removing the Department of Health from the control of radioactive substances. A Department which has waited 12 years may wait another 12 years. I suggest that neither the Department of Local Government nor the Department of Labour have shown concern. To give them their due, they have made certain efforts. They have done certain things. They have assigned certain duties as a very small part of larger duties. They have not shown themselves concerned: they have not shown themselves competent. The Department of Health got expert advice. Not merely was there a recommendation that regulations be made but there were 35 specific regulations. To leave those without bringing them into force for 12 years would at least justify in this Bill a section which would allow the transfer to the new board of the powers the Minister for Health has under the 1953 Act in regard to radioactive substances. These were put into the 1953 Act, as can be seen from the debate, because these substances were becoming important and there was no other way of controlling them. The Minister now has a way of control.

Give us time.

It is rare that Members of the Opposition should urge the Minister to operate by regulation instead of coming back for fresh legislation. The Minister is being extremely foolish in this regard in not inserting here, in the fundamental statute, the power to transfer, step by step if he likes—rapid step by step, I would hope —the powers from those authorities to whom they are a nuisance and a burden at the moment.

We can do a lot under section 2.

Under subsection (1) (d) the Minister proposes that the board should have the particular function without prejudice to its function to keep itself informed. Under section 4 (1) (b) it has the particular function to promote knowledge, proficiency and research in nuclear science and technology and to act as an agency for the collection and dissemination of information on matters relating to nuclear science.

How does the Minister see this being operated? There are many ways in which it could operate. One way would be that the Nuclear Energy Board should advise the Minister, unrequested or requested, to the effect that all nuclear research should be carried out directly under the board's own agency. It might well be able to produce arguments to show that this would be marginally more economic, marginally less costly to the Government, than if this were perhaps spread among two or three other centres of research. Nevertheless, as Senator Cranitch said earlier and as has been said on the Second Stage of this debate, one of the benefits of the development under this Bill is that the knowledge gained should be diffused among the whole of our scientific and technological community. If we look at the paragraph a little closely we shall see it is one of the ones in which they do not advise: they go ahead and do it rather than just advise the Minister that it should be done.

There may perhaps be a danger that the board would in its enthusiasm— let us hope its members and its officers are enthusiastic about their job—push forward with research under its own direct aegis and might tend to weaken the research efforts, the educational efforts, of the physics and engineering departments in our other institutions of higher learning and research. There may be a difficulty in this regard. I do not know if the Minister has any views as to the extent to which—in acting under this paragraph for promoting knowledge, proficiency and research— it should be carried out. If it is interpreted not as direct action, not as direct research, not as a direct search for knowledge, but rather that it should promote research by giving financial support, if necessary, to research workers in other institutions, then I think the need for co-ordination with the National Science Council may well become a very difficult problem and the point made by Senator Keery is highly relevant to this paragraph. I would, therefore, ask the Minister to give us the benefit of his views on this point.

Might I make a small point in relation to the dissemination of information? I would underline that it will be of extreme importance that information be disseminated as quickly as possible among academic institutions. Let me give an example of something which I think has happened already: I could not find the reference to the title of the body in my notes. I understand that recently, in connection with our developments in this field, Ireland became a member of the International Atomic Energy Commission. This is an example of something where, immediately, scholarships may be available for the training of Irish scientists, and so on, through this agency. This is an example of what may occur more and more as the Nuclear Energy Board makes contacts with other institutions and other countries. It is particularly important, in this matter of scientific research and scientific awards, that people should get as early notice as possible of what is available. Often, it takes a lot of time to draw up a research programme for submission for an award. In other fields, other agencies handling news of scholarships and matters of this kind available in other countries, are often rather slow in passing on the message to our academic institutions. Often, because of this, I fear opportunities are lost which might otherwise be available. It is important that the board should make sure that its officers act quickly and effectively in the quick dissemination of information, particularly the type of information to which I have referred.

The subsection is designed precisely to deal with the problem raised by Senator Keery. We would hope the board would act as an overall co-ordinator in this whole field and in so doing would not impinge on the activities, referred to by Senator Dooge, already being carried on in the various university colleges in Dublin, Cork and Galway. Indeed, in the Agricultural Institute, considerable work has been done on the various techniques in which radioactive tracers are used in the development of progress of nutrients in soils and plants. This is a very widespread work, so far as the whole biological area is concerned, in regard to the control of disease and pests. The Institute for Industrial Research and Standards is also involved in this field and, of course, as has been mentioned already, the National Science Council.

The whole purpose of setting up this board and, in particular, the purpose of subsection (1) (d) is to ensure that knowledge is promoted, research is promoted, in nuclear science and technology and that you have an overall agency for the collection and dissemination of information on matters relating to nuclear science. This matter has been discussed with all the bodies I have just mentioned, all the university bodies and the non-university bodies who are already concerned with this field. They feel there is a lack of back-up information on the whole field of nuclear science. They welcome, in particular, this subsection as providing them, as it were, with the basic library of information and basic research to which all of these bodies, in their varying interests, can go for the information required or the basic research required. That is why this section has been put in here. There is no question of taking over the various institutions concerned. It is a question of coordinating their work and providing a basic source of research and information from which they can draw. This is the primary purpose of this subsection.

The Minister has shown in his reply here that his attitude towards how the board might operate under this is, indeed, a proper one. There is a function which it can discharge very well in regard to co-ordination and in regard to being the link between scientists and technologists working in this country and those working in this particular field in other countries.

With regard to the specific problem mentioned by Senator Keery about the availability of scholarships, I think this underlines, once again, the need for co-operation, particularly with the National Science Council. I might mention, with approval, the publication recently circulated by the National Science Council which draws together, under one cover, the various postgraduate scholarships available to Irish students. This will be, from now on, the standard reference for students and their advisers in this regard. The essential thing is that any scholarships of which the Nuclear Energy Board becomes aware should be included in this standard compilation rather than be the subject of a second circular which might well not reach as wide a body as would be reached by this particular publication of the National Science Council which I think will be the authoritative reference for those who wish to investigate what financial support is available for research work in different fields.

Under subsection (1) (e), the Minister has mentioned that we have become members of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Is this the only agency? What are our relations with the European Nuclear Energy Association? Have we any relations with what was Euratom, the branch of the EEC concerned with atomic energy?

The situation here is, at the moment, that as a member of the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD, we are members of their Atomic Energy Division. The Senator referred to the——

——European Nuclear Energy Agency. We are members of that, as members of OECD. We have also recently become members of the overall world-wide International Atomic Energy Agency. Euratom, of course, is part of the EEC. We hope to become members of that shortly.

How does this leave us in regard to the central research being done at CERN? We had some informal connections with them; I do not know if they have been formalised.

That is an ENEA body.

Have relations been formalised?

Yes. They have been formalised with the ENEA, the European Nuclear Energy Agency.

In regard to our membership of these bodies, has the Minister for External Affairs, or the Minister, yet nominated any representatives to these bodies?

I do not know that. It is primarily an External Affairs function. They have delegated this to us and we have nominated some ESB personnel for attendance at seminars under ENEA and other international bodies. I might say that the ESB, as far as personnel are concerned, are the most advanced people in this field because of the practical application with which they have had to deal. This practical application has led to the situation where they hope, next year, to start actual——

It is a priority problem.

They are the most advanced people in this field. We have delegated this task to them, so far.

There is the point about CERN. CERN does a lot of high energy research which would not be of any interest to the ESB. There might be a point at which the Nuclear Energy Board would want to delegate a high energy physicist or somebody like that who would not be within the ranks of the ESB.

There is no question about this. Again, the Senator has touched on one of the purposes of the Bill which is to do precisely just this. Heretofore, it has been done on an ad hoc basis by External Affairs and Transport and Power utilising the ESB because the priority was to get a nuclear generating station off the ground. The whole purpose of the Bill is to ensure that this wider view will be taken of the whole situation, within the ambit of authority such as this.

On subsection (2) (a), in regard to the question of supply of fissile fuel, which was mentioned by Senator West earlier, this is a problem that might well have political implications. This paragraph suggests that the Minister, in regard to this, should make decisions only in agreement with the Minister for External Affairs. This is proper in regard to any importation of this nature. However, the political implications of uranium have tremendously influenced the world. The existence of uranium in Czechoslovakia has been cited as a very formative factor in the recent political history of that country. As Senator West has mentioned, many of Britain's actions may well be explicable only in terms of the fact that the vast proportion of her uranium supplies are to come from South Africa.

This problem of fissile fuel is so fraught with complications that this might be a matter which would require Government decision. One could say that, under ordinary circumstances, it would be sufficient to consult the Minister for External Affairs and that he would have the good sense to know when the matter should go for Government decision. However, there is a point in this regard. If we adhere to the European Economic Community, have the members of the Community a common policy for the purchase of fissile fuel? Would we be constrained, as members of the EEC, in regard to the markets in which we might purchase fissile fuel?

There is a defence link-up here as well so far as the EEC is concerned but they have a common policy in this regard. It is envisaged that the board, or the ESB as licensed by the board, or the Minister would acquire fissile fuel. Only safeguarding arrangements need to be agreed with the International Atomic Energy Agency. This point was raised again on the Second Stage. It touches on the point just raised by Senator Dooge.

There are difficulties in regard to the supply situation of fissile fuel. One of the attractions of nuclear fusion is that the dependence will be much less when we get into the area of nuclear fusion. There is a certain dependence at present but it is not as uncertain as the dependence which exists at the moment in western Europe on oil.

The Minister spoke of the fuel as being bought by the board or of the ESB licensed by the board. I do not see anything about licensing in paragraph (a). What will be the legal position? It seems, from paragraph (a), that the Nuclear Energy Board must buy the fuel.

Look again at section 6.

Will the board then have to sign a contract with the ESB?

If the Senator will look at section 6 he will see that the Minister may, after consultation with other Ministers or organisations, regulate, restrict or prohibit, save by licence issued by him or by the board—that is, the ESB board—the custody, use, manufacture, and so on, of substances and apparatus. The function of acquiring fissile fuel would be delegated if necessary. Obviously, the ESB would require it for power purposes.

In paragraph (b) there is a point I should like to raise concerning responsibility for the safe custody of fissile fuel. It may well be, arising from what has emerged from discussing the last paragraph, that, in fact, the fissile fuel would be purchased, imported, under licence by the ESB. How would the Nuclear Energy Board discharge its responsibility for the safe custody? What steps would it take? Certain amounts of fissile fuel may be imported by the ESB under licence. Other radioactive substances may be imported directly by the Nuclear Energy Board. How will the Nuclear Energy Board discharge its liabilities under paragraph (b) in regard to fuel directly imported and to fuel imported under licence?

That is set out under section 5 (2) (b). The responsibility for the safe operation of nuclear power reactors, in so far as the safety of the public, whether in the State or elsewhere, is likely to be affected by such operation: this is what I can assign to the board by way of order. Much of this is in the process of being done, on an international basis, by the International Atomic Energy Commission. Our adherence to any conventions they may prepare will mean that the international safety regulations that will be agreed to by us, by way of convention, will be world-wide safety regulations. They will apply here as elsewhere and will be enforced by the board.

Are we in the same position in regard to material directly imported by the board?

By this board.

Yes, the Nuclear Energy Board. While the Minister's attention is naturally directed to the operations of the ESB and the nuclear power plant, this is not the whole of the Bill and it is not the whole of the matter covered by the Bill. If we find the Nuclear Energy Board importing such materials, transporting them— which may well be the critical point of the operation — to the places where they are to be used, we have the difficulty here that we may find the board monitoring itself. We may be into the question of quis custodiet ipsos custodes.

This point was raised by Senator West earlier on.

I think it is a particular illustration of it.

The British have just done this — only last year. Let us face it, the British have been doing this for some years now. It is only last year that they have brought in this separation of powers as it were. I am certain that, as we develop in this field, similar legislation will be necessary. It is a little premature, until we get the situation moving properly, to start setting up separate boards, and so on. If we get this board established, get it moving; have its advice available, then, at a certain stage, when we are more in the nuclear energy field, as it were, the aspect of setting up a separate safety authority will certainly arise.

I take it the Minister's point is that these matters will crop up in the future. On one reading, it seems to me that, as an alternative possibility, particularly should we enter the EEC, these problems may, in a sense, be taken out of our hands. As I understand the White Paper on Membership of the European Community, and Chapter 13 dealing with membership of Euratom, pages 94 and 95, it seems that, by virtue of membership of Euratom, we would, in effect, be subject to the Euratom regulations regarding safety and monitoring. Paragraph 13.5 of the White Paper also covers the supply of the fuel and indicates that the Euratom Supply Agency would have the exclusive right to conclude contracts for such materials originating within the Community or outside it. Many of the problems in which Senators on all sides of the House are interested may, in fact, largely be taken out of our hands and dealt with on an international basis.

I have already said that we are members of the International Atomic Energy Commission. This is the world-wide agency concerned with safety regulations in regard to the use of nuclear energy reactors and so on. Their regulations are on all fours with the Euratom regulations. Therefore, there will be no change, as far as we are concerned. On entering Europe, we will be according with safety regulations that are now generalised throughout the world and international organisations to which we now belong have these regulations. This board will ensure that these safety regulations of international obligation status will operate here. There will be no difference between these same regulations and Euratom regulations which will operate when we enter EEC.

When I asked about the possibility of licensing the ESB to purchase fuel in a situation in which we are not in Europe, the Minister said this was covered under section 6. I have in mind here section 5 (2) (a). The Minister referred to section 6 (1). The actual language used there is not quite clear, but I shall raise that when section 6 comes up. Going on to section 10, there is a problem about any company with which the board makes a contract. Is the agreement the board will make with the ESB in any sense a contract? It would certainly cause problems if it was.

No. This would be a licence arrangement.

This is a licence to purchase. What I want to establish is that there is no sense in the board purchasing the fuel and then selling it to the ESB.

There is no question of that, they will be two public concerns working together.

Referring to what Senator Dooge was speaking about, section 5 (2), paragraph (b)—responsibility for safe custody—would that include transport?

Yes, it would; paragraph (e) makes that clear—distribution and transportation.

I take it that the House will not disagree if I propose to discuss paragraphs (c) and (d) together. The Minister mentioned earlier that the question of indemnity in the event of a nuclear incident or a nuclear disaster will be the subject of special legislation. Accordingly, much of what we might say in regard to that is perhaps best left until that legislation comes before us. Nevertheless, the liability under such legislation might well be affected by the wording of paragraphs (c) and (d) because here it is said that the responsibility for the safe operation of a nuclear power plant and for the safe operation of a nuclear training reactor may be assigned to the Nuclear Energy Board. Would this mean that, in the event of the necessity to pay an indemnity in the case of a nuclear incident or a nuclear disaster, payments which would have to be made once we adhere to the OECD conventions, would, by placing this responsibility firmly on the Nuclear Energy Board, become the responsibility of the board rather than the responsibility of the Electricity Supply Board, or of the institution that was operating the nuclear training reactor?

Except that it is an enabling subsection. Under subsection (2) "The Minister may from time to time by order assign to the Board the following functions..." In assigning such functions the Minister would take care of the particular situation envisaged by Senator Dooge.

There is a difficulty here. It may well be, as my colleague, Senator Alexis FitzGerald, has pointed out, that under subsection (3) the Minister might be able to impose certain conditions here. If, in fact, this difficulty arose under paragraphs (c) and (d) of subsection (2), which led to the position that the Minister was unable to operate these particular paragraphs, because of this danger it might well be appropriate at this stage to replace "responsibility" with some word such as "supervision" or something of that nature which would have not have the connotation of accepting the responsibility for the consequences of what is going on.

Except that the international convention governing these matters of which I spoke, and to which we hope to subscribe, places the legal responsibility, in the third party insurance sense, on the operators.

On the other hand, if the Minister does make an assignment of the function of the responsibility for safe operation, he may well be removing that responsibility from the Electricity Supply Board to this body by saying "You are responsible under my order for the safe operation of that nuclear power plant, or of any nuclear power plant in the country". I think there is a real difficulty here.

Certainly it is a very important matter.

It is an important point and perhaps it is worth a brief look to make sure that we are not putting ourselves into a slight cul-de-sac in this regard.

Certainly, it is very important. We shall have a look at that before Report Stage.

Under subsection (2), whom does the Minister envisage as carrying out the monitoring involved in ensuring that, in the event of these functions being assigned to the board, they are in fact being properly carried out?

It is a staff question.

The staff of the Nuclear Energy Board?

That is right.

Does this not imply removing certain functions from the Minister for Local Government which he has at the moment?

Indeed it does but that comes back to section 4. I said on section 4 that we had sufficient power under subsection (2) and in the regulation functions which I can assign to the board under subsection (2) of section 5. I said that we had more than sufficient statutory power there to deal with any misgivings Senators might have as to what we were giving away under subsection (1) of section 5. Senator Sheldon raised this point.

I wish to make a further point arising on subsection (2). It refers back to something that was talked about on subsection (1), paragraph (a). Subsection 2 (d) talks of the possible assignment to the board of the responsibility for the safe operation of nuclear training reactors by anybody to which their operation has been delegated. When we were talking about subsection (1) the Minister indicated that he did not consider that the acquisition of a nuclear training reactor would necessarily be confined to the Government or confined to the Nuclear Energy Board. Yet it would appear, when we come to read paragraph (d), that this does not envisage any nuclear training reactors being owned by anybody other than the Nuclear Energy Board. Otherwise, if we had the position that any institution, such as the theoretical physics school in the Institute for Advanced Studies, suddenly went all experimental, or if one of the physics departments in our universities purchased, with Government consent and on the recommendation of the HEA, a nuclear reactor, apparently it would not be covered here. This covers only nuclear reactors the operation of which has been delegated. Is there a difficulty here?

I cannot see any of our present higher education establishments, in view of their state of finances, being in a position, of themselves, to purchase a nuclear reactor.

That could change.

The Minister has already expressed his willingness to ensure that sub-critical nuclear reactors will be covered by the amending Bill. The existence of sub-critical nuclear reactors is certainly something which might well exist in our university institutions.

We shall have a look at that and see if we can amend it.

There is no doubt that in the drafting the intention was to cover critical reactors and that there would not be any need to cover anything but a nuclear power station for a very long time. Possibly, if we were breeding isotopes, there would be one central critical reactor. I may be arguing against my earlier urging, but once we extend this Bill we should cover sub-critical reactors. If we wish to, it may be necessary to put in "devices" here, because there may well be experimental rig-outs used in schools of experimental physics, the safe operation of which should be controlled along with those of the more potentially dangerous reactors.

I certainly agree that "devices" should be included to cover the sub-critical reactor.

I think it should.

I would not recognise a sub-critical reactor from a political journalist. Neither of them have ever noticed me, may I add.

The Minister would seem here to be proposing to the Oireachtas to have power only to prescribe conditions in relation to the assignment of functions under subsection (2). I wonder is that wise? Should he not have the ability to prescribe conditions for the working of the board, which is to be established under section 3 and which is given general functions under section 4, some of which are without prejudice to these particularised in subsection (1) of section 5? The only power to make an order under section 5 is under subsection (2). It is only under this subsection that he has the ability to prescribe conditions for the operation. If I understand the matter correctly, he then has no power to prescribe conditions for the general operation of the board which it might be wise for him to have.

Yes, indeed. In other words, the Senator is looking for a wider regulatory process.

Appropriate to the measure.

Section 5 will be the operating section so far as regulation and orders will be necessary. I could meet the Senator's point by including a similar provision under section 4 if he wishes.

I just wanted the Minister's attention directed to the point.

I will take note. It is no harm to have it. Again it is rather against the point of view that has been often expressed against over-regulating by statutory regulations.

It is perfectly in conformity with my view on this measure anyhow.

I am glad to hear that view expressed.

I can hardly express that kind of view myself when I want to.

I am not quite prepared to agree to section 5 yet, but I am willing to turn the page. There is one point under subsections (4) and (5) which I think arises from the general tenor of the discussion on the earlier subsections of this section. I think we were all agreed that it was highly desirable there should be the utmost co-operation with such bodies as the National Science Council, the Higher Education Authority, our research institutes, our university and other higher institutions.

Under subsections (4) and (5) there is the necessity for the Minister to consult with various other Ministers. The National Science Council is, I think, responsible to the Minister for Finance directly; Industrial Research and Standards come under the Minister for Industry and Commerce; and An Foras Talúntais come under the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. There is the point, I think, both in regard to the operation of the Higher Education Authority and of the research centres in our academic institutions, that it might be proper to have the Minister for Education included there in the listing so that before making an order in regard to, for example, the promotion of knowledge and research in nuclear science there may well be educational considerations, academic considerations, which would make it proper that the Minister should have the benefit of the views of his colleague, the Minister for Education.

I mentioned before that in a decision in regard to how a particular piece of the research might be carried out there might be economic arguments which would neglect the argument for the dissemination of knowledge and the growth of expertise. These would be considerations which would certainly be present in the mind of the Minister for Education and which might inadvertently be overlooked by the Minister who might feel, having consulted quite a battery of his colleagues, that he had all the views on the particular subject that it was possible to have.

Could I say something on this? It is impossible to construe subsections (4) and (5) without reaching the conclusion that the board does not have the functions which are specified in subsection (2) of section 5 until the Minister makes an order. Now, if that be correct, the order is an essential legal document in the establishment of the powers of the body establishment when the section comes into operation by virtue of an order made under subsection (2). A technical point here which has arisen under the Industrial Provident Societies Act, the Friendly Societies Act and the Companies Act is that the order itself should be regarded, when made, as conclusive evidence of due compliance with regard to the Act. I do not think you will find anything in this Bill which makes it such and you might be faced with legal proceedings.

We are talking about vast projects here, big sums of money and so on. I always think of a wintry morning when people are in a court, proofs are required and questions are raised by people, I think I said in relation to some other measure earlier, desperate arguments are raised which sometimes are successful when they are finally determined. If you are in a position to say that the order made under the section is conclusive evidence, that all conditions precedent to the establishment of the body and to the conferring of the particular power are established for the production of the order, then you get rid of a lot of trouble. For example, without such a provision you will have a problem proving the Minister has made the order: pieces of paper are not proof, and we all know the dangers of hearsay evidence. The Minister may, after consultation with the Ministers for Finance, Industry and Commerce, Agriculture and Fisheries, Labour, External Affairs, Health and so on, make this order. It would be very nice if you did not have to bring a lot of these people down to court to prove that the order was made properly and that all the conditions of this section have been complied with. There would be no difficulty getting an amendment drafted because the provision is in all well-drafted Acts dealing with the establishment of bodies corporate.

I would hope to clear that in the form of the order.

I do not think that would do it. I think you would have to have a statutory provision to the effect that the order itself, when produced, was conclusive evidence that all the conditions relative to it had been complied with.

Am I right that Senator FitzGerald is suggesting that subsections (4) and (5) should be deleted altogether?

The point the Senator wants to make positive is that any order made is per se conclusive evidence. It is a good point. The other point raised concerns the Minister for Education. I will look into that as well, although candidly the few Ministers you have on this the better.

Perhaps I am prejudiced on this point but I think the Minister for Education might have more worthwhile advice to offer than some of those listed.

We will certainly look into it.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 6.

Amendment No. 9 has already been discussed.

Government amendment No. 9:
In subsection (1), page 4, line 13, after "fissile" to insert "fuel".
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 10:
In subsection (1), line 14, after "substances" to insert "or devices".
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 6, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Chair might be entitled to say that section 6 has already been debated. The question of the control of radioactive substances came up repeatedly during the discussion of section 5. I do not think there is any more to be said on the general point. We have all taken our particular stands on this. It may be possible to explore it further on Report Stage. I would like, however, to speak for a moment on it in case a strict ruling might indicate that anything said under section 5 on Committee Stage would not qualify the putting down of an amendment to section 6 on Report Stage. I would, therefore, like to say that I consider that the failure to consolidate the regulatory control of fissile fuel or radioactive substances, devices and irradiating apparatus is a distinct weakness in section 6 and that section 6 could well be improved by making provision, not necessarily for the immediate consolidation, but for the possible step by step consolidation by order.

Could I ask the Minister about this problem of licensing the ESB to purchase fuel? In section 6 the wording is not clear. The phrase "save under licence issued by him or by the Board as his agent" is an exclusive clause which cancels the previous phrase "by order regulate, restrict or prohibit the custody, use, manufacture, importation", et cetera. Does this allow the Minister to license the board in a permanent way or does it just give him power to license the board to get over the previous clause?

I do not quite get the point made by the Senator.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding the phraseology. It is not clear to me, as a layman, that section 6 (1) gives the Minister power to license the board because section 5 (2) (a) stipulates that the board makes the arrangements for the supplying of fuel. There has to be a positive regulation to allow the Minister to license.

I can do it by order under section 6 (1). That controls that. I can do it globally there.

So, the licence in the next line is not referring to the licence you are giving to the ESB?

I can do it by order.

Still on subsection (1), it is just a matter here of the actual way in which the phrasing is put. I am looking now at lines 13, 14 and 15 of subsection (1). It appears to me that the term which is included in brackets, "including radioactive waste products" lies rather far from the class in which it would be included. It is very hard to include radioactive waste products as being a sub-group of apparatus, though it is possible to include it as being a sub-group of both fissile fuel, as it now reads, or other radioactive substances. If we take the section, as we have amended it, it would now read "the disposal of fissile fuel or of such other radioactive substances or devices and irradiating apparatus (including radioactive waste products)". Here we have a list of four groups and an indication that these include waste products whereas only the first two of them include them. I do not understand the ways of the draftsmen, but it does seem to me here that perhaps in this case action at a distance is not quite as effective as action from closer at hand.

It is a drafting point again. I will certainly take it up with the draftsman. I would prefer the Senator's point of view from the pure grammatical aspect.

Under subsection (2) we begin to see the difficulties of failure to consolidate into one code operated by one staff. This authorises an officer or servant of the Minister or an officer of the servant to the board to enter on to premises and to carry out such inspections as may be reasonably necessary. We may have difficulties here if we still have a number of authorities responsible for inspection. Are we going to get the situation where we will have three inspections of the one location because three people are concerned with different aspects of the possibility of undesirable levels of radioactivity? On the other hand, are we going to be sensible and say that one person can do the job? If we take the latter view there may be a difficulty that a person, if he were the person authorised by the Minister or the board in writing under this Bill, who did the job might not be authorised to inspect for the other aspects which would still be the concern of the Minister for Labour, the Minister for Health or some other Minister. I wonder if subsection (2), as drafted, is sufficient to ensure that there are no difficulties in that regard?

I do not see any real difficulty here.

Let us take it that we have some radioactive material. As I understand it from the Minister, following the passage of this Bill, the Nuclear Energy Board will have certain functions, the Minister for Health will have certain functions, the Minister for Labour may have certain functions, all in regard to the question of whether this level of radioactivity is a level which should not be permitted. Since no levels have been specified by any of them it will all be a matter that the agent of each of the Ministers will have to consider what is a reasonable level.

Supposing one person is sent to report on the situation and, for example, he is obstructed in the exercise of this, I wonder are we in any difficulty here that in fact the obstruction, the penalty which might be involved, would be different in regard to the obstruction of this person as an agent for the Nuclear Energy Board, his obstruction as an agent for the Minister for Health, or his obstruction as an agent for the Minister for Labour?

We can check on that. But my information is that it is on all fours with such penalty provisions in legislation dealing with the other authorities mentioned. We will certainly check on it. It would obviously be desirable to have every one of them on the same basis.

In the event of this individual carrying out this inspection for the purposes of the three authorities involved, is it the position he would have to be authorised in writing by every one of the authorities?

That is not set out here. As long as the authorisation is in writing, that is that. Obviously, the authorisation must be in writing.

Does he have to carry an authorisation from each of the agencies involved?

No. This subsection obviously only deals with myself or a servant or officer of the board who is concerned to enter upon a premises with a view to ascertaining whether or not an order has not been complied with, and nobody can obstruct such an officer from entering upon these premises. If such obstruction takes place in regard to inspection an offence occurs and there is liability to conviction and penalty. It relates solely to my functions and the functions of the board. It does not relate to anything else.

This is my difficulty. For example, supposing someone duly authorised by the Minister or by the board enters on a particular location and then decides that, in fact, the situation is unsatisfactory, not from the point of view of the regulations made by his own board, but he considers that in fact this situation is one which would be unsatisfactory to the Minister for Health under the 1953 Act. Is he entitled to report to the Department of Health that the situation is unsatisfactory or is he, when he enters a premises on the authorisation of the Nuclear Energy Board or of the Minister for Transport and Power, confined then to examining the situation from the point of view of the powers of the Minister and the powers of the Nuclear Energy Board and not in regard to those of any other Minister?

Before the Minister proceeds may I draw the attention of the House that it has reached the normal hour for adjournment.

I do not think there is any prospect of finishing this Stage tonight. I propose that we adjourn until next Wednesday.

Perhaps I might answer that point. Obviously, the subsection is confined to an ascertainment of whether an order under this section is being complied with? That is the relevant confinement of the section. The inspector or officer authorised by the board or the Minister is obviously confined to that, so that the investigation into whether or not an offence is committed under any other statute relating to any other Department, organisation or agency does not arise. I hope fairly shortly to have all these other powers and functions correlated and organised under the one section. This is the way it should be.

But not before Report Stage.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
The Seanad adjourned at 10 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 17th February, 1971.
Top
Share