Fiach MacConghail (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Sherlock, to the House. Both the RPII and EPA are established, well-known and autonomous organisations. Senator Keane and I are both members of the Oireachtas committee that heard evidence from various stakeholders including the chairman of the RPII, Professor Reville. There is a need for mergers and amalgamations, but I believe the Government has been overzealous at times, particularly in my own area of interest, the arts, where the amalgamation of the National Library and National Museum are inexplicably bound for merger for no other reason than perceived saving of money. I believe that certain payments are due to a member of the board of a Government organisation, particularly if that person is giving his or her own time and making available his or her expertise to that board.

My sense relating to the RPII and the EPA is the merger is purely for cost reasons. There are technical issues relating to the ratification of a treaty but the aim of the merger seems to be to save around €80,000, which is roughly the cost of the fees of the chairman and directors. The Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland is based in Dublin but if the Bill is passed and this merger proceeds there will be additional costs because the EPA is based in Wexford. Unless every member of the board based in Wexford is appointed there will be significant mileage costs. Was a cost-benefit analysis carried out on this merger? I can see no reason other than cost behind this merger but the saving is actually minimal.

Members of this House may know I am very concerned about the possible use of nuclear energy in the current global energy crisis. As recently as March 2013, the Secretary of State at the Department of Energy and Climate Change in the UK, Ed Davey, granted a development consent in respect of a 3,268 MW nuclear power plant development at Hinkley Point, Somerset. This is around 150 miles from the densely populated east coast of Ireland. The facility will be as close to many Irish people as to UK residents. For many Irish citizens nuclear power facilities cause serious concerns regarding risk to health, the environment and the economy. Essential industries such as fishing, agriculture, food and tourism are affected.

This House need not be reminded of the long-standing concerns and the documented record of accidents and discharges into the Irish Sea arising from the UK's nuclear facility at Windscale, which was rebranded as Sellafield. Relatively recent disasters at Chernobyl, Fukushima and Three Mile Island also come to mind. Despite these legitimate concerns and the pro-active stance taken by previous Irish administrations on securing access to Sellafield for Irish nuclear specialists, it appears there has been a fundamental failure in consultations between the UK and Ireland on the trans-boundary effect of the Hinkley Point development. The Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Phil Hogan, was in this House when I previously raised this issue as an adjournment matter and he said there had been consultations between the two Governments. However, there is a transboundary screening exercise report and it does not mention an EU member state regarding a possible accidental nuclear discharge. It seems the document is the reason the UK Government decided not to consult with the Irish Government and, more importantly, the Irish public. Glasgow was consulted regarding its geographical relationship with Hinkley Point in Somerset but not Dublin or Wexford.

My point is that the RPII is a very important part of all this. It issued in 2013 a very detailed report on all issues relating to nuclear power and its relationship with Ireland, including the threat of nuclear discharge. Some will argue that there is a one in 33 million chance of a nuclear discharge incident at, say, Wylfa power station in Anglesey, which is only 100 km from the east coast Ireland, but the impact could be huge. People would be advised to stay indoors as much as possible during the passage of the plume, which takes between 24 and 48 hours. There would be food controls and changes in farming practices to ensure long-term radiation doses from contaminated food would not reach levels that could increase cancer risk to the population.

I am not trying to use scare tactics but my argument comes back to the naming of this new organisation. The word "radiological" should be included in its name. The Minister's Department has much experience of creating names for organisations. Keeping the EPA without including the word "radiological" suggests our citizens will not feel protected and informed. It is a branding issue and Senator Keane alluded to the report issued today by the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland on radiation doses received by the Irish population. If it had been published by the EPA there would have been a sense of obfuscation and people would have wondered whether it actually addressed the same topic. I will support the amendments on Committee Stage that seek to rename the new organisation as it should be simple to include words such as "radiological protection". Perhaps the EPA could be changed to the environmental and radiological protection agency, ERPA. I seek branding that will give an optical reassurance that the Government is looking after its citizens. I ask the Minister to include the word "radiological" and to examine this matter on Committee and Report Stages.