Rónán Mullen (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit. I welcome the Minister of State and wish him a fair wind as the ship of his political career navigates the waters in the days ahead.
This Bill is very welcome and, as the Minister of State has said, it does several useful and important things, it provides for the merger of the RPII and the EPA, and provides the enabling legislative framework to allow this State ratify the 2005 amendment to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material. It is important that all the states of the EU ratify it before the EU can ratify it. It is necessary to do important work in the protection of nuclear facilities and materials and peaceful domestic use. That may not apply in this country. It also provides for extended cooperation between member states to enable measures to locate and recover stolen or smuggled nuclear material, which is a frightening thought and is important for the prevention of terrorism. There are other measures in the Bill, such as the definition of ionising radiation and so on.
Fianna Fáil, with my support, has tabled some amendments. Like others, I have received communication from the RPII. I recall hearing of its good work when in my student days I attended a lecture by its former chief executive officer, CEO, Dr. Tom O’Flaherty, who explained the phenomenon of radon, how it works and the danger it poses. In recent days we have heard from Professor William Reville. Great credit is due to him. Many people know of him through reading his excellent columns in The Irish Times. He does a very important job in making science comprehensible and accessible. That was part of his job in University College Cork. His is a voice of sanity and clarity in bringing issues to the surface.
He is concerned about the name of the new merged entity and the need to make the RPII more visible. The RPII has been calling for statutory underpinning of the new office for radiological protection. Those are very reasonable issues to raise. We must take the source of these recommendations seriously, the RPII and its chairman, Professor Reville. In his briefing he tells us that the board had only minimal success in having its views incorporated into the provisions of the new Bill. It is the Government’s prerogative, backed up by the Civil Service, to prepare legislation and propose it in these Houses but I am nonetheless surprised to learn that the RPII believes its recommendations have had only minimal success.
Others have talked about radon. We heard this morning that Ireland had only slightly increased levels of radiation. When we think of radiation we think of the nuclear fall-out zone but of course most radiation occurs naturally. A total of 7% comes naturally or artificially from food. Some comes from beneficial medical treatments. It is surprising to some that when we discuss lung cancer the focus is on tobacco but approximately 13% of lung cancer cases are caused by radon. There is a synergistic connection between radon gas and the incidence of lung cancer caused by tobacco smoke. Radon is a worrying phenomenon because it occurs naturally coming from the degradation of uranium far below the ground. The differential pressure between indoors and outdoors makes a build-up of noxious radon gas in houses possible.
It is important to underpin the work of the RPII and its successor office within the new merged entity. As Senator Walsh pointed out there is a difference between the two roles. The RPII has worked to protect people from environmental harm while the EPA works to protect the environment from being degraded by human activities. Professor Reville, on behalf of the RPII, tells us that though the union of these entities has been described as a merger it is better characterised as an incorporation or takeover of the RPII by the EPA. I do not think that is complimentary language. When the idea of a merger between the two was first mooted the board of the RPII considered the matter and decided it was not in favour of a merger. There was already sensible cooperation and synergy between the RPII and the EPA. He says he can see no significant advantage in the proposed merger, only disadvantages, even hazards. He asks how the independent scientific advice the RPII is required to provide to Government can continue if it is to be part of a combined organisation. He does rightly acknowledge the prerogative of Government to make arrangements in these matters. Despite misgivings it has worked with the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, to facilitate arrangements to ensure the administration of radiological protection will continue.

I would like to know why the RPII is reporting that it has had no more than minimal success. The two key issues it is raising are the need for the name of the new body to reflect the work of the RPII - it is proposing "environmental and radiological protection agency" as a name - and the need for statutory underpinning whereby the office of radiological protection is established in the primary legislation setting up this new body.

I would like to conclude by asking the Minister about the national radon control strategy. It has been reported that the strategy recommends that vendors of houses should be required to provide information about radon levels in buildings to prospective potential purchasers. We have seen that some aspects of the new building regulations are posing unnecessary difficulties for people building or proposing to build houses on their own land using direct labour. The principle behind this proposal is the protection of future purchasers. Can the Minister of State give us an update on whether the vendors of houses are required, or will be required in the future, to provide information about radon levels to potential purchasers of their houses?