Tom Hayes (Tipperary South, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

In the course of drafting this Bill, the Department, in consultation with the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, examined the matter of timing of these plans in some detail and concluded that it would not be appropriate or, indeed, advisable to insert any time period for the creation of such contingency plans. The purpose of these plans is to put contingencies in place to protect the security of nuclear materials and-or facilities from those with malicious intent as threats are identified.

The plans should reflect threats, or potential threats identified by the Garda, the Defence Forces or the RPII, on a case-by-case basis. As such, the plans should be developed in a fluid and evolutionary manner, depending on the considered threat assessment. To set a time period in the legislation could lead to a view that such contingency plans only need to be made every two years when there may be a need to revise them more frequently or less frequently, depending on the threats identified at any given time.

There is very little nuclear material in Ireland to which the amended CPPNM applies. It is proper that the Minister should be consulted on any matter that relates to such a serious policy consideration, especially one that is as serious as nuclear security policy. It is not unusual for legislation to require State agencies to consult relevant Ministers on important matters of policy within the Minister's remit. For example, the Environmental Protection Agency Act 1992 requires that the EPA would have regard to the views of the Minister when producing any code of practice. This subsection does not interfere in any way with the independence of the RPII or the EPA. The final decision on the formation of contingency plans will be theirs. The subsection merely provides a Minister with the right to have his or her view, if any, considered.

I also note an inconsistency in the Deputy’s amendments in that she wishes that the RPII and the EPA should only have to consult with the Minister on contingency plans, if they so desire, and yet wishes to include a whole range of new stakeholders, including Ministers and heritage and environmental bodies with whom the RPII and the EPA must consult on nuclear security quality assurance schemes. On that point, the Deputy also proposes that the RPII may consult prescribed bodies with expertise in heritage and conservation in relation to contingency plans. As such bodies have no direct interest or expertise in security matters, I do not see the need for that. Furthermore, that could undermine security measures in the first place. Taking the above into account, I do not propose to accept the amendments.

See this speech in context