David Cullinane (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. I hope he will not be fretting too much over the next 24 or 48 hours. I am sure he will get the call. My main knowledge of the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland, RPII, which this Bill proposes to merge with the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, comes from its reports on the threat posed by releases of radioactive material from the Sellafield nuclear facility into the Irish Sea. In 2009, after conducting a survey of over 500 people, the RPII issued a report which concluded that levels of radioactivity in the Irish Sea were low and did not represent a significant level of threat. That conflicts with many people's perception that radiation from Sellafield is dangerous and is responsible for cancer. A report produced by the RPII in 2002, after it was given access to the plant and allowed to conduct its own examinations, was far more critical of Sellafield. It concluded that the quantity of radioactive material held in storage tanks was so high that it would represent a severe risk to people at a far distance from the plant if an accident were to happen there.

Despite its acceptance of a study that found no link between the occurrence of Down's syndrome in the Louth area and emissions from Sellafield, in 2001 the RPII insisted that Sellafield remained a danger due to the levels of radioactivity in the Irish Sea and the risk of an accident. It is clear that this State still needs to have the capacity to monitor the levels of radioactivity emanating from Sellafield. I hope this remains the case when the merger of the RPII and the EPA takes place. The need for such capacity was illustrated earlier this year when Sellafield claimed that higher levels of radioactivity around the plant were caused by naturally occurring background radon, rather than anything concerning the operation of the nuclear facility. It is clear from the past that we cannot rely on such self-monitoring and that, therefore, we need our own agency. The RPII has conducted other research into artificial and naturally occurring radioactivity. In 2008, it found that levels of exposure among Irish people were much higher than the global average. While some of that is due to the accident at Chernobyl and the proximity of Sellafield, much of it is connected to high levels of radon in the atmosphere here. The RPII has emphasised that radon continues to be an important concern and that its current work must continue when it is merged with the EPA.

I note that the RPII is opposed to being amalgamated with the EPA. Perhaps the Minister of State might address that point. Its chief concern appears to be that radiological protection will not have the same priority. I understand it is requesting that a reference to its functions should be included in the EPA's name. It also wants the radiological protection office within the EPA to have a statutory basis or footing. I welcome section 12 of the Bill, which provides that all the staff of the RPII will be transferred to the EPA with the same pay and terms of employment. I hope the RPII's concerns regarding the need for a continued focus on the importance of monitoring any radiological threat will be noted. Section 23 states that "radiological protection expertise" will be a consideration in the appointment of directors of the EPA. Perhaps that should be amended to provide that at least one of the five directors of the EPA, as expanded by section 21 of this Bill, will be someone with this kind of expertise and background. The same thing applies to the provision in section 25 for appointments to the EPA advisory committee, which should also contain someone with such expertise.

It appears that an office of radiological protection is to be established within the EPA. The RPII is concerned that the functions of this office might change over the course of time. For that reason, it would like it to be established under this Bill to ensure it will concentrate solely on issues which have been the responsibility of the RPII until now. One of the RPII's priorities has been the monitoring of natural radioactivity caused by radon. It is vital that this work continues, given the high levels of radiation detected here. As I have said, these levels are well above the international average. It is believed that this is in large part as a consequence of radon. Radon is the second highest cause of lung cancer in this country. It causes 250 deaths per year. As the RPII has pointed out, this is higher than the average number of road fatalities but nothing like the same level of importance or preventative programming is being devoted to it. On the basis of its research, the RPII advised homes and places of work on the level of risk and the measures that can be put in place to reduce that risk. It is vital that this research work continues. I would argue strongly in favour of strengthening the references in the Bill to an office dedicated within the EPA to radiological protection.