I welcome the opportunity to have a constructive and full debate on Committee Stage.
As Deputies are aware, the purpose of this Bill is to provide for the merging of the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland, RPII, and the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA. That is why the legislation is important and we need it in place before the summer recess. The Bill introduces the necessary statutory provisions to enable Ireland ratify the 2005 Amendment to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material. It expands the scope of the convention to include measures to protect the environment from any possible deliberate harmful release of nuclear materials or radiation through sabotage of a nuclear facility.
Having listened to the concerns raised by a number of Deputies at the Second Stage reading, I want to again reassure the sub-committee that this merger will not, in any way, result in a diminution, or a perception of a diminution, of our commitment to radiological protection for the public. I believe the merger will enhance our capacity to continue to deliver regulatory and advisory functions to the highest standard, as well as foster greater synergies and linkages between radiological and environmental policies. The establishment of the Office of Radiological Protection, within the EPA, will maintain, and indeed build on, the positive profile of radiation protection.
The EU Basic Safety Standards Directive, which was agreed during the Irish Presidency of the EU, has as one of its core principles the protection of the environment against the harmful effects of ionising radiation. This illustrates the growing synergy and inter-dependence between the current functions of the RPII and the EPA.
I will briefly address a number of issues raised by Deputies earlier. Ireland has an ongoing engagement with the United Kingdom in relation to radiological and nuclear matters. Officials from the Department of Energy, Community and Local Government, and technical experts from the RPII, meet regularly with their counterparts from the UK Department of Environment and Climate Change. At these meetings, Irish officials ensure that the UK authorities are kept aware of any concerns on the Irish side, and emphasise that all possible steps are taken to ensure that the highest levels of safety apply at Sellafield, and all other relevant nuclear sites.
In November 2012, the Department published a summary of a probabilistic risk assessment report, prepared by an independent team of international experts, which assessed the risks to Ireland from any potential incidents at Sellafield. The experts quantified the likelihood and potential impact of an incident occurring at Sellafield, resulting in the release of radioactive material, and found that such an incident would give rise to "no observable health effects in Ireland". The merger will, in no way, lessen or reduce the current high level of scrutiny applied to Sellafield. Indeed, I have been told that a visit by the Department and EPA-RPII representatives to the site at Sellafield is currently being arranged for later this year.
Another issue which was raised in several contributions in the House was the issue of radon gas. The Government's primary approach to dealing with the issue of radon is to concentrate efforts on increasing public awareness of the risks posed by radon in the home.
The National Radon Control Strategy, prepared by an inter-agency group and published in February, sets out 48 recommendations with the ultimate aim of reducing the number of radon-related lung cancer cases which, I think, exceed 220 annually. Successful implementation of the strategy will require action from a range of Departments, public bodies and stakeholders. A co-ordination group, chaired by the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, has recently been established to monitor the implementation of the strategy, to report annually on progress and, at the end of the four-year period covered by the action plan, to make recommendations to Government on what further actions are deemed necessary. I want reassure Deputies that the comprehensive action plan, which is currently being implemented, will in no way be adversely impacted by the merger.
Some concerns were expressed during the appearance by RPII board members before this committee last Thursday about the name of the merged body. The name will be the Environmental Protection Agency and the Office of Radiological Protection will be one of five divisions within that organisation. That means there is a separate division of radiological protection. The issue of the naming and branding of the merged organisation was very carefully considered. A number of options were examined prior to the final decision.
The merger working group, established to implement the Government's decision to merge the two bodies and made up of officials from the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, the RPII and the EPA, considered the possibility of a name change. Alternative names were considered. The issue was then referred to the Minister, Deputy Hogan, who decided to keep the EPA name. His decision was communicated to the RPII board on 24 June 2013 and the reasons were explained in correspondence.
A key consideration was the fact that the EPA has far greater name recognition amongst the general public than the RPII. Also, it is widely accepted that the RPII will benefit from the greater public reach that the EPA banner gives. The EPA has a much stronger presence on social media, for example. As a result of the merger, the RPII will now be in a position to access the wider reach of the EPA in the social media space. It should be highlighted that the cost of re-branding the EPA would have far outweighed any benefits that would accrue from a re-naming. Finally, it should be pointed out that other environmental protection organisations around the world contain radiological safety divisions, most notably, the US EPA.
The aim of the Government's agency rationalisation programme is to reduce the number of State bodies and integrate their roles and responsibilities back into other existing bodies, with some consequent efficiency savings. Irrespective of the level of savings, the general policy is to follow through on mergers and rationalisations, unless there are strong evidence-based reasons for not doing so. In the case of the merger of the RPII and the EPA, it is clear that the synergies and greater linkages between the environmental and radiological functions will enhance the capacity of both organisations into the future.
Some savings have been identified and estimated, beginning at a low level in 2014 and increasing in 2015 and 2016, as these synergies become embedded. The savings arise mainly under the themes of HR, governance and some administrative cost savings. Cost savings of up to €260,000 per annum are anticipated from 2016 onwards. While this figure already incorporates recognition of staff efficiencies in the order of €100,000 per annum, further workforce planning, including a review of structures, roles and responsibilities, will be completed later this year which can further clarify and identify future needs and capacities, as well as scope for further efficiencies.
The Department of Environment, Community and Local Government provided €70,000 in capital funding to the Environmental Protection Agency in 2013 in respect of the merger. In addition, there is an allocation of €696,000 for current funding and €223,000 in capital funding under the Department's 2014 Vote in respect of merger costs. This expenditure is required to facilitate the updating of human resource, ICT and financial systems, along with accommodation facilities to ensure a smooth operational transition to the merged organisation.
It was determined at the commencement of the merger process that the most efficient and cost-effective way to enable the merger was to establish a fifth office within the EPA structure, namely, the office of radiological protection. None of the existing divisions-offices within the EPA are established specifically in legislation. The 1992 EPA Act sets out that the agency shall consist of a director general and four other directors. The number will be five post-merger as signalled in this draft legislation.
It is the function of the director general "to arrange the distribution of the business of the agency among its directors" but this must be done having regard to the statutory functions and requirements of the body. Accordingly, it would not be appropriate or desirable for legislation to prescribe the divisional organisation of the EPA, or to confer one of the offices with a more pre-eminent or differentiated status. None the less, the EPA board, including the director of the new office of radiological protection, will have to continue to ensure sufficient resources and effort are being directed to meet all the merged bodies' functions, and I have full confidence they will manage their expertise and resources accordingly. This approach reinforces the findings of an independent review of the EPA, published in May 2011, which concluded that "the flexibility and change management shown by the EPA is a major strength and should not be limited by overly prescriptive statutory provisions governing the Agency's structure".
A number of Deputies have raised concerns on the potential loss of radiological expertise brought about by the merger. I reassure the committee that this will not arise and, indeed, is addressed specifically in the legislation. Section 21 provides for a person with radiological protection expertise to be included on the statutory selection committee for directors of the EPA. I note that the chair of the RPII told this committee last week that there was no reason to believe that the office of radiological protection would be depleted of scientific expertise.
The Bill also provides that the Minister may appoint persons with radiological expertise to the EPA's general statutory advisory committee, established under section 27 of the EPA Act. This advisory committee will also be provided with the statutory ability to give advice on radiological protection matters. Furthermore, a separate specialist advisory committee, dedicated solely to radiological protection, will be set up by statutory instrument towards the end of this year.
The second purpose of the Bill is to put in place urgently the statutory provisions required for Ireland to ratify the 2005 amendment to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material. This amending treaty will be a cornerstone of international nuclear security measures. Ireland has long maintained a policy position of encouraging the highest international standards in this regard, and it is important to support our words with actions through ratification of this treaty.
I welcome the general support by all Deputies who contributed to the Second Stage debate for the provisions outlined in this Bill to facilitate the ratification. I look forward to the debate today. I recommend the Bill to the committee.
