Paudie Coffey (Waterford, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I have listened carefully to many of the contributions. While I may not have the same cynical approach as Deputy Boyd Barrett, I understand that he has genuine concerns which he has the right to voice here.

Radon and radiological issues have always been of concern to the Irish people. We have addressed them in a very responsible manner to date. We must continue, however, to treat them with the utmost attention. The Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland must be commended. It has provided a valuable service to citizens. That it is being merged with the Environmental Protection Agency, which seems to me to be its natural home, does not mean reduced resources will be applied to radiological protection issues. I urge the Minister and officials to ensure that resources are maintained.

I acknowledge the work and expertise of the staff of the institute and commend them on what they have been doing in the many years since the RPII was formed to protect citizens from the harmful effects of ionising radiation. They have many other responsibilities. Radiation can occur in the environment, our homes, educational facilities, industry and commercial areas. Radiation can be utilised in positive ways, as we know from X-rays and other medical applications which are essential to medical practitioners and specialists who use them in the best interests of their patients. At the same time, it is important that we know and recognise the risks of radiation to the general population and human health. That is why there is an important role for State agencies to licence and monitor the use of radiation in the health sector, industry and commerce and education.

Deputy Boyd Barrett and others have spoken in detail about concerns regarding nuclear energy and radioactivity from artificial sources. Many views are on the record on that. We have had a great deal of public discourse on threats and risks from Sellafield. I note that last year or the year before, a detailed report was published on behalf of the State which showed that there was little or no risk from Sellafield should a crisis occur there.

I acknowledge the departmental officials, the scientists and the Minister who produced the report to reassure the Irish people. It is important that we do not have misinformation and scaremongering. The report was important to reassure people in that regard.

My main focus in the debate is on naturally occurring radioactivity in the form of radon gas. I come from Waterford in the south east, which has high levels of radon in the ground. My colleague, Deputy John Paul Phelan, probably has similar concerns. Radon is a silent killer and although the RPII has done tremendous work on education and awareness, I still fear many members of the public do not fully comprehend the risks when radon is present in the home or workplace. Exposure to radon, mainly in homes, accounts for 50% of the total radiation dose received by Irish people. We must not lose sight of that statistic. Exposure to radon gas poses the greatest radiation-related health risk in Ireland and is linked to almost 250,000 deaths per year in Ireland from lung cancer. It is a serious concern and an issue that we continually need to address. The RPII engaged in roadshows and information seminars in the past, and this should continue under the new arrangement with the EPA. The organisation should continue to engage with local authorities, which have the potential and capacity to play a greater role in creating awareness and managing radon issues on the ground in our constituencies. Much information is available in respect of mapping and it is simply understood if the public is made aware of it. There are high-risk areas in the country, of which Waterford in the south east is one.

We can do more, and the following is an example. For a house to be sold or rented, a building energy rating, BER, certificate must be produced. This requirement is justified because it informs the purchaser or the tenant of the kind of house the person is moving into and how efficient it is. Given the statistics we know about radon and its threat to public health, any house sold, rented or passed on to other people should have a radon test certificate. The amount of money involved for the test is similar to that for the mandatory BER certificate. I call on the Government to introduce mandatory testing for radon gas in houses in areas where there are high risks to public health. This would create awareness among the important stakeholders dealing with property management. Providing that houses cannot be sold or rented unless the test is done puts responsibility on people before tenants or new purchasers move into the area without realising the risks in the ground.

There are ways of addressing this that are not too expensive. Many new houses are being dealt with in this way under building regulations through the provision of radon barriers. I hope that system is regulated and monitored properly by local authorities and other professionals in the construction field. A school in my area with high radon levels had to carry out remediation work. A pump system was installed in the school to draw out the air and circulate it to ensure radon levels were not high. Simple measures can be introduced to address problems where they arise. We need to address why a BER certificate is mandatory but a radon certificate is not, and I ask the Minister of State and his officials to do so.

In 2010, when I was a Member of Seanad Éireann and spokesperson on the environment, I called for a national radon strategy. I welcome that the strategy was published in February under this Government. It contains a number of recommendations that I do not have the time to go through in detail. The strategy contains recommendations that I hope will be adequately resourced. Radon gas is a colourless, odourless and tasteless gas and we can breathe it in day in and day out without realising it. It is the second biggest contributor to lung cancer after smoking. It is not something we can afford to dismiss and we cannot lessen the resources provided for dealing with it. There are concerns on the Opposition benches that, because a merger is taking place, there might be fewer resources available for the managing and monitoring of radioactivity levels in natural and non-natural areas. I urge the Minister of State, his officials and the EPA to ensure resources continue to be put into radiological protection issues, monitoring and licensing.

Another area must be addressed. During recent debates on the EirGrid transmission lines, which were controversial, it was discovered that there is no independent State agency dealing with non-ionising radiation, the electromagnetic field that can come from transmission lines. In the interest of public assurance and confidence, we should look at extending the remit of the EPA so that it carries out a State examination of non-ionising radiation. This is a deficit in our current system and perhaps the Minister of State can address its introduction, which is welcome move.

See this speech in context