Consideration of this Bill is to conclude at 12.30 p.m. Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are consequential on amendment No. 7 and the three may, therefore, be taken together by agreement.
Messages from Select Committee. - Radiological Protection (Amendment) Bill, 1998 [ Seanad ] : Report and Final Stages.
Bill recommitted in respect of amendment No. 1.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 3, line 6, after "1995" to insert "AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE MAKING OF GRANTS OUT OF FUNDS PROVIDED BY THE OIREACHTAS FOR REMEDIATION WORKS FOR HOUSES HAVING CERTAIN LEVELS OF RADON GAS AND FOR THE ADMINISTRATION BY THE RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION INSTITUTE OF IRELAND OF SUCH GRANTS".
Amendment No. 1 is required so that the Long Title reflects the revised content of the Bill to include a scheme for the provision of grants for remediation works for houses having certain levels of radon gas and for the administration of these grants by the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland.
Amendment No. 2 is a standard provision in all legislation and defines a number of terms used in the Bill in relation to the proposed grant scheme.
Amendment No. 7 inserts a new section 5 in the Bill and provides the framework for the establishment of a grant scheme for certain remediation works to houses that are used as residences. Under section 5, the Minister is authorised to allocate money to the RPII to administer a grant scheme for the carrying out of remediation works to a residence in respect of which measurements of radon gas taken inside that residence exceed 200 becquerels per cubic metre and to allocate money to the RPII to cover the costs of administering this scheme. The level of 200 becquerels per cubic metre is the national reference standard above which remedial action to reduce the indoor radon level in a dwelling should be considered.
The International Commission for Radiological Protection published a report entitled Protection against Radon 222 at Home and at Work. That report recommended intervention where radon gas levels in dwellings were within a certain range. Our national reference standard of 200 becquerels per cubic metre corresponds to the lower end of the international commission's recommended range. A reference level of 200 becquerels per cubic metre for radon in dwellings has been adopted by most European countries. In section 5, provision is also made to authorise the institute to appoint inspectors to inspect remediation works where a person has applied for a grant. The RPII is authorised to establish administrative structures to administer this grant scheme. Provision is also made for the institute to provide information to the Minister when requested and maintain records for a period to be prescribed by regulations. Records must contain details of levels of radon gas for each application and all moneys paid to applicants.
(Mayo): I have a number of matters for the Minister of State to clarify. The Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland is essentially a regulatory and supervisory body. Section 7(5) states that “The Institute shall establish a system for the inspection of any house and remediation works that are subject to an application under this Act.” Has the Minister of State received an assurance that the RPII actually has qualified staff to enable this process to be carried out? It is my impression that the RPII has not the necessary personnel to implement this within its staff. In addition to its other regulatory and supervisory functions, the RPII is now promoting, courtesy of freepost, remediation radon measurements to all householders who have elevated radon levels in their homes in an attempt, which I welcome, to encourage remediation of homes. However, there is no such thing as free measurement as central Government, through the Department of Public Enterprise and, ultimately, the taxpayer, will carry the cost of these measurements.
The promotion of free radon measurements among householders by a non-commercial semi-State organisation will, undoubtedly, present a serious threat to the viability of commercial radon measurement service providers currently operating in Ireland. With some conviction, I suggest this may be an anti-competitive practice. Will the Minister of State say whether the RPII or his Department is funding the current programme of free radon measurements? Will the Department, under this Bill, provide additional financial resources to the RPII to fund more extensive free radon measurement programmes? Will the Minister of State see to it that, as part of the new legislation, commercial radon measurement service providers, who are doing an excellent job, will also be permitted to offer such free radon measurement services to householders and to claim back the commercial cost from the RPII or the Department of Public Enterprise? There should be a level playing field.
The RPII has consistently stated that remedial work associated with indoor radon is not within its technical competence or its remit as the radiological protection agency. That being so, how does the RPII intend to carry out its site inspection functions as part of its grant awarding role?
Before the Minister of State responds, do I understand correctly that we are back on Committee Stage in respect of this amendment?
That is correct, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. The points raised by Deputy Higgins have been the subject of long discussion with the RPII and I am sure the Deputy shared my desire to have the grant scheme in place before now. However, I am grateful to the Minister for Finance for providing the funding so that we are now in a position to proceed with the scheme. Throughout the period of preparation for this development, these matters have been discussed with the RPII which has long been identified as the authority and the expert scientific body in this country in relation to radiological protection matters. I submit there is no more appropriate body than the RPII to administer this important scheme. Inspectors will be appointed by the RPII which is being given additional financial resources to administer the scheme. I understand the RPII makes a reasonable charge for measuring radon levels. It is not an exorbitant charge, by any means, and I have not received any complaints in that regard. Operational aspects of the scheme will be set out in the regulations which I intend will follow very expeditiously after the Bill is enacted.
Amendment agreed to.
Bill reported with amendment.
We will now resume Report Stage.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 3, to delete lines 9 and 10, and substitute the following:
"1.–(1)In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires–
‘applicant' means a person who applies for a grant and cognate words shall be construed accordingly;
‘contractor' means a person who carries out remediation works to a house whether pursuant to an agreement made by or on behalf of an applicant or otherwise;
‘grant' means a payment of moneys for remediation works that are carried out in accordance with this Act;
‘grant scheme' shall be construed in accordance with section 5(1);
‘house' means any building or part of a building that is used as a place of residence;
‘inspection', in relation to remediation works, means an inspection for the purposes of ascertaining that the remediation works that are the subject of an application are required to be, and as the case may be, have been, carried out;
‘remediation works' means works that may cause the level of radon gas in a house to be reduced;
‘remediation works inspector' means a person appointed under section 5(6);
‘prescribed' means prescribed by regulations made by the Minister;
‘Principal Act' means the Radiological Protection Act, 1991.".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 3 to 6, inclusive, not moved.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 8, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following:
5.–(1) The Minister shall, subject to regulations made under section 8, make a payment, out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas, to the Institute for the purpose of administering and paying out moneys for carrying out remediation works to any house with a radon gas measurement that is greater than 200 becquerels per cubic metre to an applicant and such payment shall include provision for administration costs incurred by the Institute in the administration of the grant scheme.
(2) The Institute shall administer the grant scheme in accordance with this Act and regulations made under section 8.
(3) The Institute may, for the purposes of the administration of such grant scheme, provide administrative structures for the performance of its functions.
(4) The Minister may cause to be published such information in relation to the grant scheme as in the opinion of the Minister is necessary from time to time.
(5) The Institute shall establish a system for the inspection of any house and remediation works that are the subject of an application under this Act.
(6) The Institute shall appoint a person to be a remediation works inspector to carry out such inspections under this Act and any regulation made under section 8 and may revoke any such appointment and sections 28(6) and 29(3) to (8) of the Principal Act shall apply, with any necessary modifications, to a remediation works inspector appointed under this section.
(7) The Institute shall furnish the Minister with such information regarding the performance by the Institute of its functions under this Act as the Minister may from time to time request.
(8) The Institute shall keep the records referred to in subsection (9) for a period prescribed by the Minister and thereafter shall furnish such records to the Minister.
(9) The records referred to in subsection (8) include a record of each application for a grant made under the Act, the level of radon gas submitted in respect of such application and the grant paid to the applicant.”.
(Mayo): In relations to the actual levels set, the section states:
The Minister shall, subject to regulations under section 8, make a payment out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas to the Institute for the purpose of administering and paying out moneys for carrying out remediation works to any house with a radon gas measurement that is greater than 200 becquerels per cubic metre to an applicant. Such payments shall include provisions for administration costs incurred by the Institute in the administration of the grants scheme.
I assume the 200 becquerel limit is the cautious safety limit and that it has been pitched at the most appropriate level from the point of view of the protection of public health.
That is correct. The limit of 200 becquerels per cubic metre has long been established as the most appropriate national safety level.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 8 and 12 will be taken together by agreement.
Bill recommitted in respect of amendments Nos. 8 to 14, inclusive.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 8, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following:
"6.–(1) An inspection of any house or remediation works under this Act shall not concern any building or other works carried out by the contractor, the applicant or any other person to a house where such works were required for the installation of the remediation works concerned in that house and an inspection or a report of a remediation works inspector under this Act shall not be construed as an inspection or approval of such building or other works.
(2) No action or other proceedings shall lie or be maintainable against the Minister, the Institute or a remediation works inspector for the recovery of damages in respect of any injury to persons, damage to property or other loss alleged to have been caused or contributed to by the carrying out of such building or other works or the failure to exercise or carry out any function conferred on imposed on the Minister, Institute or a remediation works inspector by or under this Act.".
Amendment No. 8 and the substitute amendment No. 12 insert new sections 6 and 10 respectively in the Bill. Section 6 is concerned with the nature of inspections to be carried out and is limited to houses and remediation works that are the subject of an application under the scheme. In section 6(2), provision is made to disclaim liability by the State or the RPII for any damages that an applicant may allege have been caused as a result of any other works undertaken for the purposes of carrying out these remediation works. The incorporation of this immunity provision as well as that contained in section 10 is on the express advice of the Office of the Attorney General.
Section 10 addresses the immunity of the Minister and the RPII from prosecution in cases for the recovery of damages. The reason for this substitute amendment is to confirm that the immunity for malfeasance provided for in section 10(1) only applies in relation to the grant scheme. The types of action that are contemplated in the section are damages claimed by an applicant in relation to any injury to person or property alleged to have been caused by a failure to carry out any function conferred or imposed under this Act or alleged to have been caused by a contractor carrying out remediation works. This latter immunity underlines the nature of the inspection process and the fact that neither the Minister nor the RPII are parties to any arrangements the applicant may enter into with a contractor. I emphasise that these provisions do not in any way deprive the applicant of remedies that they may wish to proceed with in the normal way.
(Mayo): In relation to the inspection of houses and premises that will be deemed eligible for grants, will all premises be inspected in advance and formal written approval given as is the practice in relation to local authority housing grants, essential repair grants, disabled persons grants or the £3,000 new house grants and so on? Regarding completed works, when they are carried out, will they be inspected by the RPII and approved before the grant cheque issues?
Who can carry out the approved works? Will it involve approved, recognised specialist firms in this area? If a person feels that he or she has the competence to carry out the work themselves, can they do a DIY job in relation to having the necessary insulation and remediation and control measures put in place?
Dr. Upton:
What kind of quality control systems will apply in terms of the personnel carrying out the remediation and the qualifications of the inspectors appointed by the RPII in terms of the inspection process afterwards?
Regarding Deputy Higgins's question, all premises will not be inspected in advance. Inspections are to verify that work is required and carried out. The carrying out of works will be done by ordinary persons and contractors. After the completion of work, it is not envisaged that every premises will be inspected because it is not practical to ensure all the work is being comprehensively done. However, there will be an acceptable level of spot checks to ensure that is the case. This is a comparatively small job and we have to be practical about it. The logistics of doing every one would bog down the system. What we want to do – all our colleagues in the House want us to do it – is to exhort people to take advantage of it and encourage them to get the work done as expeditiously as possible.
Details of inspectors qualifications and contractors will be set out in the regulation standards which will be forthcoming expeditiously. The standards will also be specified in the regulations. It was initially envisaged that we would put the detail, which prompted the Deputies' questions, into the legislation but it was deemed to be more appropriate to put it in the regulations which will follow shortly.
(Mayo): Regarding advance inspection, presumably on the application form there will be provision for entering the level of radon gas. One must clearly establish over a period of time that there is a proven presence of radon gas above the safety levels of 200 becquerels.
Above the reference level.
Mr. Higgins (Mayo): From the point of view of post inspection, the Minister of State referred to spot checks, which are random checks.
Yes.
Mr. Higgins (Mayo): Is the reason he tabled amendments Nos. 8 and 12 to insulate the Minister and his Department from proceedings if anything went wrong subsequently in relation to how the work was carried out?
In the event of damage to persons or property in the course of the work being done, we were advised by the Office of the Attorney General to make sure that indemnity was put in place and that has been done.
Amendment agreed to.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:
Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 may be taken together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 8, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following:
"7.–(1) Where an applicant has complied with this Act and any regulations made under section 8 and the remediation works concerned have been carried out in accordance with this Act and regulations made under section 8 and have been completed, the Institute shall pay the grant concerned to the applicant.
(2) The amount of a grant to be paid to an applicant by the Institute shall be one half of the costs incurred by the applicant for the remediation works but subject to a maximum amount of €1,000, whichever sum is the lesser amount.".
Amendment No. 9 inserts a new section 7 in the Bill to deal with the payment of the grant. The section limits the maximum level of grant that may be paid to €1,000. The grant is payable only on completion of the remedial works in compliance with the provisions of the Act and regulations made under section 8, which set out certain eligibility requirements for the applicant and house. I propose to set the grant, in effect, at 50% of the cost of remediation works up to a maximum cost of €1,000. I am advised that estimates for the cost of radon remediation measures vary from about €1,000 to €2,000 and a grant of 50% is, in those circumstances, very reasonable given the estimates with which we have been provided.
Amendment No. 10 inserts a new section 8 empowering the Minister to make regulations for the administration of the scheme by the RPII and details of the operation of the scheme. It contains a non-exhaustive list of the types of matters that may be covered in the regulations, such as the duration of the scheme, requirements for applicants, requirements for the class or classes of house that may be eligible, provisions concerning remediation works inspections, requirements for contractors and dispute resolution procedures. Provision is also made requiring the Minister to lay such regulations before the Houses of the Oireachtas.
(Mayo): This grant scheme has been a long time coming. I am extremely disappointed at the level of grant on offer, which prompted me to put down an amendment that was ruled out of order on the basis that it would constitute a charge on the Exchequer.
The Minister of State quoted from the information supplied to him that the cost is somewhere in the region of €1,000 to €2,000. Yesterday I contacted three different private commercial operators who have been providing this service over a considerable period of time and based on their experience they suggested a cost in the region of €3,100 to €3,800 for houses above the 200 becquerel level. There was a con sensus on the cost involved being of that magnitude.
By pitching the grant level as rigidly as has been done, a 50% grant up to €1,000 means that in most cases there will be a top-up of some €2,100 to €2,800 required. That money will have to come from the household in question. I earnestly submit to the Minister of State that it will put the grant scheme out of the reach of most low income and some middle income families. We are dealing with a very short-term scheme here. All new houses must comply with the radon remediation scheme, so it does not apply to new houses, and it is further limited to counties where there is a high concentration of radon; Sligo, Mayo, Donegal, Clare and a corner down in the south-east. There is a very clearly defined geographical area and probably a clearly defined number of houses.
Will the Minister indicate to the House, how many houses we are potentially dealing with, based on the research that has been carried out to date? This scheme will probably peter out in three to four years because all houses concerned should be treated by then. This is a public health issue, which arises by virtue of an accident of geographical location where certain houses are in an area of high radon concentration and there is an obligation on the State to meet a substantially more generous percentage of the cost than advocated in the grant measure as it stands. We need a grant level that will be more realistic in meeting the current costs. I welcome the scheme but from the point of view of meeting the requirements of low income families it will be of little value.
Dr. Upton:
I support Deputy Higgins' argument in favour of increasing the grant level. There is a relatively small number of houses that are being targeted for radon remediation and due to the public health aspect it would be a disaster if those people for whom the grant would be appropriate would be excluded or would exclude themselves because they could not afford the top-up on the grant. The recommendation of a maximum of €1,000 is very low and there will be different levels in terms of the different types of houses, the age of the house, standard of building and so on. I urge the Minister to review that recommendation in terms of the total amount stipulated.
We would all like to give a 100% grant and be as generous as possible, particularly to those most in need. I am satisfied there will not be people unable to afford this. I would not like to see any belittling of this scheme or the grant levels emanating from this House.
The RPII and other experts, including Deputy Upton, when she was chairperson of the RPII, advocated to me the importance of introducing this grant with a view to encouraging people to take steps to have remediation measures carried out in their homes. The decision to set a maximum grant level of €1,000 is reasonable and fair. Estimates for the cost of radon remediation measures vary from €1,000 to €2,030. That is not to denigrate the information given by Deputy Higgins, but these are the indications we have received through our research.
In recent years a considerable body of experience has been built up on effective and relatively inexpensive remedial measures to reduce indoor radon gas concentrations. These measures work, either by preventing the entry of radon into a building from the soil, or by removing it after it has entered by means of improved indoor ventilation. The most appropriate solution in a particular building will depend both on the radon gas concentration and on the nature of the building. Through the implementation of the appropriate mitigation solution it is possible in the vast majority of buildings to reduce the concentration well below the reference level.
Colleagues will be aware that since the building regulations, which came into operation in July 1997, all new houses must have a built-in sump and in areas where there is a high radon concentration a radon-proof membrane must be incorporated into the foundation of the house, thus it is remediation work to older housing stock that is being targeted by this scheme, although only houses that are in the areas that have been established by the nationwide survey work of the RPII will be affected.
In reply to Deputy Higgins' question, between 1992 and 1999 the RPII carried out a national radon survey as a result of which it concluded that approximately 91,000 houses have indoor radon levels exceeding the national standard of 200 becquerels per cubic metre. Of these, some 60,000 of the houses located in high radon areas will require the installation of remediation measures, such as radon sumps. The remediation works required will depend on the radon gas concentration and on the nature of the building. I want to put a fair scheme in place which will encourage people to take appropriate measures. I want an effective grant scheme, not one with administrative costs equal to, if not greater than, the cost of the grants being paid out. We have all seen such schemes over the years. The degree of red tape is directly linked to the level of the grant and measures required to monitor payments.
Given the variation in the measures that may be required, a grant of 50% is even-handed. Fixing the maximum limit at €1,000 is fair in view of the estimated costs. It is also prudent as it will not provide an incentive to those members of the community who are less scrupulous than they should be in their dealings with older or more vulnerable persons living in areas with high radon levels who, quite naturally, will be anxious to have their homes made safe.
(Mayo): Persons totally dependent on a contributory or non-contributory old age pensions of €140 for their incomes who live in dwellings where radon levels are above the safety threshold will not be able to bridge the gap between the grant level and the cost of the remediation work. The figures I have been given have come from reputable companies who did not anticipate the scheme and who are carrying out work as cost effectively as they can. There is a huge differential there which will automatically exclude many from participation in the scheme.
The Minister of State is going about this the wrong way by enshrining the grant amount in the legislation which means that the grant is fixed and cannot be varied. For example, the Minister for the Environment and Local Government can vary the amount of the new house grant without any reference to this House and local authorities can increase essential repair grants with his approval. By enshrining the maximum grant level in the legislation in this case, the Minister of State is precluding the possibility of further variation and I wager that when we assess this in six or nine months' time, the uptake will not be nearly so large as he anticipates.
The Minister of State said that 60,000 houses would be eligible for the grant, though all of them might not require expensive remediation works. Even if all of them were to receive the grant at the maximum level, the total cost would be €60 million over four to five years. They will undoubtedly all qualify because they will not get the works done any more cheaply and the 50% level will not be relevant. The Minister of State should have used amendment No. 10 which provides for the Minister to make regulations concerning the grant scheme. He could have included a sub-section allowing the Minister to vary the level of the grant in accordance with current commercial costs. I am not being negative. The Minister of State said that he does not want anybody belittling the scheme.
I did not accuse the Deputy of that.
Mr. Higgins (Mayo): I am not belittling the scheme. It is fine in theory, but the practicalities leave much to be desired.
Dr. Upton:
I have done my sums, as has Deputy Jim Higgins, and €60 million to prevent the lung cancer with which radon gas is particularly associated is a very small investment. The maximum grant of €1,000 is not going to be taken up by people. It is not going to make a huge difference to those that can afford it and it will not make it possible for those who cannot to bridge the gap between the grant and the cost of remediation. Those most in need are going to be excluded. Setting the level of the grant in stone is counterproductive and does not allow scope for variation if things should change or if the grant is not taken up over the next couple of months. What will happen if the cost of remediation works becomes significantly greater? There will be a bigger shortfall for those in need.
The maximum cost of €60 million is a very small amount to cast in stone in terms of public health.
I welcome the proposal to introduce a grant for the elimination of radon gas from private dwellings. Is the grant available to deal with problems in national and secondary schools, particularly the former? The Minister of State will be aware that there has been much concern about the levels of radon gas in some national schools. In my constituency there is a particular problem in an area where the radon levels are very high anyway, much higher than the national average. While a householder can apply for funding, is a similar arrangement being made for boards of management or principals of national schools in areas where high radon gas levels have been identified? This must be dealt with as a matter of urgency. Does the Minister of State have any information regarding the work that has been done to date to deal with this matter? There was much concern a few years ago at which point some remedial action was taken, but there are still concerns. Will funding be provided to schools under this legislation?
There is nothing perfect in this world and we never achieve the ideal. I have long paid tribute to the previous Administration, particularly to Deputy Stagg, for bringing forward radiological protection legislation which introduced the idea of this grant although the money was not forthcoming at that stage. I do not say that as a charge because having pushed for funding for a number of years, I know how difficult it has been to introduce this measure. The money is available now and we are able to proceed.
What we have provided here is most meritorious and, although I concede that it could be better, it is the best available. We should take a positive view of what has been done to deal with what is a one-off issue. The grant will be availed of and houses and other living accommodation in areas with high radon levels will be attended to. The problem is not one that recurs because new houses are provided with the protection when they are built. We really should be taking a much more positive view of the situation.
With regard to Deputy Daly's question, I am glad to say the Radiological Protection Institute has carried out a survey of the entire country. I think I am correct in saying the survey of all schools has been completed. I will double check that for him but if it has not been completed, it is well nigh completed nationally, in both primary and secondary level schools. A programme of remediation measures is well advanced. Again I will see that the Deputy and, indeed, the other colleagues present in the House get details of the updated position in that regard.
That is a matter which this Government took in hand at an early stage and I am very grateful to the Minister for Education and Science for footing the bill for the cost in toto of those measures, that is, the surveys which were carried out and the remediation measures. Therefore, the Deputy can rest assured that the important area of schools, which are after all where our children spend a great percentage of their time anyway, has been dealt with comprehensively.
Dr. Upton:
On the point about the costing, despite a tremendous effort on behalf of the RPII to raise the level of awareness about radon gas and the hazards associated with radon gas, there is still a great lack of awareness by many individuals about the real implications of radon. Because people cannot see this gas or smell it and, as far as they are concerned, it is not having any impact on their lifestyle, health or safety, I have a great concern that if there is a grant which is not substantial and does not go a long way towards the remediation, they will actually ignore it, stand back, let it go and not do anything about it. I would be afraid that it is the most vulnerable and those most in need who are most likely to do that.
As we have already stated, there are significant public health implications with radon but this is hidden because they cannot identify the danger – they cannot see or smell the danger and it is not like a damp wall or electrical wiring in a house where one can observe a risk and see the danger. As a result, they are likely to ignore it, walk away from it and say, "I cannot afford it. Let us let it go."
(Mayo): I subscribe to everything Deputy Upton has said. Radon is a relatively newly discovered phenomenon. It was always there but its discovery and identification in various parts of the country is new. As Deputy Upton stated so eloquently, it is a known lung cancer causing agent.
What is envisaged by the RPII in terms of making the public aware that there is a scheme, of what exactly radon gas is, and of the ill effects of radon gas on an individual's health or on the occupants of a house where the safety level is breached? Is it proposed to carry out an assessment after six or nine months on how exactly the scheme is operating, whether it is effective, and whether the uptake is as substantial as the Minister seems to think it will be with a view to going back and reviewing the scheme?
I subscribe to everything that has been said regarding the manner in which this scheme is unlikely to be taken up because of the total inadequacy of the grant. The figures I have given are genuine and from reputable contractors who know the business, who have a track record, who are not in it to rip anybody off and who price very competitively indeed. One is talking about a shortfall of between €2,100 and €2,800, which in many cases cannot and will not be bridged.
We should be talking up this grant rather than talking it down.
(Mayo): Exactly, increase it.
I reject the allegation that this is a totally inadequate grant. I agree fully with Deputies Higgins and Upton who talked about the importance of people being aware of what has been called the silent killer or the invisible killer. Awareness needs to be raised. The purpose of this grant, which is why I have laboured to put it in position and why I am overjoyed now that it is in position or will be in the coming couple of weeks, is to encourage people to avail of it and make safe their homes in this context.
With regard to advising people, we will make provision for this in the regulations for advertising the scheme and all related issues. Within that advertising series, we will ensure as best we can to advise people of the potential hazards and of the desirability and urgency that they avail of this scheme and take advantage of it.
(Mayo): On amendment No. 10, subsection (2)(a), what date does the Minister of State envisage for the introduction of the scheme?
The scheme, as the Deputy will realise, would have been up and running before now except at the 11th hour we got a signal from the Attorney General's office to the effect that the RPII was not empowered in legislation to do the important work about which we have been talking. Hence, the need for the important business we are doing here. My desire and resolve is to ensure there is no further delay.
The regulations are being prepared as we speak. I want to see this legislation put in place. The funding is already in place. The scheme is structured. The application forms are more or less at the ready. It will commence as soon as we get the regulations finalised. I would like to think we are talking about a matter of weeks.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 8, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following:
"8.–(1) The Minister may, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, make regulations for the administration of the grant scheme by the Institute.
(2) The Minister may make regulations concerning the grant scheme and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, such regulations under this section may provide for all or any of the following–
(a) the date of commencement of the grant scheme and the date of cessation of the grant scheme,
(b) the procedure for making an application for a grant,
(c) the class or classes and use of house in respect of which a grant may be paid,
(d) the types of remediation works,
(e) the carrying out of inspections of any house and of remediation works,
(f) any matter in respect of which compliance by a contractor is required when carrying out remediation works including compliance with the Taxes Consolidation Act, 1997,
(g) information to be provided by an applicant in respect of the house that is the subject of the application for a grant,
(h) documentation to be furnished by an applicant concerning the measurement of radon gas inside the house that is the subject of the application and the period for which such measurement is valid,
(i) documentation to be furnished by an applicant concerning the statement of the costs of the remediation works concerned,
(j) documentation to be furnished by the contractor on the remediation worksconcerned in respect of and compliance by that contractor with prescribed standards and any other matter in respect of which compliance is prescribed,
(k) the resolution of disputes, and
(l) the provision of information, by advertisement, concerning the grant scheme,
and such regulations may contain such incidental, supplementary and consequential provisions as appear to the Minister to be necessary for the purposes of the regulations.
(3) Section 3 of the Principal Act shall apply to regulations made under this Act.".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 8, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following:
"9.–(1) The Institute shall keep accounts of all moneys concerning the grant scheme received by it under this Act and shall keep separate accounts of moneys received and expended by it under the grant scheme.
(2) The Institute shall for the purposes of this section, keep in such form as may be approved by the Minister, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, all proper and usual accounts of moneys received or expended by it, including an income and expenditure account and, in particular, shall keep all such special accounts as the Minister may from time to time direct.
(3) Accounts kept by the Institute in pursuance of this section shall be presented with the accounts referred to in section 16(2) of the Principal Act to the Comptroller and Auditor General for audit and, immediately after the audit, a copy of the income and expenditure account and of such other (if any) accounts kept pursuant to this section as the Minister, after consultation with the Minister for Finance, may direct and a copy of the Comptroller and Auditor General's report on the accounts shall be presented to the Minister who shall cause copies thereof to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas.".
This substitute amendment is in place of amendment No. 11 on the principal list of amendments. The reason for the substitute amendment is to refine the text so that it only applies to the grant scheme.
This amendment inserts a new section 9, which deals with accounts and audits. It is a standard provision imposing an obligation on the RPII to keep accounts of all moneys received and expended by it under the grant scheme. The accounts for the grant scheme will be contained in the institute's annual report and laid before the Oireachtas in the usual way. In addition, the institute is required to furnish a copy of the accounts for the grant scheme to the Comptroller and Auditor General for audit. The institute must provide the Minister with a copy of the audit report and the Minister is obliged to lay that report before the Oireachtas.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 8, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following:
"10.–(1) No action or other proceedings in relation to the grant scheme shall lie or be maintainable against the Minister or the Institute for the recovery of damages in respect of any injury to persons, damage to property or other loss alleged to have been caused or contributed to by a failure to exercise any power or carry out any function conferred or imposed on the Minister or the Institute by or under this Act.
(2) No action or other proceedings shall lie or be maintainable against the Minister or the Institute for the recovery of damages in respect of any injury to persons, damage to property or other loss alleged to have been caused or contributed to by the carrying out of remediation works by a contractor in accordance with this Act in respect of which a grant has been made under this Act or the effectiveness or otherwise of such remediation works.".
Amendment agreed to.
As it is now 12.30 p.m., I am obliged to put the following question in accordance with an order of the Dáil of today: "That the amendments set down by the Minister for Public Enterprise and not disposed of are hereby made to the Bill, Fourth Stage is hereby completed and the Bill is hereby passed."
A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I wish to thank everybody concerned, particularly my own officials who put a tremendous amount of work into this over a period. I thank Deputies Higgins, Upton, Stagg and Sargent and other colleagues who worked with me on this legislation for their sincerity and co-operation during the course of the debate, especially their co-operation in securing valuable and scarce time at this stage in the life of the Dáil to pass this important legislation. We now have something worthwhile in place.
Dr. Upton:
I thank the Minister of State and I am pleased the radon remediation grant will be in place shortly. Despite reservations I may have about the amounts, I am very pleased it will be in place soon. The Minister of State knows that, in a former life, I was one of those who harassed him on this account.
(Mayo): I join Deputy Upton in complimenting the Minister of State on having the Bill passed. I welcome the measure wholeheartedly because it is long overdue. I have only one reservation relating to the practicality of the level of the grant. We will stand vindicated in this regard. Fan go bhfeicfimid.
Go raibh maith agat.
Question put and agreed to.