Vol. 621 No. 4
52 Mr. O’Dowd asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government his views on the findings of the European Environment Agency’s report entitled State and Outlook 2005, which shows Ireland has a poor record on the control of greenhouse gas emissions and the agency’s view that Ireland still faces a significant challenge in meeting its Kyoto Protocol targets; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22804/06]
The report of the European Environment Agency, EEA, was published 1 November last. Since then, I engaged in extensive discussions on the report at a subsequent meeting of the Joint Committee on Environment and Local Government.
The report is based on 2003 data. While it showed Ireland to be approximately 12% above its Kyoto target, the latest EPA data for 2004 show that emissions were just 10% above target. The European Environment Agency did not take account of these data, given that they were not available. This target, of course, is to be achieved in the 2008-12 period. In addition, the most recent EPA data showed that in terms of distance from the Kyoto target, Ireland has approximately 2 million tonnes per year less than previously estimated.
There are three strands to the Government's approach to achieving the further reductions needed to meet the significant challenge represented by our Kyoto target: emissions reductions or purchase of carbon allowances by installations participating in the EU emissions trading scheme, use of the Kyoto Protocol flexible mechanisms by the Government to purchase credits for carbon reductions elsewhere in the world and measures to reduce emissions throughout the economy including those set out in the national climate change strategy, other measures which have subsequently been introduced and further initiatives to be identified in the review of the strategy. The breakdown of the national burden between these three strands is intended to allow Ireland achieve the target in the way which imposes the least cost on our economy.
The total allocation of allowances to the emissions trading sector for 2008-12 was recently announced by the Government, and the Environmental Protection Agency is drawing up the detailed national allocation plan for submission to the European Commission. The Government will shortly publish a consultation document on measures to enhance the national climate change strategy and build on our recent initiatives in areas such as biofuels and renewable energy grants.
I welcome where progress has been made in certain industrial sectors, particularly agriculture. Indeed, carbon emissions by manufacturing industry are down. However, the key issue is that we are still above our Kyoto target. According to the EPA website, we are approximately 25% above our limit. Can the Minister say by how much the Kyoto limits will be exceeded by 2010 and 2012 and what he intends to do about transport? According to information published by the Central Statistics Office last month carbon emissions from cars are up 60% from 1990. What will he do about that and, particularly, how will he address the national spatial strategy which is all about people living near their jobs and having sustainable development and growth?
We are talking about ten percentage points above the target at present.
That is 23%.
Ten percentage points above——
That makes it 23%——
One can jig it whatever way one wishes.
10% plus 13% equals 23%.
Our target is 13 percentage points above the 1990 figures. There is no point in adding the 13 percentage points to the ten percentage points. That would be a miscalculation and I am sure that is not the Deputy's intention. The target we have to reach is ten percentage points from our present levels. We are above our target and the challenge is huge. A whole spectrum of measures is needed to reach our target. First and foremost there will be some purchase. That is a legitimate approach within the Kyoto protocol well envisaged and well operated. The prognostications of ruinous amounts of cost do not appear to be accurate in that regard. I agree with the Deputy that the central hypothesis in his supplementary question was that we have to look at a whole range of issues relating to transport and transport modes. The Government is investing and will continue to invest a vast amount of money in Transport 21. Transport 21 aims to get people out of cars and into public transport. The Deputy will accept there are settlement patterns in Ireland that are unique to Ireland and some 40% of people live in areas outside urban areas. There is a variety of other approaches that have to be looked at. I agree the challenge is huge. We have to improve the insulation levels in homes, introduce new standards for homes and, as we did in budget 2006, we have to introduce incentives for biofuels, alternative fuels and renewable energy sources. I am not in the least diminishing the extent of the challenge but the strategy which is in place is one that will get us to where we need to be.
Does the Minister believe he will achieve that target, particularly, in the area of transport? We have not succeeded in getting people out of their cars. The transport corridors are not available. Commuting takes much longer given the long queues of cars emitting carbon dioxide. Would the Minister consider a forum such as that held in the UK recently between all the major carbon polluters in industry throughout the United Kingdom? They had a summit at which targets over and above those of the Kyoto protocol were defined. If we got together, notwithstanding the Kyoto limits, we could make a massive effort to reduce carbon emissions and prevent climate change.
I do not disagree with the Deputy that there would be value in looking at the issue but we should not take a lesson from the UK. As we are aware it is using the arguments about climate change and meeting the Kyoto targets as a thinly veiled excuse to develop the nuclear debate. The Deputy is correct in saying that society will have to meet the challenge and that Government direction alone will not change the habits of a lifetime and particularly those relating to transport modes. I have not looked at the benefits of the type of forum suggested but I am certainly willing to consider it. It is a matter we could discuss in the context of the committee. It is something I would not rule out.
53 Mr. Gilmore asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government if his attention has been drawn to the publication of the affordability index for house prices by EBS Building Society and DKM economic consultants; his views on the index and its findings and in particular on the conclusion that first-time buyers are spending an average of 27.25% of their net income on mortgage repayments which is 4.25% higher than in 2000; his further views on the Dublin figures which show that first-time buyers in Dublin are spending an average of 32% of net income on servicing their mortgages; the measures the Government are contemplating to address continuing house price rises in view of increasing interest rates; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22628/06]
55 Mr. McCormack asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the steps he will take to alleviate the financial burden on young couples and families in view of the publication of the affordability index by EBS Building Society and DKM consultants which shows that up to 32% of household income of first time buyers in Dublin goes to financing a mortgage; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22805/06]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 53 and 55 together.
I am aware of the house price affordability index referred to and also of the trend in affordability as measured by the index compiled by my Department to assist in monitoring developments in the housing market.
Despite increased house prices, affordability has remained relatively favourable. This is because of the substantial improvement in employment and incomes due to our economic success and the fact that large reductions in personal taxation have further boosted take-home pay. These factors, coupled with low interest rates and the uptake of longer term mortgages, have kept mortgage repayments relatively affordable. Also first time buyers are entitled to mortgage interest tax relief on higher amounts of interest, up to €8,000 in the case of a couple, for the first seven years of the loan. Nonetheless, borrowers and lending institutions should exercise care in regard to the level of new mortgages, particularly in the context of an upward trend in interest rates.
My Department's affordability index shows that mortgage outgoings as a percentage of net income are still less than in the early 1990s. The recent EBS index showed that the average proportion of net income required to meet mortgage repayments is well within recognised affordability criteria and within the limits applied by lending institutions in deciding mortgage applications. The affordability position improves further when measured on the basis of typical first-time buyer prices, longer-term mortgages and more representative levels of joint income.
The relatively favourable affordability figures help to explain why demand in the housing market continues to be very strong. Housing demand has been driven primarily by the strength of the economy and unprecedented population growth in recent years, particularly the very high level of immigration related to economic growth. In response, Government has taken action on a wide front to maximise access to home ownership, particularly through measures to promote adequate supply of housing to meet demand.
The affordability index by EBS Building Society and DKM economic consultants indicates that the first-time buyer couple nationally spends €1,300 per month on a mortgage and a first-time buyer in Dublin spends €1,700 per month on a mortgage, that is €325 per week nationally and €425 per week in Dublin. Does the Minister of State consider that is affordable or does he agree with the assessment made by the economist from DKM consultants who said we are now approaching the peak of affordability and that the current level of house price rises is not sustainable?
Are those prices affordable? Relatively so, people seem to be getting by and there is still a significant number of first-time buyers in the market. Some 45% of mortgages for new houses are to first-time buyers. It was always difficult for a first-time buyer be it now or ten or 20 years ago. Whenever any of us had a mortgage it was always difficult in the early years. Our own index shows that in the early 1990s people were paying a higher percentage but the position relaxed after 1992. I am concerned about price increases. There is no doubt that since this time last year prices have begun a new upward spiral. I do not agree that price increases of 15% or 16% for second-hand houses in Dublin are sustainable in the long term. I sincerely hope what we are seeing now is only a short-term blip and that the situation will soon calm down. We were making much progress over a few years and, 15 or 18 months ago, many of the experts said that increases last year might have been only 5% or 6%. For whatever reason — partly, I imagine, because of 100% mortgages and 90,000 extra jobs in the economy — prices took off into a new spiral about this time last year, which is worrying.
The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, and this Government, said in the past that although house prices are high, interest rates are low, so that houses have remained affordable. Does the Minister of State now accept that, on foot of the EBS report, this is no longer the case? Will the Minister of State comment on reports at the weekend that if interest rates continue to rise, as is forecast, the loan amounts for which first-time buyers will be eligible will be slashed by about €100,000? Does the Minister of State accept that such a scenario could result in a slump in demand for houses and the devaluing of houses as a result? Is the Minister of State aware of the anger which exists among young people buying houses and among their parents, who in many cases are trying to help them to buy houses, and all of whom face a difficult situation?
It has always been difficult for people buying their first houses. Nothing has changed. The new Department index, which we have compiled for many years, was published last week and is relatively up to date, indicates that affordability was worse around 1990-91, and then eased off. This and the EBS report are based on a 25-year mortgage. They use figures below the normal affordability index which a lending agency would use. It may be good or bad but, perhaps sadly, the typical mortgage now is more likely to be 35 years than 25 years. I am not promoting such mortgages but they are a fact of life. If one has a 35-year mortgage, one's affordability index improves greatly from what was published last week.
It is always a struggle for first-time buyers and prices have certainly increased but, because we have a booming economy, people's wages have increased, their tax bill has decreased and interest rates are still at historically low levels, the overall affordability, while it has worsened in recent years, has not worsened to the extent to which people may think it has.
I put it to the Minister of State that it is spurious comparing affordability now with affordability in 1991-92, when interest rates shot up dramatically on foot of the currency speculation which took place at the time, and which was unique to those years. The most recently published figures show house price increases in the first four months of this year are the highest in six years since the early part of 2000.
Can the Minister of State give some explanation to the House why house prices are now rising, especially given the very high level of output from the construction industry and the increase in supply of housing? Does he consider that Irish houses are now over-priced?
If houses are over-priced, why are prices rising? I suppose they are rising for different reasons, namely, because an extra 90,000 people were working in the economy last year and because we had 55,000 immigrants into Ireland last year, people who are at the age when they rent or buy houses. The house price rises were partly due to those factors, but also because of a policy started about this time last year by the financial institutions. They introduced gimmicks such as 100% mortgages, interest-only mortgages and intergenerational mortgages. The financial institutions which started that trend this time last year contributed greatly to the house price rises. The spiral of house price rises calmed down over a few years to rises of some 7% or 8%, but we now have a new spiral of rises of up to 15% or 17% for second-hand, established houses in suburban Dublin.
There is nothing we can do to produce extra houses such as those. One can build houses and apartments further out of the city, but the established houses, whether they are in Dún Laoghaire, Merrion, Glasnevin, Drumcondra or wherever, see great demand from people who possibly bought outside the city and are moving back in.
The spiral we are in is worrying. It is partly due to the booming economy and partly due to the fact that the financial institutions seem to have a great deal of money and are being too generous in handing it out. If the rainy day comes and interest rates are significantly increased, I hope that all the loans given out will have been stress-tested, which they are supposed to be. Otherwise concern could arise.
The Minister of State seems to suggest that longer-term mortgages are the solution to young people's problems in this regard. He acknowledged that 40% of houses are now bought by first-time buyers, and that house prices have risen. No doubt the Minister of State is aware, as I am, that a first-time buyer cannot now buy a second-hand house in Dublin city for less than €317,500, the cut-off point for stamp duty. After that, the Government takes at least €10,000 or €15,000, depending on house prices, from hard-pressed young people trying to buy their first houses. I know this from practical experience because two of my children are trying to buy houses in Dublin and cannot buy a second-hand house for anything near €317,500. They are being penalised further by the Government for €10,000 to €15,000 in stamp duty, depending on the house price.
The stamp duty cut-off figure was introduced in the previous budget. I knew it was too little at the time. Will the Minister of State consider, given the way house prices have increased, recommending that this stamp duty exemption limit be raised to at least a realistic figure such as €450,000 so that young people buying their first houses — and most of the houses coming on the market are second-hand — are not penalised by the Government by a figure of €10,000 to €15,000 on top of the exorbitant prices they pay for houses?
I am not recommending that the answer to affordability is longer-term mortgages. I am simply saying they are a fact. Many people are now getting 35-year mortgages. I heard of some financial institution spokesperson talking of intergenerational mortgages. Maybe that is a concept yet to come in, but such institutions are using other financial gimmicks.
The real solution is supply. We have tried to create that supply. Last year was the 11th year of overall increase in output, and this year's output figures are running ahead of last year's figures.
Would it be better if the Government were not taking stamp duty from first-time buyers?
I am sorry if I keep repeating the same figures, but the output figure for last year was 81,000, while 14 or 15 years ago the figure would typically have been about 20,000. The level of output by the industry has hugely increased. Under any law of economics, supply should sooner or later equal demand, which should bring a bit of sense to the situation.
What about stamp duty?
I am not the Minister for Finance and will let him decide on that.
The Minister of State has special responsibility for housing.
Yes, but stamp duty is a matter for the Minister for Finance. It has been adjusted before and I am sure it will be adjusted again. Let us be consistent. The last time it was adjusted, the Opposition accused us of putting up prices. Which way does it want it? There are many houses available for under €317,500.
We do not want first-time buyers paying €15,000.
There is a tendency to get carried away with the average house price. There are many affordable new houses, even in Dublin, under €200,000. Plenty of second-hand houses are priced well under €300,000. I accept the figure is under pressure but the first-time buyer is still a major player in the housing market.
The Government still takes €15,000 off the first-time buyer.
54 Mr. Cuffe asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government his views on whether Ireland’s nuclear policy as presented by his Department’s submission (details supplied) to the British energy review is compatible with Ireland’s membership of and part-financing of EURATOM and if the credibility of that policy would be strengthened if Ireland withdrew from EURATOM. [22848/06]
The recent submission by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to the British energy review consultation process affirms the Government's position on general nuclear power and, in particular, UK nuclear policies.
The Government's concerns over the current and future UK policy on nuclear energy relate to the potential impact on the environment and health of Irish citizens. In particular our issues relate to the Sellafield nuclear plant where there are ongoing safety concerns, the potential for a serious accident or incident and the ongoing radioactive discharges to the Irish Sea, all of which remain to be resolved.
The Government would have favoured an extensive review of the EURATOM treaty in the EU constitution discussions, leading to a significant updating of its provisions. It has made clear that this continues to be its position. It is important, however, not to lose sight that EURATOM does good work in health and safety areas. In the absence of consensus among member states to update the EURATOM treaty, the Government's policy is to steer EURATOM's activities towards nuclear safety and radiological protection. EURATOM is active in both areas. For example, EURATOM Directive 96/29 lays down basic safety standards for the protection of workers and members of the public from the dangers of ionizing radiation. It represents major legislation in radiological protection.
Membership of the EU obliges Ireland to make its contribution to the EU budget. There is no separate contribution from Ireland towards the budget of EURATOM. Accession to the European Union has been of such major benefit to Ireland that I do not see any public appetite to withdraw. Membership of the EU does not come with à la carte options.
Following the recent European Court of Justice decision regarding jurisdiction on the matter of the legal dispute between Ireland and the United Kingdom concerning the commissioning and operation of the MOX plant at Sellafield, I expect a more active and visible role by the Commission in this area. I have made it clear to three EU Commissioners — Stavros Dimas, Commissioner for Environment, Franco Frattini, Commissioner for Justice, Freedom and Security and Andris Piebalgs, Commissioner for Energy — that having taken Ireland to the European Court of Justice on the matter, I expect the Commission to show the same enthusiasm to pursue the UK on it.
I take issue with the suggestion that we must go with the prix fixe menu. I believe we can eat à la carte. Other member states have requested that part of their contributions to the EU budget are not given to EURATOM. EURATOM receives €1 billion of the €100 billion annual EU budget. Much of that money is spent on researching the next generation of nuclear reactors. Ireland contributes €8 million every year to the EURATOM budget, spending more on it than it spends on the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland and nuclear safety.
How then can the Minister look the UK Prime Minister, Mr. Tony Blair, in the eye and tell him to shut the Sellafield plant when the Government spends millions of euro on EURATOM? How can the Minister take a case to the European Court of Justice regarding the MOX plant when the taxpayer is funding research into the next generation of nuclear reactors? Some reports presented to the Oireachtas Committee on the Environment and Local Government show that EURATOM is conducting research into gas-cooled fast reactor systems, lead-cooled fast reactor systems, molten salt reactor systems, sodium-cooled fast reactor systems, supercritical-water-cooled reactor systems and very high temperature reactor systems. EURATOM is not about nuclear safety but about pushing the nuclear energy agenda at a European level. Large amounts of EURATOM funding are going into making the next generation of nuclear reactors. How can the Minister claim he is doing everything he can to shut the Sellafield plant when taxpayers, through his intercession, are funding research into the nuclear industry to the tune of €8 million?
The hypotheses on which Deputy Cuffe bases his assertions is false. I suspect the Deputy knows just how false it is. No à la carte attitude can be adopted in the contribution to the EU budget. I could debate long and hard with Deputy Cuffe on my personal views on EURATOM. I did so during the course of the Convention on the Future of Europe. Ireland and Austria stood alone on that issue and towards the end of the convention, it was Ireland, Austria, Germany, Sweden and Hungary which pointed to the inadequacies of EURATOM and sought a review. It is false for the Deputy to suggest that any member state can hypothecate moneys it makes to the EU budget. There is no point in recreating that false premise. Every member state makes a contribution to the EU budget and it is used in a variety of ways.
If the Deputy were to ask me if I believe funding for EURATOM is the most prudent use of European taxpayers' funds, I would say no because of its constitutional arrangement. If he asked me if it could be better spent, I would agree with him. However, it is simply untrue, deliberately misleading and mendacious to suggest that any member state government would have the opportunity to ring-fence its allocation to the EU budget.
The future of the EURATOM treaty must be debated. As a member of the Convention on the Future of Europe, one of my regrets was that it did not enter into that area. I forecasted accurately that citizens in Europe concerned with the issue, whether they lived in a nuclear-powered state, would take a view on it. Their concerns can be attributed — in a small part — to the difficulties into which the constitutional treaty got. The Government has no enthusiasm for the type of EURATOM activity described by the Deputy.
On a point of order, as the Minister responded to my Parliamentary Question No. 56, I assume he intended to take the two questions together.
No, I intend to respond fully to Deputy Stagg's question.
The Minister responded to my question fully in that reply. I look forward to a fuller response to my question.
All bets are off regarding the future of the European constitution. There is now a role for smaller member states to take the lead in suggesting their concerns regarding the constitution. Ireland has been surprisingly mute in its discussion of any aspiration to disengage from the EURATOM treaty. Europe Inc. spends more on research into nuclear energy resources than it does on renewables. The Government must stand tall and withdraw from the EURATOM treaty to ensure our taxpayers' money is spent on renewable energy rather than on the next generation of nuclear power plants. I will repeat my question that was not answered. How can the Government take a court case to the European Court of Justice regarding the MOX plant in the UK when it is contributing millions of euro every year to the future of the nuclear industry?
The answer is simple. Taking court action against the UK is the appropriate course of action. We will deal with that when we come to Deputy Stagg's question. I do not disagree with the Deputy on diverting funding from EURATOM activities to renewables. Some of our neighbours are even investing in cleaning up their nuclear messes. If the Deputy has any doubts on the Government's view on nuclear energy, I suggest he dips into The Accidental Constitution, the definitive work on the EU constitution. From it he will see that Ireland did take some significant interest in that area.
Question No. 55 answered with QuestionNo. 53.
56 Mr. Stagg asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the effect of the recent European Court of Justice decision that it had jurisdiction in the matter concerning the commissioning and operation of the MOX plant at Sellafield which Ireland had originally referred to an international tribunal; and the action he proposes to take arising from this new and enhanced position of the European Court of Justice. [22627/06]
The recent European Court of Justice decision is about where the dispute between Ireland and the United Kingdom concerning Sellafield should be litigated. It does not deal with the merits of the dispute itself. In 2001, the Government instituted legal proceedings against the United Kingdom before the tribunal provided for under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The advice available to the Government at that time indicated that the dispute resolution procedures provided under the convention were an appropriate avenue for the litigation of the issues raised for Ireland by the continued operation of Sellafield. This advice was based on the best analysis as to the state of Community and international law at the time. The action in going to UNCLOS was widely welcomed politically in this House.
The European Commission contested Ireland's right to take proceedings under UNCLOS procedures. Ireland considered that national competence operated in this area and that, consequently, the duty to co-operate with and consult the Commission on the dispute proceedings with the UK did not arise. It is interesting to note that in discussions between Ireland's legal team and the legal service of the Commission, it was recognised that these issues were not the subject of settled law at the time.
The court judgment on 30 May, inter alia, declared that Ireland, by instituting proceedings against the UK under UNCLOS, failed to fulfil its obligations under Community law. The judgment also established that certain provisions of UNCLOS form part of the Community legal order and that the European Court of Justice has jurisdiction to determine disputes on their interpretation and application. Therefore, the judgment represents a significant development and clarification of Community law. It means that the resolution of disputes between member states on a wide range of international agreements, especially in the environmental field, comes within the jurisdiction of the ECJ.
The judgment presents member states, such as Ireland, with new mechanisms for holding other member states to account on their transboundary environmental obligations. These and other issues consequent on the judgment are being examined in detail by Ireland's international legal team, led by the Attorney General. Ireland's strategy in pursuit of the objectives of this case will be considered and determined by Government based on this examination and analysis.
Before I comment on the reply I wish to refer to the fact that I asked a question of the Minister concerning nuclear safety, the use of iodine tablets to combat contamination, and if there were any new plans in this regard. The question was transferred to the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children. Has the issue of nuclear safety been transferred from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to that Department? The question was not just about iodine tablets, which have proved to be useless, as I stated at the time they were issued.
I assure the Minister that I support the notion of a cross-party position on Sellafield, similar to the approach taken to Northern Ireland, but that should not prevent us from asking questions and pursuing the Minister if he is not doing a good enough job. Having lost the case, the Minister raised my hopes by stating that the decision presented Ireland with great opportunities for pursuing the matter at the European Court of Justice. He took a positive position on the matter. There is only a year left in the Government's term of office, no matter how long it is stretched. Up to now, the effect of all the actions taken by the Minister is that he has failed in a court case. What is the novel range of opportunities for holding the UK to its obligations and how does the Minister intend to pursue the matter with the UK authorities? In his reply the Minister stated the Department is examining the matter but, as I stated, he only has a year remaining to get some positive results.
I thank Deputy Stagg and acknowledge that he has been most supportive on this issue during my period in office. The judgment of the European Court of Justice is most interesting, especially if one reads it in the context of the earlier opinion given by the Advocate General. A most interesting new law was enacted on the jurisdictional right of the European Court of Justice in matters relating to this. It is important to remember that we were in a novel position, in the sense that one member state was suing another member state in an international tribunal.
The interesting point about the court judgment is that it clarifies certain international agreements that fall within the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, which was not clear before. Previously, the view of the legal services was that this was an ambiguous area. One of the things that has been leveraged out of this case is a clarification of the position of the European Court of Justice.
If one reads what the Advocate General has said, which I am sure Deputy Stagg has, he made some interesting comments about a member state having rights under UNCLOS which could not be frustrated because of an issue as to where one would take the case. Incidentally, that applies not only to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea but also, potentially, to other international conventions, which makes this a most important case in terms of the role of the European Court of Justice.
The case requires detailed consideration. Deputy Stagg is correct that we only have a year left in office, but my suspicion is that the issue of Sellafield will be ongoing for some time. What has resulted from this case is a new clarity on the Community legal order and the jurisdictional right of the European Court of Justice. Those are the issues which we will now pursue.
Deputy Stagg's point was good and well made. Rather than exhaust ourselves occasionally looking for minute differences in opinion on this issue, it should be something on which we could combine our forces. I would like to see this matter discussed, for example, by the Joint Committee on Environment and Local Government to see how we could further it because I know Deputy O'Dowd shares my passion, as does Deputy Stagg, to see Sellafield closed and a line drawn under that sad part of the relationship between Ireland and the United Kingdom.
I thought the Minister's last intervention would refer to nuclear safety and whether the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Harney, was now responsible for this area. Perhaps he will have an opportunity to refer to this matter when he replies again. Given that the Minister has stated there is now clarity and new opportunities, can he give the House some indication of what is likely to happen, rather than just saying he will examine it in detail? I am sure he will and I would urge that he would do that, but he should be able to provide an indication of where we are going on this issue and when something concrete will be done. We know the case which has already been stated in the other forum so it is a matter of transferring it to the new forum that is now available to us.
Deputy Stagg is correct, but there are outstanding issues. Among other things, Ireland will have to consult the European Commission on what exactly the new order means.
I was not avoiding Deputy Stagg's question on iodine tablets, I would have welcomed the opportunity to discuss them. However, the issue of iodine tablets is a matter for the Department of Health and Children. I am sure the Deputy is being slightly mischievous on this matter because, as he well knows, the iodine tablets were specifically focused on a particular type of radiation and they had a shelf life. They related to the situation that pertained in Sellafield prior to some of the changes that have occurred.
That was not what the question was about. It related to——
I did not see Deputy Stagg's question.
It related to the new safety regime.
The issue of iodine tablets was raised. Deputy Stagg will be pleased to learn that nuclear safety is not a matter for the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children.
