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

The first proposed amendment to section 44 of the Bill is confusing and not fully understood. The Deputy proposes the deletion of a provision to align the Radiological Protection Act 1991 with the more comprehensive standard international scientific definition of ionising radiation that has been used in all other relevant EU and Irish legislation since 2000. This provision has been recommended by the Parliamentary Counsel and is wholeheartedly supported by the scientific experts in the RPII.

On the proposal to insert a new section 48, the insertion of a reference to the Espoo Convention is not appropriate to this Bill as it refers to a separate United Nations convention. The object of the Espoo Convention is to ensure that the full conventional implications of major developments are assessed in a spirit of co-operation between relevant states. In effect, the requirements of the Convention are very similar to the trans-boundary requirements of the environmental impact assessment, EIA, directive. In this regard, the convention is not restricted to nuclear facilities but applies to all trans-boundary projects likely to have a significant effect on the environment. The legislation currently in place on foot of the requirements of the EIA directive enables Ireland to implement fully the convention in the context of its application within the European Union. A statutory basis for a wider application of the EIA directive requirements was provided for in the Planning and Development Act 2000 and this allows Ireland to ratify the Espoo Convention in full.

I do not propose to accept these amendments.

See this speech in context