List of access keys

Radiation Safety Bill

Year: Number: 3 Download PDF (74 KB)

The departmental disclosure statement for a government Bill seeks to bring together in one place a range of information to support and enhance the Parliamentary and public scrutiny of that Bill.

It identifies:

  • the general policy intent of the Bill and other background policy material;
  • some of the key quality assurance products and processes used to develop and test the content of the Bill;
  • the presence of certain significant powers or features in the Bill that might be of particular Parliamentary or public interest and warrant an explanation.

This disclosure statement was prepared by Ministry of Health

The Ministry of Health certifies that, to the best of its knowledge and understanding, the information provided is complete and accurate at the date of finalisation below.

8 July 2014

 

 

Part One: General Policy Statement

The Radiation Safety Bill will repeal and replace the Radiation Protection Act 1965 and its Regulations.

The Bill will provide an enhanced legislative framework for radiation safety that responds effectively to the range of technological, scientific, and organisational changes that have occurred over the last five decades while the current Act has been in force.  As well addressing both existing and emerging risks relating to radiation safety and security, ratification of key relevant international instruments will be enabled. 

The overarching aim of the Bill is to protect the health and safety of people and the environment from the harmful effects of ionising radiation while at the same time recognising the many potential benefits of radiation use in providing health services and for applications in industry and research.  

Irradiating apparatus (eg, X-ray machines), ionising radiation arising from radioactive material that is both naturally occurring (eg, uranium) and artificially manufactured (eg, cobalt 60) are controlled by the framework.  However, because of the ubiquitous nature of radiation, very low levels of radioactivity are not covered under the Bill.  

Further, non-ionising radiation such as that produced by electromagnetic fields (eg, cellphone towers, WiFi, microwave ovens, ultraviolet tanning machines, power lines) fall outside the Bill’s framework. Non-ionising radiation will continue to be regulated under relevant health, safety, environmental, or consumer legislation. 

The Bill sets out a range of fundamental requirements with which any person dealing with a radiation source must comply. The fundamental requirements are based on the established international principles of radiation safety, which are justification, minimisation and limitation.  Accordingly, the fundamental requirements stipulate that radiation use only occurs where the expected benefit outweighs the risks, that exposures must be kept as low as reasonably achievable, and that prescribed dose limits are not exceeded.  The fundamental requirements also stipulate that all reasonable steps to ensure safety must be taken and the likelihood of an emergency is minimised through planning and preventing unauthorised access to radiation sources.  Safe transportation and disposal of radiation sources are also covered. 

Appropriate authorisations are the key mechanism to protect health and safety of the public and the environment ensuring that no person may manufacture, possess, control, use, import, export, perform a service, or deal with, a radiation source without complying with that authorisation. There is a range of authorisations appropriate for effective regulation of radiation, such as licences, approvals and consents. The Bill provides for the granting of authorisations, with conditions if appropriate, as well as penalties to reinforce compliance.  Holders of authorisations, are accountable through associated duties such as compliance with radiation safety plans and emergency response preparedness.  

Enactment of the Bill will complete New Zealand’s domestic implementation of the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism and the Amendment to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material. The Bill assists in implementing these Conventions by enhancing a physical protection regime for nuclear material. Other obligations under the Convention and the Amendment, such as those relating to mutual legal assistance and the establishment of new criminal offences, have already been implemented through amendments to the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 and the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1992. 

By overhauling New Zealand’s current outdated framework for the safe and secure use of nuclear materials, the Bill will also have a bearing on other international treaties with nuclear safety, security or non-proliferation dimensions, to which New Zealand is already party.  These include New Zealand’s nuclear safeguards agreements with the International Atomic Energy Agency.  

New Zealand is strongly committed to the international campaign against terrorism, and full compliance with the international counter-terrorism instruments is important for our reputation, especially for our calls in the region for compliance by Pacific Island countries and Southeast Asian partners.  

Among other provisions of the Bill that will enable ratification of these international instruments, the Bill introduces provisions to allow for international monitoring of compliance by inspectors from international agencies.  

Nothing in the Bill affects or derogates from the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament and Arms Control Act 1987 and the Nuclear-Test-Ban Act 1999.  The provisions of the Bill will apply in conjunction with the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act 1945. 

 

 

Part Two: Background Material and Policy Information

Published reviews or evaluations

2.1. Are there any publicly available inquiry, review or evaluation reports that have informed, or are relevant to, the policy to be given effect by this Bill?

Yes

 

In November 2002, the discussion paper A Review of the New Zealand Radiation Protection Legislation: A Discussion Document was released.In June 2003,a summary of submissions on the discussion document was published. These documents are available on the Ministry of Health website.

(www.health.govt.nz/about-ministry/legislation-and-regulation/regulatory-impact-statements/proposed-changes-radiation-protection-legislation)

 

Relevant international treaties

2.2. Does this Bill seek to give effect to New Zealand action in relation to an international treaty?

Yes

 

Enactment of the Bill will complete New Zealand’s domestic implementation of the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism and the Amendment to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material by enhancing a physical protection regime for nuclear material as required by the two instruments. The phrase ‘physical protection’ refers to storage requirements and other safeguards for nuclear material. Other obligations under the Convention and the Amendment, such as those relating to mutual legal assistance and the establishment of new criminal offences, have already been implemented through amendments to the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 and the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1992.

The International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism was opened for signature in New York on 14 September 2005. The full text of the Convention is accessible at (www.un.org/en/sc/ctc/docs/conventions/Conv13.pdf)

The Amendment to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material was adopted in Vienna on 8 July 2005. The full text of the Amendment is accessible at (www.iaea.org/About/Policy/GC/GC49/Documents/gc49inf-6.pdf)

By overhauling New Zealand’s framework for the safe and secure use of nuclear materials, the Bill will also have a bearing on other international treaties with nuclear safety, security or non-proliferation dimensions, to which New Zealand is already party. These include New Zealand’s nuclear safeguards agreements with the International Atomic Energy Agency.

2.2.1. If so, was a National Interest Analysis report prepared to inform a Parliamentary examination of the proposed New Zealand action in relation to the treaty?

Yes

 

International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism: National Interest Analysis, prepared in 2006 by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. The National Interest Analysis is annexed to the Report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on its international treaty examination of the Convention, presented on 21 July 2006, accessible at (www.parliament.nz/resource/0000004793)

Amendment to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material: National Interest Analysis, prepared in 2006 by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. The National Interest Analysis is annexed to the Report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on its international treaty examination of the Amendment, presented on 21 July 2006, accessible at (www.parliament.nz/resource/0000004795)

 

Regulatory impact analysis

2.3. Were any regulatory impact statements provided to inform the policy decisions that led to this Bill?

Yes

Regulatory Impact Statement: Proposed Changes to Radiation Protection Legislation, Ministry of Health, 2004, (RIS) was provided with the papers considered by the Cabinet Social Development Committee [SDC (04) 129 refers]. The RIS is available on the Ministry of Health website:

(www.health.govt.nz/about-ministry/legislation-and-regulation/regulatory-impact-statements/proposed-changes-radiation-protection-legislation)

and on the Treasury website:

(www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/informationreleases/ris)

2.3.1. If so, did the RIA Team in the Treasury provide an independent opinion on the quality of any of these regulatory impact statements?

No

RIA Team opinion was not a requirement in 2004. 

2.3.2. Are there aspects of the policy to be given effect by this Bill that were not addressed by, or that now vary materially from, the policy options analysed in these regulatory impact statements?

Yes

 

The 2004 RIS was prepared based on the policy proposals at that time. The scope of the Bill was modified in 2009 with the decision to exclude coverage of non-ionising radiation. The RIS did not, however, include specific discussion of costs, or benefits, associated with regulation of non-ionising radiation. It stated that there “…will not initially be any costs associated with non-ionising radiation because the Australian National Directory of Standards has not yet prescribed any particular apparatus that needs to be controlled.” The only example of a non-ionising apparatus that the RIS identified as likely to require future control was high-powered lasers (issues relating to hand-held high power lasers have now been addressed by the Health (High-power Laser Pointers) Regulations 2013). The change in scope arising from the 2009 decision was considered to be of a minor and machinery nature, such that a further RIS was not warranted. Officials confirm that the statement of the net benefits discussed in the 2004 RIS, including total regulatory costs and benefits, are almost all associated with ionising radiation. Therefore, the conclusions reached in the RIS are not affected by the decision to exclude non-ionising radiation.

 

Extent of impact analysis available

2.4. Has further impact analysis become available for any aspects of the policy to be given effect by this Bill?

No

 

2.5. For the policy to be given effect by this Bill, is there analysis available on:

 

(a)   the size of the potential costs and benefits?

Yes

(b)   the potential for any group of persons to suffer a substantial unavoidable loss of income or wealth?

No

The size of potential costs and benefits is discussed in the RIS: Regulatory Impact Statement: Proposed Changes to Radiation Protection Legislation, Ministry of Health, 2004, which was provided with the papers considered by the Cabinet Social Development Committee [SDC (04) 129]. The RIS is available at the Ministry of Health website:

(www.health.govt.nz/about-ministry/legislation-and-regulation/regulatory-impact-statements/proposed-changes-radiation-protection-legislation)

and at the Treasury website:

(www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/informationreleases/ris)

2.6. For the policy to be given effect by this Bill, are the potential costs or benefits likely to be affected by:

 

(a)   the level of effective compliance or non-compliance with applicable obligations or standards?

Yes

(b)   the nature and level of regulator effort put into encouraging or securing compliance?

Yes

The costs and benefits identified in the RIS were based on continued very high levels of compliance with slightly higher levels of regulator effort to meet increased regulatory requirements and to implement source licences (the new licence type).

The RIS is available at the Ministry of Health website:

(www.health.govt.nz/about-ministry/legislation-and-regulation/regulatory-impact-statements/proposed-changes-radiation-protection-legislation)

and at the Treasury website:

(www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/informationreleases/ris)

These assumptions have been constantly reviewed during the development of the Bill and remain relevant. There is no reason to expect lower levels of compliance at the planned level of regulator effort. Similarly, there is no reason to expect that higher than planned levels of regulator effort will be required to achieve very high levels of compliance.  However, in the unlikely event that effective compliance levels and / or regulator effort change significantly, this would affect the potential costs and benefits sought by the policy for the Bill.

Part Three: Testing for Legislative Content

Consistency with New Zealand’s international obligations

3.1. What steps have been taken to determine whether the policy to be given effect by this Bill is consistent with New Zealand’s international obligations?

One purpose of the Bill is to enable New Zealand to meet its international obligations relating to radiation protection, radiation safety and security, and nuclear non-proliferation, under a range of international treaties. The Bill has been designed with these obligations in mind. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade has been closely involved in the drafting of the Bill throughout its development, and has been consulted on this statement.

 

Consistency with the government’s Treaty of Waitangi obligations

3.2. What steps have been taken to determine whether the policy to be given effect by this Bill is consistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi?

Officials consider that the policy of the Bill is consistent with the government’s obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi.

 

Consistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990

3.3. Has advice been provided to the Attorney-General on whether any provisions of this Bill appear to limit any of the rights and freedoms affirmed in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990?

Yes

 

Advice provided to the Attorney-General by the Crown Law Office, or a section 7 report of the Attorney-General, is expected to be available on the Ministry of Justice’s website upon introduction of a Bill. Comments made by the Ministry of Justice on issues relevant to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act have resulted in modifications to the Bill’s proposals.  Such advice, or reports, will be accessible on the Ministry of Justice website at:

www.justice.govt.nz/policy/constitutional-law-and-human-rights/human-rights/bill-of-rights/

 

Offences, penalties and court jurisdictions

3.4. Does this Bill create, amend, or remove:

 

(a)   offences or penalties (including infringement offences or penalties and civil pecuniary penalty regimes)?

Yes

 

(b)   the jurisdiction of a court or tribunal (including rights to judicial review or rights of appeal)?

Yes

 

Part 2, Subpart 3, (clauses 65 to 78) is the ‘Offences’ section. Offences are listed in full in appendix 1 of this statement.

Offences relate to individual actions (or non-actions) but a body corporate, principal, or individual (director, employer or agent) is also liable for offences under clause 77.

Strict liability applies to most offences for which a defence applies under clause 76.

Decisions of the Director of Radiation Safety are subject to appeal to the District Court under clause 51. Court decisions can be appealed to the High Court on questions of law under clause 55.

3.4.1. Was the Ministry of Justice consulted about these provisions?

Yes

The Ministry of Justice was consulted as part of departmental consultation on the Bill. The offence provisions were modified in light of comments from the Ministry of Justice.

 

Privacy issues

3.5. Does this Bill create, amend or remove any provisions relating to the collection, storage, access to, correction of, use or disclosure of personal information?

No

 

3.5.1. Was the Privacy Commissioner consulted about these provisions?

No

 

Privacy provisions do not apply to this Bill

 

External consultation

3.6. Has there been any external consultation on the policy to be given effect by this Bill, or on a draft of this Bill?

Yes

In November 2002, the discussion paper A Review of the New Zealand Radiation Protection Legislation: A Discussion Document was released.In June 2003,a summary of submissions on the discussion document was published. These documents are available on the Ministry of Health website:

(www.health.govt.nz/about-ministry/legislation-and-regulation/regulatory-impact-statements/proposed-changes-radiation-protection-legislation)

In October 2013, Ministry officials briefed organisations that regulate or represent professionals who use radiation sources on the Bill. Users are mostly medical or other health service providers, but also include veterinarians and civil engineers who provide testing services. No major issues were raised during the briefings.

 

Other testing of proposals

3.7. Have the policy details to be given effect by this Bill been otherwise tested or assessed in any way to ensure the Bill’s provisions are workable and complete?

No

 

Part Four: Significant Legislative Features

Compulsory acquisition of private property

4.1. Does this Bill contain any provisions that could result in the compulsory acquisition of private property?

Yes

The Bill contains provisions for radiation sources to be seized in specified circumstances. Once seized, radiation sources can be altered to be made safe and can be returned to the jurisdiction from which they came.

Seized radiation sources are not automatically acquired. If appropriate, seized items may be returned to the owner.

Further details are provided in appendix 2 of this statement.

 

Charges in the nature of a tax

4.2. Does this Bill create or amend a power to impose a fee, levy or charge in the nature of a tax?

Yes

Clause 93(1)(p) of the Bill contains provisions to make regulations prescribing fees that are payable in respect of any application for an authorisation (‘authorisation’ is defined in clause 5(1) of the Bill as any source licence, a use licence, an approval, a consent to import or export radioactive material).

The Bill will impose a greater range of fees than is currently the case, given the introduction of the new source licenses. Compared to the current situation, an increase in the overall fees taken can be expected, mostly because fees have not been adjusted for some time. Fee levels will be evaluated to ensure costs are spread equitably over all users and where possible are commensurate with the degree of risk being regulated.

 

Retrospective effect

4.3. Does this Bill affect rights, freedoms, or impose obligations, retrospectively?

No

 

Strict liability or reversal of the usual burden of proof for offences

4.4. Does this Bill:

 

(a)   create or amend a strict or absolute liability offence?

Yes

(b)   reverse or modify the usual burden of proof for an offence or a civil pecuniary penalty proceeding?

Yes

No provision in the Bill creates absolute liability.

Clauses 65 to 70 and 73 to 75 involve strict liability. Offences, strict liabilities, other liabilities, defences, penalties and appeals are listed in full in appendix 1 of this statement.

Strict liability for noncompliance with these provisions is justified as licence holders are better placed than enforcement officers to explain alleged breaches of licence conditions. Alleged offenders are also in a better position to provide evidence of a defence. Strict liability is appropriate in relation to ionising radiation where consequences for the general public are significant if safety and security is not well-maintained. All strict liability offences contain appropriate defence provisions.  

There are some offence provisions that do not create strict liability. Noncompliance with these particular provisions would require some degree of knowledge or intention.

 

Civil or criminal immunity

4.5. Does this Bill create or amend a civil or criminal immunity for any person?

No

 

Significant decision-making powers affecting individuals

4.6. Does this Bill create or amend a decision-making power to make a determination about a person’s rights, obligations, or interests protected or recognised by law, and that could have a significant impact on those rights, obligations, or interests?

No

The Bill does not create decision-making powers to make determinations about a person’s interests, but it clearly involves provision for infringing those interests and rights. For example, clause 40(4) makes provision for entry of enforcement officers to any place for the purposes of inspection (except for a dwelling) and clause 71 makes it an offence to refuse enforcement officer entry. This infringement is justifiable in terms of the objectives of the Act. Provisions for enforcement officers to undertake their duties are essential for effective compliance.

 

Powers to make delegated legislation

4.7. Does this Bill create or amend a power to make delegated legislation that could amend an Act, define the meaning of a term in an Act, or grant an exemption from an Act or delegated legislation?

Yes

The Bill provides for two forms of delegated legislation: codes of practice and regulations. Clause 90(2) states specifically that a code of practice must not contain a provision that is inconsistent with the Act or regulations; hence the question asked in 4.7 is answered in the negative.

Clause 93 provides for regulation making powers. None of these authorise regulations that would – except in very limited terms - amend an Act, or define the meaning of a term in the Act, or grant an exemption. The limited sense in which some such authorisation could be argued to be relevant includes in particular clause 94 which provides for Orders in Council to be made that would amend the schedules of the Act. These schedules set out the kinds of radioactive material, with relevant activity concentration levels and activity levels, to which the Act is to apply. Hence the Bill will apply to “H-3” for example, but not if it is below the stated levels.

Provision for changing the material and activity levels set out in the schedule is essential to enable rapid response to new scientific information about risk levels. The Act provides in clause 94(3) a number of safeguards relevant to this clause. In particular the Minister must consult with affected stakeholders, and must be satisfied that the proposed changes are necessary to comply with international standards, and be satisfied that the proposed amendment is necessary to protect the health and safety of people and the environment from harmful effects of ionising radiation.

In addition, regulation-making powers would make clear in some circumstances where the Bill would not apply, for example requirements for use licence may not be appropriate for some persons (eg, health practitioners of a specific category).

4.8. Does this Bill create or amend any other powers to make delegated legislation?

Yes

The Bill provides for two forms of delegated legislation: codes of practice and regulations, as noted in response to question 4.7 of this statement. See clauses 89, 93, and 94. For codes of practice, clause 90(2) states that a code of practice must not contain a provision that is inconsistent with the Act or regulations. Consultation provisions and other criteria are set out for amendments made under clause 94. For regulations, clause 93(2) provides for regulations to have regard to any relevant determination made by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). This is the international body responsible for developing and dissemination international standards and guidelines on ionising radiation. 

 

Any other unusual provisions or features

4.9. Does this Bill contain any provisions (other than those noted above) that are unusual or call for special comment?

Yes

The Bill allows for International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) international inspectors to be appointed by the Director to undertake activities in New Zealand (clause 45).  International inspectors must be accompanied by an enforcement officer appointed by the Director under clause 39 of the Bill (clause 46).  While international inspectors have no powers under the Bill, the accompanying enforcement officers do, and would be authorised to exercise those powers in fulfilment of New Zealand’s relevant international obligations. 

The provisions on international inspectors will further consolidate the framework for New Zealand's implementation of its international obligations under the Agreement between New Zealand and the International Atomic Energy Agency for the Application of Safeguards in Connection with the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

The Agreement is available on the IAEA website:

(www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/Others/infcirc185.pdf)

Appendix One: Further Information Relating to Part Three

Offences, penalties and court jurisdictions – question 3.4

Offences

Part 2, Subpart 3, of the Bill is the ‘Offences’ section. This makes it an offence to:

  • ·       contravene the fundamental requirements set out in clauses 8-13 of the Bill (clause 65)
  • ·       do activities that require an authorisation without an authorisation (clause 66)
  • ·       provide false or misleading information on application for an authorisation or in a radiation safety plan accompanying some applications (clause 67)
  • ·       fail to comply with the duties of an authorisation holder, outlined in clause 21 for source licence holders, clause 24 for use licence holders, clause 26 for consent holders, and clauses 28 and 29 for approval holders (clause 68)
  • ·       contravene the requirements to register a radiation source as set out in clause 34 of the Bill (clause 69)
  • ·       contravene the requirements to keep records and make them available as set out in clause 38 of the Bill (clause 70)
  • ·       refuse an enforcement officer’s request for entry to inspect a place as allowed for under clause 40 of the Bill (clause 71)
  • ·       fail to answer questions or provide information requested by an enforcement officer as allowed for under clause 43 of the Bill (clause 72)
  • ·       obstruct, hinder, resist, or deceive an enforcement officer performing their duties under the Bill, including exercising their emergency powers under clause 60 of the Bill (clause 73)
  • ·       contravene the duty under clause 60(3) of the Bill to comply with the instructions of an enforcement officer in an emergency (clause 74)
  • ·       fail to comply with a compliance order issued under clauses 47 and 48 of the Bill (clause 75)

Other liabilities

A body corporate, principal, or individual (director, employer or agent) is also liable for offences under the Bill (clause 77).

Defences

The Bill provides a defence to prosecutions for a strict liability offence where the defendant must prove that the offence was due to an act or omission of another person, an accident, some other cause outside of their control, or that the defendant took all reasonable steps to avoid the offence occurring. This defence applies to clauses 65 to 70 and 73 to 75. 

 

Penalties

  • ·       Conviction for offences under clauses 65, 66(1), 73(2), and 74 carries a liability in the case of an individual to a fine not exceeding $100,000, and in the case of a person or organisation other than an individual to a fine not exceeding $500,000.
  • ·       Conviction for offences under clauses 67, 68(4), 71, 72, 73(3), and 75 carries a liability in the case of an individual to a fine not exceeding $50,000, and in the case of a person or organisation other than an individual to a fine not exceeding $250,000.
  • ·       Conviction for offences under clauses 66(2), 69, and 70, carries a liability on conviction in the case of an individual to a fine not exceeding $20,000, and in the case of a person or organisation other than an individual to a fine not exceeding $100,000.
  • ·       Conviction for an offence under clause 68(5) carries a liability a fine not exceeding $20,000 (this offence can only apply to an individual).
  • ·       The Court may instead of, or in addition to, imposing a fine under the Bill, order a convicted person to mitigate or remedy, or pay costs of mitigating or remedying, any adverse effects on people or the environment caused by or on behalf of the convicted person or relating to any land of which the convicted person is an owner or occupier (clause 78).

Appeals

Decisions of the Director are subject to appeal to the District Court (clause 51). Court decisions can be appealed to the High Court in relation to questions of law (clause 55).

 

Appendix Two: Further Information Relating to Part Four

Compulsory acquisition of private property – question 4.1

The Director of Radiation Safety (or an agent acting on behalf of) may seize a radiation source:

  • ·           in order to prevent or mitigate any immediate risk to health, safety, or security of people or the environment (clause 49(1))
  • ·           if there is reasonable cause to suspect a radiation source is in the possession of a person who does not hold an authorisation for the radiation source (clause 49(2)(a))
  • ·           if there is reasonable cause to suspect that there is evidence of commission of an offence under the Bill or the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 (clause 49(2)(b)).

The Director of Radiation Safety (or an agent acting on behalf of) or a Customs officer may seize a radiation source that is, or is to be, imported or exported without a consent under the Bill (49(3)). 

The Director of Radiation Safety may transport seized material to its jurisdiction of origin in some situations (clause 50). 

Enforcement officers have the powers to inspect places for the reasons specified in clause 40 of the Bill, subject to the owner or occupier’s consent or a search warrant in the case of a private dwelling. While inspecting, enforcement officers can take possession of and remove: any equipment or device inspected (clause 41(1)(f)), any radiation source (clause 41(1)(g)), any documents (or copies) including taking reasonable steps to reproduce in usable form any documents that are not stored on paper (clause 41(1)(i)). 

When an emergency is declared under clauses 57 or 58 of the Bill, enforcement officers may use the powers conferred by clause 40 and 49 of the Bill without the need to obtain a search warrant.  In addition, an enforcement officer may (by action or instruction):

  • ·           requisition property for use in an emergency (clause 60(1)(i))
  • ·           destroy property or anything else in order to prevent or limit the extent of the emergency (clause 60(1)(j))
  • ·           secure the site for up to 24 hours after the radiation emergency has ceased (clause 60(1)(k)).

In response to emergency situations, the Fire Service Act 1975, the Policing Act 1982, the Civil Defence and Emergency Management Act 2002, relevant defence and security legislation, and the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 may also apply. 

 

Limitations

Material and/or apparatus which is seized under clauses 40 or 49 of the Bill is not automatically acquired. If appropriate, seized material and/or apparatus may be returned to the owner. 

Provisions have been made for compensation for property that is requisitioned or destroyed as part of an emergency response under clause 60(1) of the Bill (clause 61). 

© Crown copyright 2014