Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour) | Oireachtas source

We support the Bill. I have a few questions on the Minister's speech. The Bill provides that the power to exempt certain vessels carrying nuclear material otherwise prohibited from entering an Irish harbour will be transferred to the Minister for Communications, Climate Action and Environment. When such exemptions are given, is it a matter of public knowledge? If it is not a matter of public knowledge, is there a process by which such exemptions could be made public? If they are not public knowledge, there may be a legitimate reason for that, but I would like to know.

I wish to raise an historical issue. I have information dating back to 2011 when the management of radioactive waste was the responsibility of the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government in conjunction with the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland. Information on radioactive waste in the country's education sector indicated that 2,037 sources were held at 17 institutions in dedicated storage facilities. I take it that information is now out of date. The Minister or his officials might correspond with me on the matter. I could table a parliamentary question to that effect. In replying to the debate the Minister might indicate if there is an updated register of the sources held at the 17 institutions.

I presume that the existing law will also transfer over. It is a licensing requirement that an application to acquire new sealed sources is accompanied by a take-back agreement whereby the supplier agrees to take back the source when it is no longer required. Given that provision in law, I imagine the figure of 2,037 sources has probably not increased considerably since 2011. I seek further clarification on that.

In 2011 there was material in storage at University College Cork. It did not come from a nuclear reactor, as was suggested at the time. I understand it was originally incorporated into a device called a sub-critical assembly used in laboratory-like conditions. I understand that became obsolete and that University College Cork no longer had use for that material. A response to a parliamentary question from the then Deputy, Senator Humphreys, on Tuesday 4 October 2011 stated:

UCC is hopeful that a resolution can be achieved shortly. It is too early to assess the costs that will be associated with disposal at this time.

The components of the SCA were last inspected by the European Atomic Energy Community on 6th October, 2010. The nuclear material is securely stored at UCC in a proprietary radioactive waste store built to a design approved by RPII.

What is the status of that waste at present? Does the status quopertain or will this material be disposed of responsibly at some stage in the future? I know at the time the Government made funding available for the safe disposal of material of that nature.

The response further stated, "The material is held at UCC under licence from the RPII whose Inspectors regularly inspect this store in addition to inspections by the EU and by the IAEA." Given that we are now transferring powers - I know everything transposes as seamlessly as possible - I want to ensure a consistent monitoring of that material and that the Minister is aware of its existence. It may have been disposed of in the meantime, but I wish to ascertain the status of that material.

Many Deputies have been in contact with the chiropractors. What is the status of their interaction with Government? Perhaps in his own constituency, the Minister has had contact with chiropractors. I understand their case is made via the Minister for Health and the Department of Health. I ask the Minister, Deputy Naughten, in his role as a Cabinet Minister to have regard to their position. They are reputable and responsible practitioners. I hope the Government can devise a process to ensure that chiropractors have access to X-rays. On a Second Stage speech we have a certain degree of leeway. Technically speaking it does not come under the ambit of the Bill, but the material with which they are dealing arguably does.

We give our support to the case they are making, to find some process to ensure that they are not without the facility of X-rays in the future and that their position would be given some consideration. I thank the Oireachtas Library and Research Service for the Bill digest. Although the briefing is extremely technical, a very comprehensive brief has been provided for us. I, like my colleagues in this House, have an interest in parliamentary procedure and ask the Minister to come back to us with his own explanation of the Mulcreevy-type legal issues that exist with the transfer of responsibility from one Department to another. I will quote from the report that we have been given by the Oireachtas Library and Research Service:

“Mulcreevy type” legal issues arose in the Supreme Court case Michael Mulcreevy v Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government which involved the construction of the M50 and its potential impact on the archaeology of Carrickmines. This case involved a transfer of functions which resulted in the Minister effectively having to consult with themselves rather than consulting with fellow Ministers as was the aim of the National Monuments legislation. The effect was that the number of bodies that had to be consulted with before a decision was made was reduced from three to two. The case hinged on whether primary legislation could be amended by secondary legislation. The Supreme Court found it could not.

Perhaps the Minister will outline the consultation process that existed when the decision was made to transfer powers from another Department to his Department and whether that is a seamless transition. Are guarantees in place to ensure that it does not become subject to further scrutiny in the courts?

See this speech in context