I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dowd, to the House. I know the Minister of State is expecting a call, but I ask him to keep his phone on silent.
Radiological Protection (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2014: Committee Stage
If it rings it will be on the record for everybody.
We understand if the Minister of State must go out and answer it.
Section 1 agreed to.
NEW SECTION
Amendments Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, are related and will be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 5, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following:
"2. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) shall, from the date of enactment of this Act, be known as the Environmental & Radiological Protection Agency (ERPA).".
We covered some of this ground yesterday on Second Stage. This is a very simple amendment. We seek the incorporation of the very important function of the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland into the name of the Bill. I hope the Minister of State can easily and readily accept this simple amendment. Under the Bill the merged body will have two approaches. One will be the protection of the environment from human degradation, which is the function to which the EPA is generally recognised as being charged with undertaking. The other will be to protect people from the harmful effects of radiation, which involves a number of functions. Yesterday we concentrated on the radon gas issue which, as Senator Landy rightly pointed out, is an issue in his area. It is also an issue in Wexford and other parts of the south and west of the country where there are high levels of radiation, sometimes up to ten times the recommended level. I carried out a test on our house to find it was marginally above the limits. We live in an area where we are at risk of very high levels of radon gas.
Over the years the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland has done much work to create awareness about the issue. This has inspired many people, including me, to use detectors to gauge the level of exposure experienced. It is very much a silent killer in that lung cancer is often well past the stage when it can be arrested before one realises one has it.
Last week we applauded the Minister for Health on his efforts to curtail smoking, in particular with regard to plain packaging, and the awareness being created about the risks of smoking. Unfortunately this does not prevent people from smoking but it has some mitigating effects. The separate function regarding radiological protection should be fully recognised in the name of the new body in order that the awareness which already exists will continue. If the merged body will be known as the Environmental Protection Agency it will not convey into the minds of people the issues for which the body will have overarching responsibility. It would be a prudent and simple step to include "radiological" in the title of the body in order that it will be known as the environmental and radiological protection agency. I hope the Minister of State can accept the amendment. Yesterday all sides of the House expressed support for this suggestion.
I welcome the Minister of State to the House. I wish to speak briefly in support of the amendment. A number of us raised this issue yesterday on Second Stage with the Minister of State, Deputy Sherlock. That the merged entity will be known as the Environmental Protection Agency cannot but be a statement about the relative importance of the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland and the Environmental Protection Agency. They have very different functions, as Senator Walsh has pointed out. While human beings are certainly part of the environment, an agency which has strong and important responsibilities in respect of protecting the public with regard to radiation will be incorporated under the heading of environmental protection, but the protection of the person and individuals is very different from environmental protection. I do not see any good reason not to incorporate the reality of both merged entities in the new name of the agency.
I did not manage to elicit much information from the Minister of State, Deputy Sherlock, yesterday, on this particular matter although he was very helpful in other ways. I quoted a letter from the chairperson of the RPII, Professor William Reville, in which he outlined the concerns of the RPII in respect of the name of the new merged entity and in respect of the need to have stronger statutory underpinning for the role of the new office for radiological protection. In his briefing to us he stated the RPII felt it had minimal influence on the Department. It is the prerogative of the Government to lead with the proposal, but none the less one would have thought that in making these arrangements, very close attention would be paid to the concerns of the experts. Professor Reville was not speaking for himself but for the RPII when he stated that, when these proposals were made on the naming and statutory underpinning of the new office for radiological protection, the RPII accepted the remit of the Government in coming forward with the legislative proposal. However, it is noteworthy that he saw fit to state the RPII had minimal influence in persuading the Government, or the Government backed up by the Civil Service. I would be grateful if the Minister of State were to give us an account of his sense of his contact with the RPII on this matter and why it feels it has had minimal influence on what should be a fairly straightforward matter.
It is important that the aims, objectives and good work of the RPII will be continued. The importance of a name is one thing but actions are more important and it must be ensured they are continued. The Minister of State, Deputy Sherlock, gave a firm and clear commitment and perhaps the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dowd, will reiterate that none of the works, aims and objectives being carried out by the RPII will be diminished in any way and that they will continue. It would be good to have this reassurance.
Yesterday I stated I consulted the Minister, Deputy Hogan, on the issue of radon throughout the country.
I am in the process of developing a Bill, which I will hope will come before the House, on a national control strategy based on the work of the inter-agency group set up to examine that. It made many good recommendations but legislation is important. We have heard all about the cons of radiation, but education on this area is important also. I hope to get that Bill on the agenda of the Seanad shortly.
On Second Stage yesterday, we discussed the entity that will be the merged Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland, RPII, and the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA. I made the point in that debate, and repeat it now, that it is important the role of the RPII is not lost but the research material provided to us indicates that a working group was set up to ensure the merger works properly. Senator Walsh is very much a guardian of the public purse in this House but he may not be aware that the cost of changing a corporate name in an organisation such as the EPA, which has a budget of almost €60 million, is a serious amount of money in terms of public funds. I would be more interested in seeing that money spent on an awareness campaign highlighting that the RPII has merged with the EPA but will continue to function as part of the EPA.
As a member of a local authority, I recall several occasions when representatives of the RPII attended council meetings across the country as part of their awareness programme. That brought home the seriousness of the issue to those of us in my area in Tipperary where the extent of radon gas is extremely high, and a great deal of work has had to be done by people in their houses to deal with the problem. I would like to think that function will continue under the EPA but also that there would be an awareness that the RPII still exists as a full arm of the State to carry out its very important work. I ask the Minister to give some assurances on that.
When the role of the EPA is examined in the future, and following our Private Members' motion last night, I am sure that will be dealt with because revelations came out last night as part of that debate which indicate that the EPA, as the watchdog in terms of our environment, needs to be scrutinised more deeply than has been the case. The Minister, Deputy Hogan, in what was probably one of his last functions as Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, gave commitments to that effect on specific difficulties throughout the country. I hope the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dowd, will be in that seat in the next 24 hours.
I doubt that.
If he is, I assure him he will be back in this House discussing this issue further. We are on a watching brief with regard to this matter but if we do not see results from what was committed to last night, we will revisit it. As far as I am concerned, much of the work the EPA is charged with doing on behalf of the citizens of this country is not being done in the way it should be done.
I am sorry. That is my phone.
Is that the Taoiseach?
No, it is not. It is a family issue. I am sorry about that.
We understand the Minister is quite anxious and if he needs to take a call, the House will facilitate that. There is no problem.
It is not often I am knocked off my perch.
I welcome the further debate in the House on this very important issue. I want to give a reassurance, which Senators on all sides are entitled to and the Government is obliged to give, that there is no diminution in the functions or the powers of the RPII, which will be the same as previously. There is no difference. The point is that in recognition of its extremely important role in that area, there will be a new division within the EPA, which is the radiological division. In other words, all the correspondence, statutory powers and functions remain the same but are located within a broader framework in terms of the Environmental Protection Agency.
It was believed that a more efficient and economic means of merging the two was to dissolve one and transfer all of its functions, staff and assets to the other rather than dissolving both and creating a completely new entity with a new name or whatever. This approach requires significantly simpler legislation, and incurs fewer costs and less potential disruption to service delivery. It makes it easier to ensure the ongoing maintenance of the functions of both agencies. That is why the decision was made. The merger will not result in any diminution of our commitment to protection.
If there was a radiological incident at, say, Sellafield and there was fallout over our country, the EPA and the RPII would be actively engaged in dealing with that. They would both have roles to play. For instance, it would be very important to monitor drinking water, the soil and air quality. Those are functions the RPII would have to ask somebody else to do because it does not do that, although it would have to be involved in reading the results and explaining them to people. The key point is that the change is not to its function. There will be a new synergy because if an issue arises that has to be dealt with urgently, all the skills needed will be in the one unit.
The Government, the RPII and the EPA have been proactive in making sure that this merger is done efficiently and is as seamless as possible. There is a project management group and a project working group, which has representatives of both organisations, as well as the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government. Both groups have met on a monthly basis to ensure that the merger is seamless in terms of administration, human resources, finance, accommodation, corporate governance and environmental functions and operations.
Sub-groups on this legislation were also set up. Both agencies have provided inputs to the development of the principles and policies of this Bill. Meetings have taken place between board members of the RPII and senior Department officials. There has been correspondence on the issue also. The aim of all of that is to get the amalgamation in operation before the summer, an issue that arose yesterday. The sooner it happens, the better in terms of the financial organisation, the new synergies with regard to human resources and so on.
This Bill will repeal and amend all the relevant enactments and statutory instruments to ensure that the EPA has all the powers to assume the radiological protection role. All of the current functions are transferring so there is no change in that regard. There will be a new division within the EPA, which I believe will meet all of the needs and address the points made.
Senator Mullen raised a number of points. I assure him that he need have no worries because there is consultation and involvement. He mentioned the eminent Professor Reville who is highly respected and regularly writes articles for The Irish Times and scientific journals. His views are respected and acknowledged but in the context of the day to day administration and looking at all the issues involved, including the capacity of the State to respond to issues, the new synergies, all the powers transferring and they roles they had the day before, which they will have the day after, I hope we have given reassurance. I ask the Senator to consider that point.
I thank the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dowd for his comments. Indeed, I wish him well, as Senator Landy has done, in the days ahead. I served with the Minister of State in this House when he was in opposition and my party was in government a decade or more ago.
I also accept the bona fides of the Minister of State, Deputy Sherlock. I am sure the Ministers of State believe what they say when they give those assurances to us but we need to remind ourselves, as I am sure the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dowd, will accept, that Ministers come and go. They are birds of passage. In fact, next week the Minister of State may be hold a different portfolio-----
I might have none.
-----and so may the Minister of State, Deputy Sherlock.
The EPA goes on.
However, the permanent government goes on and, as the Minister of State correctly states, the EPA goes on, and I do not feel quite as comfortable with their assurances. There are deficiencies.
It is not only the EPA, and I do not want to pick on it, because there are major problems right across the public service. There is a dearth of quality management. In fact, there are commentators, including union officials, who will tell one that there is no management in the public service and that there are only grades. That is a matter of concern. All one need do is look back at the financial crisis and the difficulties people have in this country to see that there were significant failures within the Department of Finance which, no more than the Central Bank and the Financial Services Regulator, was not fit for purpose. Unfortunately, the lessons from the crisis that we have learned have not been applied to improve the system in any shape or form, and that is a matter of significant regret to me and to many taxpayers.
This body which had a singular focus will now be subsumed into the EPA. If the EPA was the dynamic organisation that we would like it to be, perhaps the concerns would not be as significant. While I am not objecting in principle to the merger, although I might have some qualms about it, the RPII has created awareness of the dangers of exposure to high levels of radioactive radon gas and we are taking steps, through that awareness, to get citizens to take action. I am concerned that it could to some extent be lost within the remit of the much bigger conglomerate of the Environmental Protection Agency where it will not have that singular focus.
That is not only my concern. That has been expressed by others, including the board of the RPII who were magnanimous in accepting, as I fully accept, that it is Government's prerogative to decide what should happen in relation to public bodies. Professor Willie Reville, whom I know from my school days, is somebody of the highest calibre and highly regarded in this field. He has expressed to the committee, of which I am not a member, concerns that he and his board have about the loss of that identity, which had been created, within this new structure. Yesterday, Senator Mac Conghail made the point that branding in any area is important. Whether it is product sales or whatever, having an identifiable brand certainly assists either the sale of the product or the effectiveness of the campaign. As Senators will be aware, it is important in politics as well.
With that in mind, and noting that the Minister of State did not state whether he is accepting or rejecting my amendments-----
I will not be accepting them.
I thought that was the message but the Minister of State did not say it.
I am being nice.
I will press it. It is a pity that it is not being accepted because it is a simple measure. I take Senator Landy's point that there may be a cost attached, but there is a considerable cost attached to the medical services. A significant proportion of the budget is spent annually in the HSE and in the health services, and here we have body which is charged with creating awareness to prevent what is a preventable disease.
It also shows the disparity in thinking or a lack of joined-up thinking within Government when one compares the treatment of smoking, which involves a carcinogenic agent and has dire consequences for 50% of those who smoke and who will probably lose their lives through smoking-related disease, which is being tackled vigorously and radon gas, which is equally a carcinogenic agent for lung cancer, the same disease. A combination of both, for example, has significant additional risk factors for those involved. While it is the case that we are moving for the sake of saving money - there well be the synergies of which the Minister of State mentions between both bodies which may enable some improvement or joined-up approaches to be taken - and there may be some arguments for doing it, the main reason for the existence of the RPII is to create awareness in that area. I will not talk about the other area of nuclear fallout, etc., which the Minister of State mentioned and which, down the east coast, is a concern given our proximity to some of the British nuclear power stations.
I ask the Minister to State to think again. People's lives are priceless. Whatever additional costs may be involved in changing the name, which are once-off costs in any event, these should be borne. I would like to think the Minister of State would see some reason for accepting the merit in the arguments that have been put forward not only by me, but by others, so that we could have them reflected in a name of the new agency, the environmental and radiological protection agency. If he will not accept it, we will test it with a vote.
Cuirimse freisin fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit go dtí an Seanad. I hope the Minister of State, when he comes back to us, will be in a more senior portfolio. That is all the harm I wish him. He has done a good job in the one he is in and I wish him well.
Acting Chairman (Senator Diarmaid Wilson)
On the Bill, Senator.
The merger of these two bodies will not in any way result in a diminution in the commitment to the radiological protection institute. The establishment of the office of radiological protection will, as the Minister of State stated, maintain the positive profile and high reputation of the institute.
On the future of the Sellafield nuclear site, as the Minister of State is from County Louth, as I am, he is aware that it is an issue of concern to the people of County Louth. Many in the county have died from cancer and the causes have been attributed to proximity to the nuclear site at Sellafield. There are ongoing engagements with the United Kingdom on radiological and nuclear matters. I ask the Minister of State to assure us that when the two agencies merge, such meetings will be forthcoming as often as they are at present. Local government and technical experts from the RPII meet their counterparts from the United Kingdom Department on a regular basis and it is hoped that this will continue. I ask him to assure us that it will.
As I stated, Sellafield is of concern. The merger of the two bodies will in no way reduce the current high level of scrutiny that applies to the Sellafield issue. It is to alleviate the concerns of the county that we both come from, and, indeed, all counties on the east coast. They are concerned about the discharges into the Irish Sea and it is hoped that such discharges are being monitored on a regular basis.
Does the Minister have any idea how often this happens? Is the incidence increasing? Does the discharge of nuclear waste to the Irish Sea happen more often now than it did in the past or has it reduced? I hope the merger will not increase the possibility of a greater discharge into the Irish Sea.
The issues raised are very important. To deal with the last one first, the best way to give information to the Seanad is to ask the chief executive of the RPII, Dr. McGarry, to write to the Seanad with an up-to-date report and perhaps to send copies of the annual report to each Member to clarify the issues. The Department has reassured me on that point. The Senator is right to stress the ongoing concerns, and the vigilance the State needs to ensure the views of this country continue to be strongly expressed to the Government of the United Kingdom. Several meetings have taken place at ministerial level. The RPII visits Sellafield regularly and is welcome. It is part of the process of consultation on issues in that regard, much of which came from the political pressure in County Louth in the past. All parties concurred on that.
Has the Minister of State been to Sellafield?
I have been a few times. Twice I was let in and once not. The time I was not allowed in got great publicity because I had been invited but the people with me were deemed to be in breach of security. In fact it was a Channel 4 news team which filmed it from the outside. I think that rebounded on Sellafield. That was in my role as a humble Senator. As a Minister of State I deal with it through the Department.
On a serious note, the Senator can be absolutely reassured. There is less evidence of discharge as time goes on because of environmental awareness, campaigning and actions by the British Government or the Sellafield management company, which is no longer called British Nuclear Fuels Limited, BNFL. It is a serious issue and is under constant review. That section of the EPA will have the same interest, knowledge, capacity to respond, powers and recognition as the RPII has now. I have no concerns that there will be any diminution of this following the merger.
I agree with Senator Walsh about the EPA. I did not hear the debate last night. I am, however, personally aware of the importance of EPA pronouncements on environmental issues. I know the independence of its views, the extent of its scientific opinion, its expertise and capacity to listen to communities. It has always been available to deal with issues in my constituency. Anybody can write to it. Everybody will get a response. It has always met me, visited and been available. It spoke definitively, ex cathedra, with absolute knowledge and certainty about the processes and environmental issues I raised.
I was in another country recently whose environmental protection agency was much weaker because it was under government control. It was not a political organisation but it was not entirely independent of the political system as our EPA and RPII are. The Senator raises an important point about health issues and the campaigning on those. I congratulate Dr. McGarry and her staff on the work they have done to make the public aware of the dangers of radon gas. One can visit the EPA website and see the significant issues in one’s townland. These are colour-coded. The deeper the yellow the greater the danger. It published a report last week to show where the dangers are and what to do. Dr. McGarry will lead the section within the EPA that deals with radiological protection. I have no doubt that the campaigns and the resources put into them will not be in any way diminished. I will ask her to write to reassure the Seanad on that point and to outline what it has done and is going to do.
The EPA wrote to every household in County Louth last year to outline dangers and gave out a very informative, professionally produced document which did not alarm people but alerted them. It encouraged people to get testing done. I have no doubt that will continue. I appreciate that the Senator is not objecting in principle to the merger but that he has to push his amendment. It is right and proper to debate these issues. I have dealt with the RPII for many years, starting with Dr. Tom O’Flaherty, a former chief executive, when I called meetings in my constituency as a councillor - that was a long time ago - about Sellafield. It was always available to give fair and objective advice. The merger will not change that role. The EPA has committed to that. I am confident the EPA is professional and independent. It can bring in extra scientists to deal with a particular environmental or scientific controversy, if necessary.
In response to Senator Landy, the cost of rebranding the merged entity is prohibitive. There is no need for it, notwithstanding the correspondence the Senator has to the contrary. There is no diminution of roles. That is the key point, whatever about the name. The powers remain the same. There will be new synergies and savings, notwithstanding the initial cost of the change. It will be in the order of €200,000 per annum. It is not a large sum but it is important. If there was a problem I would say so. Senator Brennan and I are from the same county and know how important this is for us. There is no way we would stand over any change.
The naming and branding were very carefully considered and several options were thoroughly examined prior to the final decision. The merger working group established to implement the decision to merge the two bodies was made up of senior officials from the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, the RPII and the EPA. It considered the name of the merged organisation in great detail and wrote a report for the Department.
Several potential alternative names were considered and referred to the Minister. After further deliberations and taking all relevant factors into account, the Minister decided to keep the EPA, Environmental Protection Agency, name. This decision was communicated to the RPII, Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland, board and the reasons explained along with correspondence. I hope the explanation of the process is transparent.
The Minister of State’s last word was “transparent”. He gave the EPA a ringing endorsement today.
Yes I did, based on personal experience.
Yes, I respect it is due to his personal experience. However, I respectfully ask him to read the Official Report of last night’s contributions by Senators James Heffernan, Tony Mulcahy and John Whelan.
Of course, I will read them.
They raised three cases in Limerick, Clare and Portlaoise involving the EPA in which it has failed dismally to act as the environmental watchdog of the State and the citizen.
Coming from County Louth and the issues concerning Sellafield, I accept no one is better versed and experienced with environmental issues than the Minister of State. It is important, however, his endorsement stands up. It certainly would not stand up against the evidence put on the record here last night about the three cases in Limerick, Clare and Portlaoise. When the Minister of State becomes the senior Minister in the Department, he must personally take an interest in these cases. In fairness to the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Phil Hogan, he said last night he had called for a specific investigation into the Enva plant issue in Portlaoise and for the report, when completed, to be brought to the new Minister’s attention. Based on the evidence I heard here last night, I do not believe there is transparency in the way the EPA is carrying out its work, however.
The work the RPII has done to create awareness about radiological issues is commendable. It was able to do so because it had a single management with a board focused on the narrow objective of protecting people from nuclear fall-out and radon gas. Now, the Government is putting it into a conglomerate with six other different activities, all of which will be competing for the same funding and all of which will operate depending on the quality of management in its hierarchical structure. There is no statutory underpinning or identification of the particular role of the RPII within the name of the EPA or in the legislation.
I am concerned about this. That is not to take away from the assurances given by the Minister of State. However, experience has taught me that politicians, in good faith, will give assurances but they are never around to carry them out. It is the people behind them who are there permanently, most of the time nameless, who must carry these assurances out. Precautionary measures need to be put into this legislation which this amendment would do. I am disappointed the Minister of State is not accepting it.
The most important issue is the environment which must be protected for future generations and who is charged with looking after it. My experience with the EPA has been quite positive, a point I also made yesterday. The EPA puts many documents and correspondence online which means it is more transparent than before. The director general appointed several years ago has made positive strides in the organisation and has recently won an award. The EPA cannot be blamed for everything that goes wrong because sometimes it makes a recommendation but, due to a lack of funding from central government, it cannot tackle pollution.
The Minister called for a special report on the issues about Portlaoise raised yesterday. This should be done anywhere an issue is flagged. I had a similar case with a waste facility where people complained to me about odours. The EPA went to the ends of the earth to make the company change doors and machinery to reduce the odours emanating from the facility.
Amendment put:
The Seanad divided: Tá, 17; Níl, 25.
Tá
- Barrett, Sean D.
- Byrne, Thomas.
- Crown, John.
- Cullinane, David.
- Daly, Mark.
- Heffernan, James.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Mooney, Paschal.
- Mullen, Rónán.
- O'Brien, Darragh.
- O'Brien, Mary Ann.
- Ó Murchú, Labhrás.
- Power, Averil.
- Quinn, Feargal.
- Walsh, Jim.
- Wilson, Diarmuid.
- Zappone, Katherine.
Níl
- Bacik, Ivana.
- Brennan, Terry.
- Burke, Colm.
- Coghlan, Eamonn.
- Coghlan, Paul.
- Comiskey, Michael.
- Conway, Martin.
- Cummins, Maurice.
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Gilroy, John.
- Hayden, Aideen.
- Henry, Imelda.
- Keane, Cáit.
- Kelly, John.
- Landy, Denis.
- Moloney, Marie.
- Moran, Mary.
- Mulcahy, Tony.
- Mullins, Michael.
- Naughton, Hildegarde.
- Noone, Catherine.
- O'Keeffe, Susan.
- O'Neill, Pat.
- Sheahan, Tom.
- van Turnhout, Jillian.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Paschal Mooney and Diarmuid Wilson; Níl, Senators Paul Coghlan and Aideen Hayden.
Amendment declared lost.
SECTION 2
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 5, to delete line 28 and substitute the following:
“ “Agency” means the Environmental and Radiological Protection Agency (ERPA).”.
Question, "That the words proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
Section 2 agreed to.
Sections 3 to 5, inclusive, agreed.
Amendment No. 3 not moved.
Sections 6 to 14, inclusive, agreed to.
NEW SECTION
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 9, after line 41, to insert the following:
“Establishment and functions of the Office of Radiological Protection
15. (1) The Office of Radiological Protection shall be established by this Agency within its organisational structure.
(2) Management and direction of the Office of Radiological Protection shall be the responsibility of the person who becomes a director of the Agency under section 14(1).
(3) The Agency shall ensure that all functions transferred to the Agency under section 6(1) shall be administered from and carried out by the Office of Radiological Protection.”.
This amendment was tabled for many of the reasons Members sought to have radiological protection reflected in the name of the agency. Its purpose is to ensure that in the submerging of the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland, RPII, into the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, the functions, operation and effectiveness of the body effectively will continue as it was. I note that all Members are referring to this as a merger but it is in fact a submerging rather than a merger of the RPII into the EPA. It will be only one of a number of functional areas or departments operating within that body.
In addition, it is important that the administration of radiological protection should continue with minimal disruption and should be as uninterrupted as possibly can be achieved within this body. Unfortunately, the Bill does not contain statutory underpinning of what previously was an independent body. It also is fair to note that in most European countries, radiological protection is the remit of a stand-alone independent body. Ireland is going in a somewhat different direction than previously and as a consequence, Members must be cautious as to the effects and implications this will have on the operation of those functions. This amendment would give statutory underpinning to the office of radiological protection within the EPA. This appears to be a sensible approach that would ensure there will not be chopping and changing within the organisation, which tends to happen within larger organisations, often to the diminution of the import of the particular focus Members have here on the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland. The Minister of State might have noticed that no one is talking about the EPA being affected by this proposal, as it is not. The real concern is whether the smaller body, which has a singular focus, will have its remit diluted to the detriment of the health and protection of civil society. The Minister of State is very familiar with the risks attached to nuclear fallout from Sellafield. Yesterday, Members discussed in this Chamber a controversy that erupted some years ago when a predecessor of the Minister of State found that the system for protecting people, namely, the distribution of iodine tablets and so on, was insufficient. That was exposed in a radio interview and unfortunately, I am unsure whether the checks and balances that must be in place within such systems will not be somewhat diluted by joining together these bodies, rather than having them function separately.
While, as I stated earlier, we accept the merger in principle, this amendment provides some statutory protection to the operation of that function within the larger EPA. This would only enhance the operation and a highly respected remit has been built up within this area. The Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland was recognised internationally as a fairly effective body in this field. Consequently, I ask the Minister of State to accept this amendment in the interests of ensuring that what I think is our shared objective will be met. I do not believe the Minister of State has a justifiable reason for not accepting the amendment and not agreeing to it, if he wishes to meet the assurances he gave, which I accept fully were genuine. This is a way of ensuring it is not simply a transitory assurance given in the House by somebody who could have a different portfolio next week but will be met. I urge the Minister of State to accept this amendment.
I refer the Senator to section 6 of the Bill, which pertains to the transfer of functions to the EPA. Section 6(1) reads "All functions that, immediately before the dissolution day, were vested in the dissolved body by or under any enactment shall on that day stand transferred to the [EPA]". Section 6(2) states "References in any enactment ... passed before the dissolution day, or in any instrument made before the dissolution day under an enactment, to the [RPII] shall, on and after the dissolution day, be construed as references to the Agency". Section 6(3) specifies that references in any enactment or in any instrument under an enactment that obtained immediately before the dissolution day will be construed as references to the new body. Consequently, I wish to state categorically to the Senator that all the legal and functions and powers mentioned and any powers that attach presently to the RPII are transferred 100% with no diminution whatsoever to the EPA. There is no issue in this regard and I ask the Senator to reconsider this matter.
On the other points made by the Senator regarding the cost effectiveness of the measure, the 1992 Act set out that the agency shall consist of a director general and four other directors but this will increase to five post-merger. Consequently, there will be a director within the EPA who has the responsibility for the office of radiological protection. That is clear accountability at senior management level for radiological protection. It will be the function of the director general of the new merged organisation to arrange the distribution of the business among its directors but this must be done having regard to the statutory functions and requirements, that is, the legal functions and obligations.
I assure the Senator there will be no diminution of powers. Accordingly, it would not be appropriate or desirable to prescribe the divisional organisation of the EPA or to confer one of the offices with a 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 that sufficient resources and effort are being directed to meet all of the merged bodies’ functions. I have full confidence that it will manage its expertise and resources accordingly.
During the course of the Second Stage debate on this Bill in the Dáil, Deputy Kitt stated: "[T]he proposed merger makes sense and I support the legislation. The EPA has the capacity and experience to undertake the work currently under the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland". He went on to state: "[T]he advisory, research, licensing and educational role of the Institute can be adequately performed within the framework of the EPA". I fully agree with the Deputy in this instance. I hope this clarifies the issue and demonstrates the unanimous support for it in the other House.
The Minister of State has demonstrated that Fianna Fáil is a broad church. I support him in allaying concerns about this part of the Bill. I am hopeful that the ethic of the RPII can improve the ethic of the EPA in regard to the issues I raised earlier. When I criticised the lack of response by certain organs of the EPA it was based solely on the evidence. I was not criticising public servants and I would not like any such inference to be taken from what I have said because I have the highest of respect for public servants. Whenever someone on the other side of the House attacks public servants, I make it my business to defend them. In a previous debate I outlined a story involving a staff member of a local authority who retired after 39 years of service. I challenge anybody in any industry to put forward an employee who gave better service to the public than that individual. I do not like blanket criticism of the public sector based on isolated issues.
I have no issue with the work of the EPA but I have an issue with the fact that it is not carrying out its functions in every case. It does so in many cases, in which regard I acknowledge the comments by Senator Keane and the Minister of State, but the EPA must be completely foolproof because it is charged with protecting our people and an environment that we will be passing on to our children and grandchildren. Nothing less is good enough.
I thank the Minister of State for his elucidation of section 6. We would not have a merger without that section being inserted because it is required in order to identify the functions that will transfer. The Minister of State also referred to section 14(1), the purpose of which is to ensure that radiological protection will be prominent in the new structure to be put in place, which will be called the EPA rather than the "environmental and radiological protection agency". The person who is in charge on the dissolution of the RPII shall on that day become a director of the new agency for a term ending not later than 30 April 2016, subject to the same terms and conditions. That appears to have been inserted purely to protect the salaries of the public official involved, which is standard practice in these arrangements. I am not so much concerned about the salary, because people are in unions and have protections in the public service, as by the importance of that functionary and how he or she will be held to account at board level. Why is the termination date set for 30 April 2016? It would be eminently sensible that whomever occupies that position in future should be a director. That in itself would give status to the office of the radiological protection agency. If the individual will become just another executive, staff member or clerk of the EPA, I would be concerned about the diminution of influence of that office.
The Senator made an important point about the need for continuity in the holding of the office. Any new person appointed as director of radiological protection subsequent to the date to which the Senator referred must have radiological knowledge and expertise.
I think the Minister of State is agreeing that whoever holds that position should not only have the requisite knowledge and experience but should also be director of the agency.
He or she would be.
That would give the position prominence. If he can clarify that for me I would be happy.
I can give the Senator an assurance on that. Section 22 amends section 21 of the 1992 Act as follows: "[S]uch person having relevant experience in relation to radiological protection as the Minister shall appoint." In other words, the person who takes up that role in future will have to be knowledgeable about radiological protection and will be a director of the organisation. There will always be five directors and the radiological protection director must have radiological knowledge. There will be no deficit of knowledge in terms of his or her capacity to do the job.
I thank the Minister of State for his reply. Section 21 states: "The Agency shall consist of a Director General and five other Directors." It does not state that one of those directors would be the person who is in charge of the office for radiological protection. I note the Minister of State's comments about the relevant experience but I am concerned that the five directors might not include the person who is in charge of that office. That would represent a diminution in the role of radiological protection.
The Senator's point is well made. None of the directors is currently identified in the way he outlined but the section will require the head of this section to have radiological expertise. The five directors are not named as leading each of the five sections. Currently there is a director general and four sections and this Bill increases the number to five. That will mean five directors. It would be unreasonable to expect that two directors would come from one section and none from another. The expectation is that will be the case and that is the intention of the legislation.
Acting Chairman (Senator Pascal Mooney)
I remind Senator Walsh that we are due to adjourn at 1.30 p.m.
I ask the Minister of State if he will consider introducing an amendment on Report Stage which would allow for the continuation of this individual.
This is Committee Stage.
I am sorry. I apologise.
Perhaps the Minister of State could table an amendment to the Bill on Report Stage. My concern is that if the person in charge of this office is not a director, it means that the function of which he or she is in charge will obviously be diminished.