Denis Naughten (Roscommon-Galway, Independent) | Oireachtas source

Yes. I do not dispute that decision. This will all fall into place if I am given a chance to elaborate on the matter.

Radon gas is killing five people every week through lung cancer. Basically, a lung cancer diagnosis is terminal. Only 4% of people survive after being diagnosed. After smoking, radon gas is the second biggest killer in respect of lung cancer. Five deaths a week are attributed to radon gas.Back in 2002, legislation was brought forward to introduce a scheme to test and retrofit homes. There have been 15 people in my position since then. They have been from many of the political parties - the Labour Party, the Green Party, Fine Gael, and Fianna Fáil - and this issue has not been progressed. That is because it was put into primary legislation. Returning to Senator Conway -Walsh's point, I have delayed this legislation for 12 months to try to do exactly what she wants in her amendments. I was determined to ensure that we could do that. However, based on the long and protracted negotiations I had with my officials, the legal section of my Department and the Office of the Attorney General, it is not possible for me to do that because, unfortunately, my predecessor provided for a scheme in primary legislation that is inoperable. The only way I can introduce a national scheme is to amend that primary legislation with another scheme. The difficulty is that I do not know at this stage what will or will not work in communities throughout the country.

To try to find that out - and to develop a proper robust scheme - we pinpointed 1,400 homes in Roscommon and east Galway. It is not a comprehensive list of homes; it is only a sample of people in low radon and high radon areas. We kept it geographically tight because we do not want contractors running the length and breadth of the country. We want this turned around quickly. It takes three months for the radon test kit to be installed and returned, and then it has to be read. Once it is read and the homes that require retrofitting are identified, we will carry that out. We developed pilot schemes with the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland, SEAI, and from those we have developed a robust scheme. Based on that, I intend and am determined to roll out a national scheme available to everyone.

This is a serious public health issue. It is a big demand on our health resources and affects the quality of lives of people. As a representative of a constituency afflicted with radon gas over a long number of years, I raised this in Dáil Éireann on numerous occasions from the Opposition benches. I am committed to introducing a scheme once I know how it can be structured. I hope that when I do so, I will have the assistance of colleagues to expedite it through the Houses of the Oireachtas as quickly as possible. I am fully supportive of the thrust of Senator Conway-Walsh's amendment and I am determined to introduce legislation to reflect what she has said and implement this on a national basis. This has been long-fingered for far too long.

Regarding Senator Leyden's question, the building regulations were changed in 1998. Since then, there has not been a significant issue with radon gas. There may be one or two isolated pockets where the radon barrier has not been put in. We can spot-check some of those premises as part of this national roll-out to make sure that the building regulations are fully complied with.

I understand where Senator Grace O'Sullivan is coming from. If I was sitting in her shoes, I would make the same argument out of frustration with the failure to make progress since the legislation was enacted in 2002. I agree with the point she is making. I will propose a solution. I am opposing the amendments because it is not an appropriate function for the EPA to have in primary legislation. The creation and implementation of the NRCS is an administrative and management issue for my Department and a multi-Department, multi-agency approach to improve the awareness of, and protection, from radon gas. The EPA is not responsible for the formulation, adoption or delivery of the strategy. It follows that a statutory requirement to report on the implementation of the strategy, over which it has no control or responsibility, cannot be imposed. The policy function for tackling radon rests with the Minister for Communications, Climate Action and Environment and he or she is directly accountable to the Oireachtas in this regard.

I know where Senator Grace O'Sullivan is coming from. However, the difficulty I find myself in is that a radon retrofitting scheme was provided for in legislation in 2002, which prevents me from introducing such a scheme. Inserting this provision into legislation would transfer responsibility from the Minister who is directly accountable to Members in this House and in the Lower House to the EPA. I am willing to provide a report that would be laid in the Library, and then to come into this House - which is probably easier to do than the Lower House - and take questions on the implementation of the radon strategy. It is only right and proper that the Minister be held accountable for that. It would have been useful if some of my 15 predecessors had been held accountable for the failure to implement it. Putting this in legislation and giving responsibility for reporting to the EPA is not going to help delivery because the agency is not responsible for the implementation of the plan. It would only give a broad commentary and report back on it. The Minister, however, is responsible for the implementation of the plan and he or she should be held accountable for it in the House.

The EPA's work on radon is a key component of the NRCS. I remind the Senator that the agency reports on its work in this regard on a statutory basis under section 51 of the Environmental Protection Agency Act 1992. Those reports are laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas. The NRCS is chaired by my Department. The strategy contains recommendations on a broad range of measures aimed at reducing radon risk to people in Ireland and these are set out in six thematic areas. Successful implementation of the strategy would require action from a range of Departments, public bodies and stakeholders. My experience regarding matters to be implemented across government, taking responsibility away from the Minister and giving it to one agency that does not have teeth to report on will fail to ensure that the matter is implemented.

There are 31 identified action points set out in the NRCS and it is intended that all those action points will be implemented. A total of 19 actions are complete, three actions will be completed with the transposition of the basic safety standards directive and nine further actions have been commenced and will either be completed following the end of the strategy in 2018 or carried out on an ongoing basis. Some of the key achievements to date include the establishment and launch of a dedicated website, www.radon.ie, the completion and roll-out of targeted training courses on radon remediation for construction site staff, local authorities and contractors and the establishment of registration schemes for radon measurement services and radon remediation contractors.

One of the strategy's key recommendations relates to financial incentives to encourage householder action on radon. I launched a targeted radon testing and remediation survey to assess the uptake of radon testing and remediation in homes in high radon areas and adjacent lower risk areas to inform the detailed design of a new nationwide financial incentive scheme. Due to the success of the work programme under the NRCS, I intend to establish a successor strategy on a statutory basis to continue the good work in identifying and remediating radon where it occurs.

Senator O'Sullivan has raised a particular issue regarding consultation. I am happy to take up that particular point on her behalf. The Government opposes amendment No. 2 both on principle and on the detail behind it, as it is already set out in section 7 of the principal Act. Paragraph (1)(d) assigns to the Environmental Protection Agency the general function of advising the Government, the Minister and other Ministers of the Government on radiological safety matters relating to the transport, use, storage, maintenance and disposal of radiation sources wheresoever located. Paragraph (1)(c) further assigns the general function to the EPA of advising the Government, the Minister, other Ministers of the Government and the public on measures for the protection of individuals in the State from radiological hazards. Paragraph (1)(k) assigns the function to the agency of providing information to the public on any matters relating to radiological safety which the agency deems fit. The function of the EPA to advise the Government, the Minister and Ministers of the Government and the public on radiological safety matters is not restricted by a geographical location, type or purpose of radiation source.

The difficulty is that the amendments would bring no additional clarity to the functions of the agency as an advisory body, but they may include a number of unidentified and unclear terms which may be open to legal interpretation and may, in fact, impede the agency in delivering its mandate. Again, I refer back to the 2002 legislation which was brought through this House with the best intentions but is now impeding me in introducing a scheme. I have concerns that if these two amendments were enshrined in the legislation they could impede the objective of the scheme. I am committed to come back and report on it. The Minister should report on it, not the EPA. This is across Departments but the EPA can only respond and be accountable for what is within its function. The Minister is answerable in respect of both his Department and the action or failures by the Government in implementing this. It would be wrong not to leave that accountability with the Minister. I will be happy to return and report on it through whatever mechanism the House deems appropriate. The second amendment is already covered in the primary legislation but it could give rise to an interpretation which may impede the EPA.