Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent) | Oireachtas source

We also have a particular problem in east Galway with radon gas. I have been very conscious of the issue. The difficulty with radon gas is that it is a naturally occurring radioactive gas which originates from the decay of uranium in rocks and soils and is colourless, odourless and tasteless. People do not know that there is a build-up of radon in their homes. After smoking, it is the next biggest cause of lung cancer in this country and is responsible for approximately five cases of lung cancer in Ireland every single week. That is a pretty serious statistic. Deputy Stanley is right that there is a problem with it right across the middle of the country. I, as Minister, have been very conscious of it since my appointment and taking over responsibility for this area. I wanted to try to move on the issue of radon gas.

The big barrier that I have come up against is that there is already a legislative scheme in place. Something that I learned is that having primary legislation already in place is a barrier at the moment to addressing this issue. I have spent a considerable amount of time over the past 12 months trying to have this problem addressed. The current legislation is unworkable in the present format. Realistically, we will not know what type of scheme works until we start to apply it on the ground and tweak it to meet needs but we cannot do that without first putting the scheme in primary legislation. It is a chicken-and-egg situation. I had hoped to delete the existing provisions and bring it in by statutory instrument, which would be the normal course, but I was told I could not do that because I would be taking away powers that are already within the Parliament here. I then suggested that we bring forward a statutory instrument that would require the approval of Parliament, but I am told that is not feasible either. That is why I have announced today that we are running a pilot scheme in six locations, looking at how this should work, how we would need to tweak it and then putting it in primary legislation and allowing for a scheme to be introduced. I intend to do that because I am very conscious of it. Approximately €75,000 is being set aside for the pilot scheme, and once we can tweak that, we can amend the primary legislation and put a proper programme of work in place.

Deputy Stanley asked about existing houses and how one knows if the radon barrier is in place. It is in place now for new houses as part of the building regulations that were put in place relatively recently. If a property is being sold, there are questions on the conveyancing form asking if a house has been tested and-or remediated against radon. As houses are being sold and the transfer of ownership is taking place, this will come up as an issue, but as I say, I intend to bring forward legislation in this area to put a proper, robust scheme in place.

Deputy Sherlock asked me about the Mulcreevy-type issues. How did it arise with regard to this issue? The defects relate to references to various Ministers within Acts not being updated to keep in line with the changing functional areas of various Departments over the course of several Government formations. With regard to the Radiological Protection Acts, the Mulcreevy-type issues first arose in 2002 with regard to section 30(1), section 30(2), section 30(8), section 31(1) and section 31(2) of the Radiological Protection Act 1991. The relevant functions were, on the enactment of the 1991 Act, in the remit of the Minister for Energy. Since the making of SI 303 of 2002 on 18 July 2002, those functions have resided with the Minister for the Environment and Local Government, now the Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government, essentially requiring that over the intervening period to date, the said Minister had to consult himself or herself. This anomaly must be rectified to enable the transfer of relevant functions under the 1991 Act to the Minister for Communications, Climate Action and Environment. These issues are not confined to the Radiological Protection Acts. A Mulcreevy-type issue has also been identified with regard to section 54(2) of the Harbours Act 1996. I am sure others will be identified as we go through legislation.

Deputy Stanley raised the issue of energy policy. Ireland currently meets its electricity requirements from a combination of thermal and renewable energy sources. While Ireland has chosen not to develop a nuclear power industry and the Government has no plans to change this policy, we acknowledge the right of states to develop their own energy mix. Where a state chooses to develop a nuclear power industry, this is done in line with the highest international standards with respect to safety and environmental protection. I am not sure of the recent figures because I do not have them to hand but I know that through much of 2017, Ireland exported electricity to the UK, not the other way around, because we have more than sufficient capacity here in power generation and the UK is very stretched. That is simply because of the number of gas-fired power stations in Ireland.

There is an abundance of power capacity in Ireland.

Issues were raised in regard to Brexit and what that will mean in terms of nuclear safety. The United Kingdom remains a member of EURATOM and the UK nuclear industry is still subject to oversight by the EU institutions. It is likely that the UK will remain subject to such oversight during the transition phase, which is projected to last for at least two years following the exit day in March 2019. Post-Brexit, the UK will continue to be a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, which establishes and monitors adherence to standards on nuclear safety, security and safeguards. Through the various conventions, partnerships, agreements and inter-governmental treaties under the auspices of the IAEA, Ireland will continue to play a role in directly analysing and peer-reviewing UK nuclear safety procedures and ensuring the UK meets its international obligations in that regard.

There are several significant hazards on the Sellafield site and these are recognised by the industry, its regulators and the Irish authorities. Sellafield has the largest inventory of radioactive waste in Europe, some of which is stored in ageing facilities. This situation is acknowledged by the UK authorities as requiring active hazard reduction programmes. In light of long-standing concerns about the potential for an incident at Sellafield and its impact on Ireland, the Government commissioned a team of international nuclear experts to undertake a probabilistic risk assessment, PRA, of Sellafield. The assessment looked at a wide range of events, including operator error, earthquakes, fires, floods, meteor strikes and terrorist attacks. The assessment included incidents caused by internal events such as a fire within the facility, as referred to in the BBC "Panorama" programme. The PRA found that while internal events such as a fire could lead to significant releases within the site and surrounding area and potential injuries to, or deaths of, site personnel, they would not lead to significant contamination reaching Ireland. The PRA also considered more severe external events, such as a meteorite or an aircraft crashing into a facility and causing the dispersion of radioactivity into the atmosphere. The assessment concluded that such events would not lead to high enough contamination levels in Ireland to cause observable health effects but could require the introduction of food and agricultural protective actions here, which would have significant socio-economic impacts. Ireland has in place a national emergency plan for nuclear accidents which is designed to deal with the consequences of such events and includes arrangements for introducing appropriate protective actions for people and the food chain.

At a governmental level, there is a formal agreement between the UK and Ireland for the early provision of information in the event of a nuclear accident. There are also regular meetings of officials from Departments in both countries to discuss nuclear issues. At a technical level, the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, meets at least annually with the UK nuclear regulators, the Office for Nuclear Regulation and the Environment Agency and maintains regular contact with them in the case of incidents or other developments of interest at nuclear sites in the UK. The EPA will be discussing the contents of the "Panorama" programme at its planned meeting with the UK nuclear regulators in November and in the meantime has been in contact with the Office for Nuclear Regulation to get its views on the safety concerns raised in the programme.

As regards geological disposal facilities, functions in regard to the management of radioactive waste in the United Kingdom are devolved from the United Kingdom Government to the devolved administrations. In addition to an area having the right geology, community acceptance is also required. Previously, a site identified in Cumbria in England was rejected as it did not have the support of the local council. In Northern Ireland, a decision to host a geological disposal facility would be for the Northern Ireland Executive, taking into account planning and environmental considerations. There are no current plans to site a geological waste facility in Northern Ireland. The UK consultation notes that such a decision would take 15 to 20 years.

The issue of chiropractors was raised. I stated in my opening contribution that we are introducing a new graded approach to the authorisation of practices involving the use of radiation sources, which will provide a new system of registration for lower risk activities and result in a reduction of the regulatory, financial and administrative burdens on practitioners and companies engaged in such practices. The intention of the legislation is to make registration simpler and easier, in line with best international practice. We currently have a one-size-fits-all system. We will introduce a graded system with registration at high, medium or low risk levels. Under the legislation, it will be easier for people to comply with the regulations. There is no specific provision in the legislation in regard to chiropractors. The enactment of the Bill will not impact on the ability of chiropractors to take X-rays of their patients or refer them for X-rays. It will make matters simpler rather than more complicated.

The Minister for Health, Deputy Harris, as part of the transposition of Council Directive 2013/59/EURATOM laying down basic safety standards for protection against dangers arising from exposure to an ionising radiation, intends to recognise certain professions, namely, doctors, dentists, nurses and radiologists, as competent to take and refer X-rays. The proposed designation of relevant professionals is based on patient safety and public health considerations as reflected in the advice of the chief medical officer. Any decision regarding who is designated will be made by the Minister for Health. It will be easier for practitioners to comply under this legislation, so we are lowering the bar in that regard and streamlining the process. It is for the Minister for Health as to what professions he designates to comply with this lower threshold and that should be taken up directly with him. I have received representations on the issue and I appreciate the concerns raised by Members but it is a health matter based on advice from the chief medical officer and is not within my competency. It is for the Minister for Health to bring in the statutory instrument in that regard.

See this speech in context