Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

When I hear words like “efficiency” and “cost effectiveness”, I immediately get the jitters because they are often code for cuts. The notion of cost effectiveness is narrowly defined. It is cost-effective to the value of €260,000 in 2016, according to the Minister of State. This is a new figure that has jumped out since we asked about the savings on previous Stages. I would love to hear where this €260,000 will come from because it was not mentioned in the Minister of State’s Second Stage speech. Even if the annual saving is €260,000, what will it cost us if there is a serious accident and we are not prepared for it? What will it cost if in the meantime because of the pressures on the EPA staff and resources and so on, the “flexibility” of its structure means that pressure is put on it not to give the proper resources or focus to replacing the RPII’s independent single-minded focus on this very specific area of radiation threat, through a nuclear accident or radon?

One cannot mess with these very serious matters. One cannot hope for the best or play fast and loose in this regard because the consequences of serious accidents are potentially deadly for large numbers of people. That is the thinking behind this amendment. The basis of our concern about this whole Bill is that we are talking about a very important area. We are not talking about any old area of the environment - we are talking about an absolutely lethal substance. That is why we are asking for these minimal guarantees. If the Minister of State cannot give them, and instead merely offers us some words, it will not be very convincing and the Government will be making a mistake.

See this speech in context