Brian Stanley (Laois-Offaly, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I will start with the role of the RPII. People's main awareness of that relates to the role of the RPII in monitoring Sellafield and the threat posed by releases of radioactive material into the Irish Sea from that nuclear facility on the west coast of England. I know the Minister of State will take an interest in this because clusters of cancers in the Louth area, which is in his constituency, have been highlighted over the years by local doctors. This would lend weight to the case that some of these are caused by material leaking from Sellafield into the Irish Sea and the atmosphere. In 2009, the RPII issued a report following a survey of over 500 people which concluded that levels of radioactivity in the Irish Sea were low and did not present a significant level of threat. That would conflict with many people's perception that radiation from Sellafield was indeed dangerous and was responsible for cancer. A report by the RPII in 2002 was far more critical of Sellafield. The RPII was given access to the plant and was able to conduct its own examinations. It concluded that the quantity of radioactive material held in storage tanks was so high that it would represent a severe risk even to people at a far distance from the plant if there was to be an accident there.

Despite its acceptance of a study that found no link between the occurrence of Down's syndrome in the Louth area and emissions from Sellafield, in 2001, the RPII insisted that Sellafield remained a danger due to the levels of radioactivity in the Irish Sea and the risk of an accident. It is clear that there is still a need for this state to have the capacity to monitor levels of radioactivity emanating from Sellafield and I hope that this remains the case when the merger of the RPII and the EPA takes place.

That is the key concern. Of course, quangos need to be cut and that was referred to earlier on. However, there is a concern that the role and work of the RPII would not diminished or lessened and that the vigilant role it plays would not be in any way dissipated by the merger. The need for such capacity was illustrated earlier this year when Sellafield claimed that higher levels of radioactivity around the plant were caused by naturally occurring background radon rather than anything concerning the operation of the nuclear facility. It is clear from the past that we cannot rely on such self-monitoring and that, therefore, we need our own agency. We know that Sellafield and the nuclear industry in Great Britain have issued their reports but we know from the past that we cannot rely on them.

The RPII has also conducted other research into both artificial and naturally occurring radioactivity and in 2008 found that levels of exposure in Irish people were much higher than the global average. While some of that was due to the accident at Chernobyl and Sellafield, much of it was connected to high levels of radon in the atmosphere here. The RPII stresses that radon continues to be an important concern and that its current work must continue when it is merged with the EPA. I also note that the RPII opposed amalgamation with the EPA so perhaps the Minister might address that point. The RPII's chief concern appears to be the concern that radiological protection will not have the same priority. I believe it is requesting that some reference to its functions be included in the title of the EPA. It also wants the radiological protection office within the EPA to have statutory footing. Could the Minister of State clarify whether it will have statutory footing within the EPA?

I note that section 12 of the Bill provides that all of the staff of the RPII will be transferred over to the EPA with the same pay and terms of employment. That is to be welcomed and I would also hope that the RPII's concerns regarding the continued focus on the importance of monitoring any radiological threat will be maintained. Section 23 states that "radiological protection expertise" will be a consideration in the appointment of EPA directors. Perhaps that ought to be amended so that at least one of the five directors of the EPA, as expanded by section 21, would be someone with the necessary expertise and background. The same applies to the provision in section 25 for appointments to the EPA advisory committee, which should also contain someone with that expertise.

Apparently an office of radiological protection is to be established within the EPA but the RPII has concerns that its functions might change over the course of time and that there might be a drift. This is why it thinks there is a need to establish it on a statutory footing. It would like to see the office established under this Bill to ensure that it will in fact concentrate solely on the issues which up until now have been the responsibility of the RPII.

One of the priorities for the RPII has been the monitoring of natural radioactivity caused by radon. It is vital that this work continues given the high levels of radiation detected here. As referred to previously, they are well above the international average and it is believed that this is in large part as a consequence of radon. Radon is the second highest cause of lung cancer in this country after smoking tobacco. It causes 250 deaths per year, which as the RPII has pointed out is higher than the average number of road fatalities, and yet nowhere near the same level of importance or preventative programming is devoted to it. While the issue of radon in the home is not dealt with in this Bill, it is something at which we need to look given the fact that we are losing 250 people per year. It is safe to assume that a high number of those deaths are caused by radon in the home.

The mapping exercise has highlighted areas of the State that have high levels of radon. Perhaps that is something that the Department might look at and highlight. There may be no better way of doing it than through the local authorities to get the message out there that this is a factor. I am not an engineer but I do know that a radon barrier can be fitted. When new houses are being built, we can highlight the need for people to fit radon barriers in their homes. Perhaps the Government might look at a tax incentive programme similar to what it has done with the home improvement scheme. It could be a tax incentive or small grant scheme in areas with very high levels of radon so that people could take out floors and fit radon barriers. It is something that needs to be done.

We need to let people know. There was a good deal of information on it six or seven years ago, but issues such as this have been put on the back burner because of the economic crisis and so on. We should give attention to it. If people are building a new house or an extension in an area in which there is a high level of radon, they should be made aware of this in order that they can install radon barriers during construction.

The RPII has conducted excellent research on radon levels and published a map showing where radon contamination is significantly in excess of acceptable levels. It tends to be in clusters around the State, with notable incidences in parts of Connacht and the south east. People can also assess the levels in their own area through a facility on the institute's website. This could be publicised through the media and local authorities. On the basis of this research, the institute advises homes and businesses on the level of risk and measures which can be taken to reduce and ameliorate the risk. It is vital that this research and work continue, which bolsters the argument in favour of strengthening the references in the Bill to an office within the EPA dedicated to radiological protection work. The research is important, but maps are available. The Department should examine publicising their availability again through the media and local authorities and should consider incentives to help people to carry out remedial works. A version of the tax incentive provided under the home improvements scheme could be considered to help people in areas in which there are clusters of radon sources. They could be drinking tea and sleeping on top of a radon source without knowing it.

Seven years ago a report was commissioned by the British and Irish Governments on the Sellafield plant and the Irish Government footed the bill for it. A heavily edited and short version saw the light of day. If the Government had commissioned and paid for it, the entire report should have been made public. It is important that we remain vigilant. The nuclear industry in Britain has huge resources available to it and significant resources are put into the use of propaganda which the industry would describe as publicity and public relations. We have a nuclear free island, given that the North has declared itself nuclear free; therefore, it is important that the Government continue to state our opposition to the plant and monitor what is happening in it.

The key message is that the good work carried out by the RPII should continue and that it should be not be diminished in the merger with the EPA.

See this speech in context