Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 17 Apr 2013

Vol. 222 No. 9

Adjournment Debate

Garda Investigations

Cuirim céad fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit. Táim anseo anocht le ceist agus cúis an-tromchúiseach a ardú, maidir le scéal atá sna meáin le cúpla seachtain anuas maidir leis an iar ceannasaí ar Chumann na bhFiann agus Coláiste na bhFiann, Dómhnall Ó Lúbhlaí, nach maireann. Bhí cláracha ar TG4 agus ar Raidío na Gaeltachta agus ar RTE le seachtain anuas a léirigh go raibh daoine ag déanamh líomhaintí go ndearnadh ionsaithe gnéis orthu fad agus a bhí siad faoi chúram Domhnall Ó Lúbhlaí.

I raise a very serious issue involving Dómhnall Ó Lúbhlaí, who is deceased and who was previously involved with Cumann na bhFiann and Coláiste na bhFiann. Allegations have been made that individuals were sexually abused by Dómhnall Ó Lubhlaí. These allegations date as far back as 1955. A number of questions need to be answered on this issue. The matter was brought before the courts on two occasions but in 1992 the case fell apart, reportedly because some of the evidence to be heard in court was not available at the time. The case fell apart on that technicality. At least four or five individuals have come forward and the 1992 case cited 53 occasions of abuse. This is a serious matter because the organisations concerned promoted the Irish language and gave access to large numbers of young males and females. I note that it was announced today that the Garda Commissioner intends to launch a full investigation but I am not satisfied that it will cover all issues arising.

It is important the Garda Commissioner has an internal investigation as to what happened in the Garda Síochána regarding this case. It is also important any other allegations made against this man are brought into the public domain so as to see the extent of the abuse.

The State has questions to answer. Last night a former Minister for the Gaeltacht said he was told of an allegation concerning the man in the 1990s but did not go to the Garda. Instead he made civil servants in his Department aware of it. It is not clear what happened to these allegations. Civil servants in the then Department of Education were also made aware of other abuse allegations. Did any Department or other State body act on these allegations or fail to act?

Any investigation into this matter will have to be much broader than just the Garda Síochána looking at its response to the allegations. How independent can such an investigation be? An independent outside review would be much more suitable in this case. If this abuse had been happening since 1955, how was it allowed to continue and how were so many people allowed to be abused? An investigation is the only way to resolve these questions. It is important to ascertain what role different civil servants, gardaí and the then Attorney General played in all of this. I was informed the court case fell apart around the time there were difficulties in the Attorney General’s office which led to the fall of a Government and we were without an Attorney General for a year. Did this have any bearing on how long it took to bring these cases to court?

I urge the Senator to be more prescriptive when tabling his Adjournment requests. There was no reference to what he raised in the Chamber. He has abused his privilege in naming persons in the Chamber when he did not refer to them in his request. The Chair did not have prior notice of a reference to an individual; it only had reference to a school.

This case has been in the media for the past week. The person referred to is deceased. In my understanding of the law, I do not believe the privilege scenario arises.

I am speaking on behalf of the Minister for Justice and Equality, who regrets that he is unable to be present due to other business. On behalf of the Minister, I thank the Senator for raising this important matter.

The reports in recent days and weeks concerning allegations against the person in question are of great concern. They echo in many ways those which have come to light in other situations where persons have abused their positions of authority and trust to harm children. We have learned from those instances and transformed our child protection arrangements. However, this is not to say that we can simply draw a line under the past. Where there continue to be further lessons to be learned, we should endeavour to do so, so as to give further assurance that our children can safely and happily engage in educational, sport and recreational activities in the wider community.

The Minister's first concern is, of course, with victims of abuse. He encourages anyone in any situation who has been abused to come forward to report their concerns and to avail of the counselling which is available from the Health Service Executive, HSE, or one of the voluntary groups working in this field. He would like to express his sincere sympathy with all those who have come forward concerning the allegations in this particular case. He hopes they will be able to benefit from the assistance which is available. The HSE national counselling service can be accessed free of charge in all regions and is staffed by highly qualified counsellors.

The Minister has received a preliminary report from the Garda authorities concerning the criminal investigations which took place. As has been widely reported, in 1997 a criminal investigation was instigated into allegations of instances of sexual abuse committed against various children and young persons. The person in question was arrested in connection with the offences in February 1999. A file on the allegations made was submitted to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, DPP, who directed that the accused be prosecuted for numerous counts of sexual offences. A prosecution was initiated in March 2000 when the accused was arrested and charged before Mullingar District Court with 56 counts of buggery and indecent assault. The case was subsequently listed for trial in Mullingar Circuit Criminal Court for February 2002.

The Minister is advised, however, that judicial review proceedings were taken before the High Court by the accused for reasons related to delay in the bringing of complaints. He understands that arising from these proceedings, the prosecution fell. The Senator will appreciate that the bringing of prosecutions and their management is a matter for the direction of the DPP, who makes independent decisions having regard to the circumstances of the case in question. The Minister has no role in this process and, quite properly, is not in a position to explain decisions of the DPP.

More recently, arrangements had been made by the Garda with a further injured party to take a statement but this had not taken place prior to the person in question's death. Gardaí are continuing to liaise with this injured party. Concerns expressed by another person were also under consideration at the time of the death.

The course which these investigations could have been expected to take is, of course, no longer available. However, the Garda Commissioner has informed the Minister that he has directed that a review be carried out of the procedures surrounding the handling of the complaints against this person, and subsequent investigations, to see if any lessons can be learned in that context. The HSE is also to review any contact made with it. The Department of Education and Skills is reviewing its records to establish if child protection concerns were raised with the Department concerning the person in question and if so what steps were taken on foot of this contact.

We know only too well how, in the past, such arrangements as were in place to protect children often, in fact, failed miserably. The Minister would like to emphasise the fundamental changes which have taken place in recent years to the way we approach the issue of child protection. We now have revised the Children First guidelines which are to be put on a statutory footing by the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs. These set out excellent standards and procedures involving vetting of staff, reporting of allegations to the authorities and training to support this process. These guidelines are complemented by the Criminal Justice (Withholding of Information on Offences against Children and Vulnerable Persons) Act 2012 and the National Vetting Bureau (Children and Vulnerable Persons) Act 2012, both introduced by the Minister, Deputy Shatter. Moreover, the arrangements for interagency working at all levels have been strengthened, supported by the ongoing reform of children and family services in the HSE and the work to establish a child and family support agency. An Garda Síochána also has in place a new and comprehensive policy on the investigation of sexual crime, crimes against children and child welfare.

It would be unrealistic to think that abuse will never occur but these new arrangements mean that we can have far greater confidence in the systems in place to prevent it, to make sure that it is effectively investigated where it is discovered and, ultimately, that offenders are held to account and the rights of victims vindicated.

On behalf of the Minister, I again thank the Senator for raising this important issue and will certainly share the points he has made with the relevant Ministers. The Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, again expresses his sympathy with all those who have been affected. We all regret greatly the dreadful experiences they endured. It is the Minister's view that it is incumbent on any organisation which may have been used by a person to facilitate their evil deeds to examine carefully how this may have occurred to ensure its procedures will not allow it to recur. For the present, the Minister believes that the reviews which are under way should be allowed to proceed and their results considered carefully, in order that we may see what lessons can be learned to further strengthen child protection arrangements.

I welcome the news that there will be reviews by the HSE and the Department of Education and Skills into this matter. Will other Departments also be involved, in light of the statement by a former Minister with responsibility for the Gaeltacht last night that he was approached on this and spoke to officials in his Department about allegations of abuse? This issue might extend further. The HSE, the Department of Education and Skills, the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht and any other Department or State agency which funded any of the organisations for whom the person involved worked should also conduct investigations and the Minister should bring all this information back to the Houses so that we can examine it. I thank the Minister of State for his response on this issue. It is important that this be fully and frankly investigated and that the victims be supported at this difficult time.

I thank the Senator for raising this important issue and on behalf of the Minister I thank him for his remarks. I will share the Senator's views with the Minister and he will share them with other relevant Ministers and the points raised will be addressed. Everyone has a deep appreciation of the harm that has been caused by the abuse of children and there is enormous popular support for the steps that have been taken to put comprehensive and robust protection arrangements in place. If there are lessons to be learned in this case by the agencies of the State and any private bodies involved, it is imperative that they be learned. The Minister and his colleagues are determined this will be the case and that is the reason the reviews mentioned are taking place. I reiterate the Minister's expressions of sympathy for all of those affected. He hopes they will be able to avail of the counselling services on offer.

Road Network

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this matter on the Adjournment. The people of County Meath deeply appreciate the fact that I can raise these issues in the Seanad.

I am concerned about the state of the roads in the county. The Minister of State will probably argue that the state of the roads is the responsibility of the county council and that the Minister only has a limited function in that regard. However, I contend that the appalling state of our roads, particularly rural roads and regional and third class roads, is due to the cuts to capital expenditure that the Government has introduced since coming into office. The Minister of State will probably respond that we agreed these cuts with the IMF, that they must be done and that they are only following an agreement reached by Fianna Fáil. Before he makes that point, I will counteract it. It is an incorrect contention that is repeated time and again. Under the IMF agreement, in 2012 the Department of Transport was to spend €1.329 billion on capital expenditure. Under the Government's capital framework, that amount was reduced to €1.231 billion, a reduction of approximately €100 million in 2012. Therefore, the Government agreed with the IMF to spend €100 million less than what was agreed by Fianna Fáil in 2010. In 2013, the Government proposes to spend €900 million on capital expenditure in the Department of Transport. Under the four-year national recovery plan, Fianna Fáil proposed to spend €1.075 billion. Therefore, there is a difference of approximately €175 million this year in capital expenditure in the Department of Transport compared with the IMF agreement. In 2014, the difference will be about €120 million. Cumulatively, in 2012, 2013 and 2014, approximately €400 million less will be spent on capital expenditure by the Department of Transport than was agreed with the IMF in November 2010. Therefore, on top of the cuts for which the Government has blamed Fianna Fáil, it has cut the roads budget by €400 million. This is deeply unfair and wrong.

The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Varadkar, boasted in The Irish Times before Christmas that he had cut €300 million or €400 million off the roads budget and nobody had noticed. People have noticed, because the roads are in an appalling state. It is incumbent on the Government to accept responsibility for this and to spend the money agreed on capital expenditure. It was part of the agreement the Government keeps citing to justify its actions. That argument is wrong. The €400 million being cut from 2011 to 2014 is having a massively detrimental effect on rural roads throughout the country. While the Government is still prepared to go ahead with some bypasses, I question the spend on the Gort to Tuam motorway and the Ballaghadereen bypass. I am familiar with the area of Ballaghadereen and I wonder why that bypass has got the go-ahead. Frankly, if a bypass is needed on the N5, it is needed somewhere else. I wonder at the priorities in place. We are able to build motorways, but we cannot maintain rural roads. For example, in the Kells electoral area of County Meath, at least €15 million is required to repair class 3 roads alone. This is a massive amount of money. In the meantime, people are afraid to drive and those who are driving to work find their cars are being severely damaged from driving on these roads. Recently, it took me approximately 50% longer to return from a public meeting in Cormeen, in the Moynalty area, than it would have taken me a few years ago because of the state of the roads in the area and the need to avoid potholes. A meeting took place with the Kells area county councillors about one month ago, but there has been no follow-up from the Minister. At the time, he met the county councillors and the county manager, and the case was made for more money for Meath County Council to repair roads in need of repair.

The problem is that the Government has cut €400 million above and beyond what was in the IMF agreement. That €400 million would go a long way, over a three-year period, towards repairing rural roads, not just in Meath, but throughout the country. The state of the roads is costing the economy massively. Damage is being done to cars and this results in huge administration costs for councils, which must deal with constant complaints. I urge the Minister and the Government to reconsider the capital transport budget and to send the money out to fix the roads and to create jobs in local areas.

I thank the Senator for raising this issue. During the Meath East by-election I was in the area and have some idea of the condition of the roads. However, in the case of roads we must consider the time of the year. I know that in Sligo, much of the maintenance work does not commence until this time of year because of weather conditions. Engineering staff in Sligo County Council tell me that any remedial work done up to this time of year is often a waste of money due to heavy rain and bad weather. Therefore, I am sure the Senator will be pleasantly surprised when the road crews get working in Meath on the class 3 roads.

I am taking this Adjournment debate on behalf of my colleague, Deputy Varadkar, the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, and I thank the Senator for raising this issue in the House this evening. The Minister has responsibility for overall policy and funding for the national roads programme. The planning, design and implementation of individual road projects is a matter for the National Roads Authority, NRA, under the Roads Acts of 1993 to 2007, in conjunction with the local authorities concerned. Within its capital budget, the assessment and prioritisation of individual projects is a matter in the first instance for the NRA in accordance with section 19 of the Roads Act. The NRA has a budget of €318 million for improvement and maintenance works on the national roads network in 2013.

The improvement and maintenance of regional and local roads is the statutory responsibility of each local authority, in accordance with the provisions of section 13 of the Roads Act 1993. Works on these roads are funded from local authorities' own resources, supplemented by State road grants paid by the Department. The initial selection and prioritisation of works to be funded is also a matter for the local authority. The Minister announced the 2013 regional and local road grant allocations on 25 January. A total of €349 million is being provided under the regional and local roads investment programme this year. From that allocation, Meath County Council is being provided with an allocation of over €10.7 million.

The level of grants allocated to individual local authorities is determined having regard to a number of factors, which include the total funds available in a particular year, the eligibility criteria for the different road grant schemes, road pavement conditions, the length of the road network, the need to prioritise projects and competing demands from other local authorities. In determining the annual grant allocations, the overall objective remains to supplement the resources provided by each local authority in a fair and appropriate manner. Ireland has a uniquely extensive road network. There are approximately 98,000 kilometres of road in the network, which represents two and a half times the EU average in terms of kilometres per head of population. The maintenance and improvement of this extensive network of roads places a substantial financial burden on local authorities and on the Exchequer.

In the light of this country's current financial position, which the Senator is well aware of, our main focus must be on the maintenance and repair of roads. This will remain the position in the years to come. There have been large reductions in roads expenditure over recent years. There will be further reductions in the future. In 2007, grants worth €2.375 billion were made available for national and local roads. These grants have fallen to €665 million in 2013 and will fall further to €629 million in 2014. The reality of the funding position means that priorities have to be set in all areas of activity.

It is important to reiterate that the role of Exchequer grants for regional and local roads is to supplement the spending of councils like Meath County Council in this area. The contribution made by Meath County Council, which is the road authority for the area mentioned by Senator Byrne, has fallen in recent years in real and percentage terms. In 2008, Meath County Council spent over €18 million from its own resources on works on regional and local roads. This represented 40% of the total spending on these roads, including State grants, in 2008. This own-resources expenditure decreased to €4 million, or 26% of the total expenditure on roads in the county, in 2012.

It is appreciated that many local authorities are trying to implement savings. The Minister believes that some local authorities are missing the point when they complain about reductions in Government grants and seek additional funding, given that they have reduced their own contributions by a far greater proportion. The reality is that the available funds do not match the amount of work required. The Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport and local authorities are working closely to develop new and more efficient ways of delivering the best possible outputs from the funding available to them. Given that the squeeze on Exchequer funding is likely to continue, this concentration on efficiency is essential if the best outturns are to be achieved from the limited money available.

In this regard, the Minister recently wrote to local authorities to offer them more flexibility in their regional and local road grants. Councils have an opportunity to reallocate up to 30% of their restoration improvement grants to their discretionary grants. The Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport has invited applications for funding under a pilot community involvement scheme, whereby problems affecting a given stretch of road can be remedied sooner than would otherwise be the case if the local community is willing to assist the local authority, in money or in kind, with the necessary works. The scheme recognises local community involvement in this regard without taking from the statutory responsibilities of county councils in any way.

It is impossible to read the version of the Minister of State's reply that has been furnished to us. The copy of the reply from which the Minister of State read is in the proper font. I do not know why it could not have been photocopied and made available to us. It is impossible to read the document given to us. It is an insult to the Seanad that the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport has acted in this manner. Perhaps the Minister of State will pass on my views to the officials in the Department. They could have photocopied what they supplied to the Minister of State. It would not have been any hassle. It is impossible to read the version I received. It is typical of the arrogant attitude of the Department.

I will arrange for a proper copy of it to be furnished to the Senator.

I would be delighted to receive it. It would be difficult to pass copies of the version of the speech that was given to me to those who are interested in this matter.

I agree entirely. I will circulate the proper version of it.

It is not as if the proper version was not available. It looks like the officials in the Department did this deliberately.

Perhaps they were trying to save paper.

Two pages would have been fine. If it was twice the size, it would have fitted on two pages.

I would like to make a couple of points on this issue. It is unfair to blame the county council in the manner the Minister of State has tried to do. It is trying to do the best it can from within its own resources. Its income has decreased. It is not allowed to keep the property tax. Certainly, some of it is going around the country. Anyone who tries to blame local authorities for not contributing money is missing the point completely.

The Government should reconsider the Smarter Travel fund. Fine Gael should be aware that it has become a slush fund for the Labour Party. It seems to me that the Labour Party makes all the announcements about the Smarter Travel fund. Some of the projects that have been announced under the fund are not necessary. They are being pursued at a time when roads are falling apart because of potholes. I urge the Government parties, particularly Fine Gael, to examine the matter. The fund is not doing what it should be doing.

We have got to look at spending. I repeat the point that there seems to be a difference of €400 million between what was in the IMF agreement and what the Government is committed to spending on capital expenditure in the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport. That is the nub of the problem. If we do not solve this problem, the standard of roads in Moynalty will become the norm throughout the country. If we do not get to grips with this problem, roads throughout the country will start to collapse.

The Minister has made it clear that local communities have an opportunity to get involved. Many people on back to work schemes are anxious to get involved in generic schemes in their localities. The proportion of funding that is being made available by county councils is much less than the proportion of funding being allocated by the Government. I am not fully certain where Senator Byrne got the €400 million figure that he mentioned when he spoke about the IMF agreement. The information available to me suggests that those figures are incorrect.

I do not doubt that the local government reform process will create opportunities for autonomy at local level. Elected councillors will be able to make funding allocations from moneys collected in their local areas. Up to 65% of those moneys will be maintained in the areas where they are collected. That is the intention of the Minister, Deputy Hogan, as he devolves responsibility to elected members.

It is easy to whinge and ask the Government for more money. It is up to elected councillors, county managers and the local executive to deal with their business locally. If they cannot match the funds that are provided by the State, it is very hard for the Government to keep supplementing them. As we reform local government in the next 12 months, we will give every local authority a unique opportunity to manage its own business, which is as it should be.

Medicinal Products Prices

I welcome the Minister, Deputy Hogan.

I thank the Minister for coming to the House at this late hour to deal with this matter. The issue I am raising relates to what happens when people purchase drugs or medications from their local pharmacies. I understand that after they have made the maximum monthly payment of €144, they are not given a detailed breakdown of the total cost of the rest of the medication from which they are benefitting. I am open to correction in this regard. I have spoken to a number of people on this issue. One receives a receipt for the first €144 of one's medication, but one does not get the full details of what one receives thereafter. A person who uses medication costing €300 or €400 does not get a breakdown of what the full amount of money is spent on.

I believe this is one of the issues we need to tackle, particularly given that the cost of drugs in this country increased from €574 million in 2000 to €1.894 billion in 2010. I have raised this matter already in this House today. It is estimated that this country's drugs bill will reach approximately €2 billion this year. A number of recent reports have indicated that there are substantial variations in the cost of medication. An item that cost €16 in one pharmacy was found to cost €46 in another pharmacy in the same town or city. There are significant price variations between pharmacies.

I would like to mention a second aspect of this issue. In Ireland, some medication costs up to 25 times more than a similar item would cost in the UK. Nobody seems to be in control. I am giving a simple example of the urgent need to make people aware of how much their medication is costing. People should take a proactive approach to helping to reduce the cost of medication in this country. I reckon we are spending between 25% and 30% more than we should be spending at present. I appreciate that the Health (Pricing and Supply of Medical Goods) Bill 2012, which is being considered, advocates the use of generic drugs. However, generic drugs are between ten and 20 times more expensive in this country than in other jurisdictions. This issue needs to be tackled urgently.

I apologise for the inability of the Minister for Health to be present to respond to the matter raised by the Senator. He has asked me to convey his apologies in that regard. The Minister is in favour of pharmacists publishing details of dispensing and other fees. Under the code of conduct of the Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland, pharmacists are required to provide honest, relevant, accurate, current and appropriate information for patients regarding the nature, cost, value and benefit of medicines provided by them. Every pharmacist has an obligation to comply in full with the statutory code of conduct. Perhaps they do not always do so.

The PSI advises patients that their pharmacist should be in a position to provide them with whatever information or clarification they require about prescribed medicines, although, as the Senator has just said, they often do not ask for this information. Each pharmacy has a professional management structure comprising of a superintendent and supervising pharmacist, and it may be appropriate to seek further information or clarification from them.

The price charged by a pharmacy for dispensing a prescribed medicine typically consists of a dispensing fee, the ingredient cost and a retail mark-up. The HSE reimburses pharmacists for products dispensed under the general medical services scheme and other community drug schemes in accordance with rates set out in its list of reimbursable items. Under the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Act 2009, the fees and allowances paid by the HSE to pharmacists were reduced in 2009 and again in 2011. These measures included a reduction in the wholesale mark-up on drugs from 17.66% to 8%. In addition, the retail mark-up payable under the drug payment scheme and the long-term illness scheme was reduced from 50% to 20%. The reduction in the cost of medicines should be of benefit to all patients who hold a drug payment scheme card, regardless of whether they reach the €144 threshold per month.

It is open to patients to move their custom to a different pharmacy if they are dissatisfied with the prices being charged. However, as we all know, it is often difficult for customers, particularly those in rural areas, to move their custom because they have built up a relationship and they have a traditional outlet.

I wish to advise that the Health (Pricing and Supply of Medical Goods) Bill 2012, which was passed on Committee Stage in the Dáil on 19 March, provides for the introduction of a system of generic substitution and reference pricing. This legislation is expected to complete its passage shortly. This will provide an opportunity to highlight the issue the Senator has raised in the House today and is perhaps an opportunity for the Minister for Health to do something along the lines advocated by the Senator.

I thank the Minister. My principal issue is that people should get a detailed statement at the end of the month regarding the total cost of the medication, including what refund is coming from the Department. There is a huge lack of knowledge as to what medication is now costing. If one is under the €144 threshold, one knows exactly what it is costing, but if it is over €144, one is not given the information and the pharmacy is not required to give a full detailed statement on the total amount being paid to the pharmacy for the medication. That needs to be changed. I certainly intend to raise this with the Minister for Health when we are discussing the Bill and also at the Committee on Health and Children. I thank the Minister for his response. It is a matter that needs to be sorted out.

The Minister for Health is quite sympathetic to the principles and practice the Senator has outlined. I will bring the matters he has raised to the Minister's attention tomorrow.

Nuclear Plants

I welcome the Minster, Deputy Hogan, and appreciate his attendance at this hour of the evening. On 19 March 2013, only four weeks ago, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change in the UK, Mr. Edward Davey, MP, granted development consent in respect of a 3,260 MW nuclear power plant development at Hinkley Point, Somerset, in the UK. This is approximately 150 miles from Ireland and our most densely populated east coast. This facility will be as close to many Irish people as it will be to many UK residents. For many Irish citizens, nuclear power facilities cause serious concern regarding risks for health, the environment and the economy, and in particular for the fishing, agriculture, food and tourism industries, which are essential indigenous industries on which Ireland relies.

The Seanad need not be reminded of the long-standing concerns and issues and the documented record of accidents and discharges into the Irish Sea from the UK's nuclear facility at Sellafield, as well as the recent disasters at Fukushima, Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. Despite these legitimate concerns and the proactive stance taken by previous Irish Governments in regard to securing access to Sellafield by Irish nuclear specialists, there appears to have been a fundamental failure in consultation between the UK and Ireland on the transboundary effects of this development, and a failure to involve Ireland and the Irish public in the consultation process essential to the decision-making process.

The documents publicly available make it clear that both the applicant energy company and the UK Government believe that nothing will go wrong and, consequently, there will be no transboundary effects on Ireland. This five-page document, known as a regulation 24 screening document, outlines some of the concerns I am bringing to the Minister's attention. For example, the document deals only with geographical area concerned; the distance to any other EEA member state is not specified and there has no been no scoping exercise outside of the UK. Any assessment of magnitude is not included in this document and neither are questions of frequency and duration. This screening document appears to be the basis on which the UK Government decided not to consult with the Irish Government or, more importantly, the Irish public. Glasgow was consulted about its geographical relationship with Hinkley Point but not Dublin, Wexford or the Minister's constituency. As I said, the distance to the east coast of Ireland is 150-odd miles; therefore, I consider this to be a serious matter.

I would like to know whether the Irish Government was consulted on this decision. It is my contention that the Oireachtas and the Irish public should have been consulted according to the Aarhus convention. If the Irish Government knew about this development, why was the Irish public not consulted?

The second issue is more important and urgent. Does the Minister not consider we should do something about this? What is the intention of the Government and what is its responsibility to consult and inform the Irish public about the terrible and worrying situation regarding the development of the Hinkley Point nuclear power plant? Will the Government seek a judicial review, which has to be submitted by 29 April? It is four weeks since we found out about this and it is a very tight deadline. Perhaps the Minister can suggest other channels by which the Government can communicate its view on this issue, particularly with regard to representing the Irish public's view. How can the Oireachtas and the people of Ireland assist the Government in perhaps making a complaint to the European Commission or making an application for interim measures or other actions with the European Court of Justice?

All of us - those in the Oireachtas and all other Irish citizens - need to be fully briefed and informed and do everything we can to stop this development, which will take place over approximately 65 hectares. The fact that the Irish public has not been consulted is deeply worrying and possibly illegal. We now have an opportunity to examine the decision and to prevent the nuclear development from proceeding, but we have very little time.

The Government of Ireland and its people have long been concerned about the potential impacts on Ireland, including the Irish Sea, from nuclear activities in the United Kingdom. Although Ireland does not have a nuclear power industry, it is Ireland's position that where a State chooses either to develop a nuclear power industry or, in this case, to consider expanding its existing nuclear power industry, this must always be done in accordance with the highest international standards with respect to safety and environmental protection. Ireland's priority is the safety of the Irish people and the protection of our environment, including the shared marine environment of the Irish Sea.

The UK announced and published its draft energy national policy statement in November 2009, which signalled the UK's intention to construct ten new nuclear power stations at sites judged as potentially suitable. This was subsequently revised in October 2010, when the number of planned stations was reduced to eight, following the dropping of two sites originally proposed for Cumbria, near the existing Sellafield facility.

It is incorrect to state there was no consultation with the Irish Government, and I will set out why this is the case. Since the original announcement by the UK, we have written twice at ministerial level to the UK Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change outlining concerns about the potential environmental impacts on Ireland and on the Irish Sea. The key issues of concern raised in those letters include the assessments by the UK of effects on the environment, management of radioactive waste and the rationale underpinning the proposed justification decision for new nuclear facilities. The engagement with the UK at ministerial level has also been supported and informed by a continuing dialogue at official level under which Irish officials engage and raise concerns, where appropriate, with UK officials involved in the development and implementation of the plans. In parallel, the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland, RPII, given its statutory advisory role to the Government, was asked to carry out an assessment of the potential radiological impacts on Ireland from the programme of new nuclear power plants in the UK, including the plant at Hinkley Point. Therefore, I am doing something at expert and agency level to ensure the safety of the Irish people in this respect.

The RPII assessment considers both routine operations and a range of postulated accident scenarios at the plants. The assessment is being finalised and I expect to receive it very shortly. It will then be published and as the RPII will provide briefings for interested parties, the Senator may wish to receive a briefing. This assessment will be of considerable assistance to Ireland in quantifying scientifically the risk profile to Ireland arising from each of the UK nuclear new-build facilities, including the facility at Hinkley Point. This will enable Ireland to engage constructively with UK authorities to continue to ensure that the interests of Ireland are strongly represented.

As well as regular engagement as official level, the RPII has been heavily involved in monitoring UK nuclear activities and advising my Department, and will also be responsible for monitoring the effects of day-to-day operations of any new facilities on Ireland, particularly on the Irish Sea.

It should be noted that under the EURATOM treaty, the United Kingdom was required to satisfy the European Commission that the development at Hinkley Point would not result in the radioactive contamination of the water, soil or airspace of another member state. In that context, a Commission opinion, issued in February 2012, considered that in normal operating conditions discharges of liquid and gaseous radioactive effluents were not likely to result in exposure of the population of another member state, which is significant from the point of view of health.

It is my intention that the improved engagement between Ireland and the United Kingdom on nuclear matters will continue. This will ensure the Government and the people will be in a position to be properly informed of radiation developments in the United Kingdom of interest to them, as well as conveying concerns or issues arising directly to the relevant UK authorities.

I thank the Minister for offering a briefing. I am not clear on whether the Government was briefed about the particular decision of 19 March to develop at Hinkley Point. The Minister has mentioned the RPII's assessment, but at what point was this made public? There seems to be an onus under the Aarhus Convention and the Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context to also consult the public. We have very little time in concluding this issue because 29 March is the deadline set for that decision. I want to be precise about this.

There is a considerable degree of engagement between the Irish and UK authorities, of which the Senator may not be aware.

No, I am not, which is why I brought up the issue here. The public is not aware of it either.

There is no point in making people aware of it until such time as a scientific and technical assessment is carried out on my behalf by the relevant agency - the RPII. The agency has been engaged with the UK authorities for a long time and raised the issues I have outlined.

This issue has been ongoing since 2010.

The RPII has been engaged constantly at official level since and carried out its own studies of these matters, which is why I offered the Senator a briefing when matters were concluded. There is no point in coming to conclusions without first doing the homework on the science or making an assessment of the facility to establish if there is a danger. If there is, the Government will be proactive in bringing these matters to the attention of the UK authorities.

The Seanad adjourned at 9.15 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 18 April 2013.
Barr
Roinn