Vol. 627 No. 1
3 Mr. O’Dowd asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the amount his Department received in motor tax receipts in the years 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 and the estimated total to date in 2006; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [36887/06]
Motor tax receipts for the years in question are as follows: 2002, €581 million; 2003, €681 million; 2004, €747 million; 2005, €802 million; and 2006, €764 million to the end of October.
That is a significant amount of money collected by the Department. However, the Department has informed the Minister that one in ten people evades paying this tax. In 2005 the estimated amount uncollected, which should have been used for rural roads, was €40 million. It is at least the same amount this year. The Minister has failed in his duty to bring in a proper strategy to collect the tax and those paying are subsidising those who are not. The Minister knows this but has done nothing about it.
In England it is estimated that 80% of untaxed motor cars are also uninsured. There is, therefore, a serious issue with regard to lack of enforcement of the law by the Minister and his lack of commitment towards changing the situation. What new schemes has he prepared or what action does he intend to take? Garda prosecutions were down last year when there were 4,000 fewer drivers prosecuted for evading tax than the previous year. Neither the Minister nor the Government are doing their job in this regard.
I could retort that the Deputy is not doing his job as leading Opposition spokesman in this area very well. Assertions made across the House are not the same as facts.
The facts of the situation are that motor tax compliance surveys are undertaken on a periodic basis. The Deputy is misreading a freedom of information request reply received by him some time ago. The most recent survey, carried out in 2001, indicated an evasion level of 4.6%. The Deputy's assertion that one in ten motorists is guilty of evasion is not correct. We had an Adjournment debate on this issue on 26 October at which the Deputy——
The Minister did not turn up for it.
——suggested one in ten motorists were guilty of tax evasion. The figure quoted refers to the percentage of vehicle owners, based on returns to my Department, who did not respond to reminder notices. Non response to a reminder notice is not the same as not taxing one's car. Various issues are involved. Reminder notices are issued to vehicle owners who fail to renew their tax when initially due. Many of these people will have sold or scrapped their vehicles, many will have paid by the time they receive the reminder and many cars may be temporarily not in use. The suggestion there is an overall rate of 10% persistent tax evasion is nonsense and has no basis in fact or in any of the analyses carried out over a number of years.
I take this matter seriously. The Deputy has made this particular assertion on several occasions but, sadly, repetition of an error on his part does not make the error any closer to the truth. The assertion is wrong. The figures we have are of the order of 4.6%.
The Deputy asked what has been done since the 2001 survey was carried out. The national vehicle driver file computer system, NVDF, arrangements were introduced in 2002. This system has made the collection of motor tax more cost effective and efficient. Also, in conjunction with local motor tax offices, follow up action has taken place with regard to under declarations of weight. This was an issue the Deputy rightly highlighted. The NVDF analysis indicates that an additional €1 million has been raised through that. A measure was also introduced to facilitate earlier taxing following change in ownership and this has been working effectively. There are also arrangements to issue motor tax renewal reminder notices earlier to facilitate earlier taxing because if people get notices late they may pass the due date before paying and be in arrears.
We have also taken action with regard to non use. The incidence of non use was quite high where, for example, people said they did not use the car for three months. This issue could well result in an amendment to motor tax legislation being introduced to require continuous registration. The Garda Síochána is also doing some testing on camera equipment to automatically read number plates.
There is not 10% non-compliance. If that was the case, it would be a serious matter. The figure the Deputy has is incorrect.
The figure is from the Minister's office. It comes from his note to the Taoiseach this time last year. He informed the Taoiseach that one in ten drivers evaded their car tax and that this amounted to €40 million uncollected. He went on to say car tax would not increase and the reason for that was that he was going to change the system. However, he has not changed it. The reality is that gardaí are apprehending fewer people despite the fact the number of drivers has risen to over 2.13 million. Gardaí have caught fewer evaders than they did the year before last.
One of the most important and salient points illustrating the Minister is failing in his duty of care is that one of the reasons a significant number of people do not tax their cars is that they have not passed the NCT test. In other words their cars are not fit and should not be on the road. The reality is that these dangerous vehicles are not lying in some garage but are driven around untaxed by people who are uninsured. The Minister's lack of application in this regard is disgraceful.
The money the Minister is not collecting could be spent by local government and used to put our regional and country roads in good order. The Minister's report said it would cost €50 million per year to bring these roads to the proper standards. He only provided €31 million for that last year. Therefore, he is not doing his job. The area is an absolute shambles.
The Deputy has misread and misquoted an FOI request.
I have not.
I listened to the Deputy so he should allow me make my point. The note in question is 18 months old. The Deputy has shown yet again that he does not know how to use the FOI requests. I regret to have to say this to him. All of the facts ——
Waffle.
This is it. One word responses to everything. The Deputy does not want to hear the truth because he is such an incompetent Opposition spokesperson.
The Minister is incompetent and cannot even get the electoral register right.
We will move on to Question No. 4.
The figure of 10% used by the Deputy is up 6% on the registered figure. He is a disgrace and a clown.
4 Mr. Gilmore asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government his views on the recent reports that Ireland will overshoot its Kyoto target by approximately16%; his plans to reduce Ireland’s carbon emissions; when he will publish the revised climate change strategy; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [36888/06]
References in a recent EEA report to a potential shortfall of 16% on the Kyoto target failed to take account of a number of key measures in Ireland's strategy for complying with the Kyoto Protocol. This arises from the methodology the EEA applied. It did not take into account the EU emissions trading scheme, which was praised in the recent Stern report and which will account for 3 million tonnes, sequestration of carbon from forests nor any purchases of appropriate credits through international trading mechanisms.
On the basis of these policies and measures already agreed, Ireland is now positioned to reduce carbon emissions by 14.6 million tonnes, bringing us within 0.6 million tonnes of our Kyoto target for the 2008-12 period. Further measures to close the remaining gap of 0.6 million tonnes will be decided in the coming months.
In total, reductions of 15.2 million tonnes per annum, on average, will be achieved over the indicative period through existing measures throughout the economy, which will achieve a reduction of 8 million tonnes per annum, and a further series of measures which will bridge that 0.6 million tonnes gap; participation by Irish companies in the EU emissions trading scheme, which will contribute 3 million tonnes, and the purchase of up to 3.6 million carbon allowances in each of the years for the indicative period.
Based on the recent review and a public consultation which followed its publication, I am preparing a revised climate change strategy. This will also be informed, inter alia, by the range of new measures identified in the Green Paper on Energy published last month, which were not involved in the EEA calculations. These include the greener homes renewable energy grants for households and the commercial bio-heat scheme which together will deliver an approximate 200,000 tonne reduction in emissions; new ambitious targets for renewable energy use of 15% by 2010 and 30% by 2020 and, therefore, a tonnage saving; more than doubling the use of biofuels by 2010 from 2% to 5.75%, which again will have a carbon saving; the establishment of a task force on bio-energy to develop an integrated national policy in this area; an action plan on energy efficiency to reduce energy consumption 20% by 2020, but again that is not in the EEA calculation; and other grants, for example, for combined heat and power.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
Increasing the use of combined heat and power to 350 MW by 2010 with grants for 30% of the installation costs; and a commitment to co-firing peat-fired power stations with 30% biomass by 2015.
The additional reductions in greenhouse gas emissions that will be achieved through these measures will be sufficient for Ireland to reach our Kyoto Protocol target based on current projections.
Does the Minister think anybody but himself is right on matters relating to the environment? All the Opposition spokespersons are wrong and now the European Environment Agency is wrong.
Not really.
Frankly, he lectures everybody, and everybody else is wrong but himself. I want to ask about the areas for which he is responsible and they are not that complicated. The Minister promised that he would publish a revised climate change strategy by the end of 2006. When will the revised climate change strategy be published? Will he tell the House the total tonnage of greenhouse gas emissions at the time the current climate change strategy was published and what it is now, in other words, leaving aside the issue of emissions trading? By how much, if anything, have greenhouse gas emissions in the State been reduced since publication of the climate change strategy?
Lest I be accused of lecturing, I was pointing out that the EEA has a calculation methodology which does not take into account the 3 millions tonnes which I mentioned under the EU emissions trading scheme. It is quite legitimate to point out that is the case because that is part of the 11 million tonnes saving that has already been identified. It does not take into account the 3.6 million tonnes, the second figure I mentioned, which was identified as far back as 2004 for purchase under the scheme, which again was recognised by Stern.
That is in the future.
It is in the future.
What has been achieved——
The situation in Ireland is that this country——
——in greenhouse gas emissions?
If the Deputy has finished asking the question I will give him the answer.
I ask the Minister to give me the answer.
Ireland's economy, since the reference year of 1990, has grown by 150%.
That is not the answer.
Our greenhouse gas emissions have grown by 23%, 10% above the indicative rate of 13%, which we have to reach.
Have we reduced our greenhouse gas emissions?
Yes, we have.
By how much?
Let me give the Deputy some indications.
By how much and what is the total figure? What is the total tonnage by which we have reduced it?
I will give the Deputy the exact figures. In industry we are well on the way to meeting the 3 million tonnes target. That is accepted.
By whom is it accepted?
I will deal with that too if the Deputy allows me. If he stops asking questions I will answer them. CAP reforms will reduce carbon emissions. We are in the process of reducing by 2.4 million tonnes. There has been a significant reduction.
By how much has it been reduced?
We have to reduce our indicative figure——
I know what we have to reduce it by.
Our indicative figure is to get down to 15 million tonnes below the projected figure, that is, down to 63 million tonnes by the indicative period. We will get down to that figure.
How much have we done?
That is the figure we have to get to.
How much have we done? There is more to do. What is done?
That is correct, there is a lot done and there is more to do. I accept that.
How much? By how many tonnes have carbon emissions been reduced?
In energy, we have already had significant savings. We are down towards 1.3 million tonnes over a variety of sources. Industry is well on target. In the CAP, for example, the nitrates and the other programme will reduce by 2.7 million tonnes, forestry will reduce by 2.8 million tonnes. We are talking about the future, 2012.
The Kyoto Protocol has been in place since 1997, that is ten years.
That is correct. The period within which we have to reach the target is between 2008 and 2012, and we have not reached 2008.
Will we do it all in the last year? When will the Minister publish the climate change strategy?
In fact, the building regulations will take 300,000 tonnes off.
When?
Deputy Cuffe asked specifically about transport. Transport savings are already 500——
These are Priority Questions. I call Deputy Gilmore for a brief question.
The question I asked the Minister is on page 33 of Towards 2016, which——
It will be before the end of this year.
Is that for definite?
That is what we are working towards. I am sorry, I did not mean to ignore the Deputy when giving other information.
5 Mr. Cuffe asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the number of submissions received in response to the recent public consultation on climate change policy; if they will be published on his Department’s website, as was the stated intention; the number of submissions that called for a law to make annual yearly reductions in emissions mandatory; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [36913/06]
The Government has put in place a range of measures which, collectively, will deliver an average 14.6 million tonne reduction in greenhouse gas emissions during the period 2008 to 2012, over which our compliance with the Kyoto Protocol will be assessed. That is the point I was making to Deputy Gilmore but he was not listening. Measures which will give a total of 8 million tonnes include strengthening energy requirements in the building regulations, accounting for 300,000 tonnes of CO2 per year; changes in transport, which I have mentioned; excise relief in last year's budget will produce a saving of 250,000 tonnes; the Common Agricultural Policy will take 2.4 million tonnes; and the Government's forestry programme will contribute to the removal of 2 million tonnes. Participation in the EU trading scheme will contribute a further 3 million which will take us up to the 11 million tonnes figure. The balance of 3.6 million tonnes which is recognised in the Irish 14.6 million tonnes suppression target is from the purchase of credits and it may not be necessary to do that.
A review of the national climate change strategy has taken place to assess progress and to identify additional measures. I recently launched a report on the review, entitled Ireland's Pathway to Kyoto Compliance to provide a basis for the public consultation.
Specifically on the consultation a total of 322 submissions were received by my Department to date. As analysis of these submissions is still being completed, it would not yet be appropriate to comment on them individually until that is complete. The submissions will be published on my Department's website in due course. The responses to this open consultation will inform the preparation of a revised national climate change strategy, which I intend to publish before the end of the year.
I do not know what was in the water in Citywest last weekend but I think it went to the Minister's head given his commentary about——
Fluoride.
It was possibly the fluoride on which we are also awaiting action. It is rather like the climate change strategy, we might be waiting for a while. Will the Minister clarify the specific number of submissions received? He said he received 322 submissions. I know of one NGO which stated that the number submitted through it to the Minister was towards 500. Will he clarify the number of paper submissions and the number of electronic submissions he has received on this issue? He stated that they will be published. When will they be published? Has the Minister any intention to make annual yearly reductions in emissions mandatory? Future generations will judge him by the action he took on climate change. The compelling evidence is that the actions of the Government and of the Minister's Department have been increasing climate change emissions rather than reducing them. We cannot continue to build motorways as if the oil will last forever. We cannot continue with building regulations which make us look appalling in comparison to other European countries and a dedication to urban sprawl, led by the Minister, which is increasing long distance commuting times by car. What action is the Minister taking and will he be able to tell future generations he did the right thing on climate change?
In regard to Deputy Cuffe's question on whether there were multiple responses, one NGO had people send the same response several hundred times. That counts as one response.
Did the Minister say 700 submissions count as one response?
The same submission was sent several hundred times.
The submissions were sent by different individuals.
A submission with the same wording was sent by different individuals.
That implies several hundred different submissions were sent.
The Deputy's statement is somewhat foolhardy.
The Minister is being economical with the truth.
If the same circular letter is sent 500 times ——
In any other forum, they would be seen as multiple submissions but the Minister has a way with the truth.
In answer to the Deputy's second question, I think we will reach our target. We have already identified 14.6 million tonnes of savings out of a target of almost 15.3 million tonnes, as well as a series of measures which were not calculated as part of the 14.6 million tonnes but will take us beyond the target. The bioheat programme could allow for reductions of 160,000 tonnes, a figure which did not form part of the earlier calculation. A further reduction of 300,000 tonnes could be made through the increased use of renewables in electricity production. As I mentioned earlier, we aim to more than double the proportion of renewable resources used, an increase which Deputy Cuffe correctly supported on the basis that it is the best option and because it saves tonnage. An additional reduction of 20,000 tonnes which will be made from the green homes scheme was not included in the 14.6 million or mentioned in the EEA report. An extraordinary 250,000 tonnes will be cut through the conversion of anaerobically digested waste into energy. A range of other measures mentioned in the Green Paper which have not yet been calculated will bring us beyond the target of 15.2 million tonnes.
Deputy Gilmore wrongly suggested, in his charming way, that Ireland stands alone on this issue. The Irish economy has grown by 150%, whereas greenhouse gas emissions have increased by 23%. It would be much nicer if the increase in emissions was only 13% but we are working towards that figure. Seven of the EU 15 have wider gaps to bridge than Ireland. Austria's gap stands at 29%, Denmark at 19%, Finland at14%, Italy at 19%, Luxembourg at 28%, Portugal at 14% and Spain at 33%. We will meet our responsibilities on emissions.
The Minister is using the same logic as a prisoner in the dock pointing out other individuals in the court who have committed worse crimes. He is putting an emphasis on buying our way out of the Kyoto agreement. Will he confirm, however, that he agrees buying our way out is not the best way of addressing the problem?
What percentage of submissions argued for the establishment of mandatory annual targets for emissions? I ask the Minister to determine the number of individuals who made such an argument, rather than referring collectively to several hundred different submissions.
I do not have that information to hand but I will revert to the Deputy with it. The submissions will be published in due course. I do not agree with the hypothesis that Ireland, uniquely, should establish a legal mandatory limit.
Of course it would be better if we did not have to buy carbon credits but, whether a tonne of carbon is produced in Dublin or New Delhi, the same problem arises for the atmosphere. The mechanism we are establishing for carbon trading is specifically mentioned in the Stern report as being one of the solutions to the problem.
6 Mr. McCormack asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the number of affordable houses, as distinct from social houses, that have been completed to date in 2006; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [36885/06]
In 2005, for the 11th successive year, a record output of some 81,000 new homes was achieved and this figure is set to further increase this year. Data on house loans issued in 2005 indicate that 45% of new loans were taken by first-time buyers. A significant number of mortgages for those new homes were manageable or affordable.
The Government has sought to supplement the market through a range of different responses directed at those who cannot meet their own housing needs. In this regard, affordable housing measures are aimed at facilitating the purchase of homes by individuals at less than market value. During the first six months of this year, more than 1,100 affordable houses have been provided through various affordable housing schemes. These houses are additional to the 7,300 affordable homes which were supplied over the previous three years.
Income limits, maximum loan amounts and subsidy levels have also been substantially increased. The income eligibility limits for shared ownership, affordable housing and local authority house purchase loans now stand at €100,000 for a dual income household and €40,000 for a single income household. My Department is currently examining the various affordable housing schemes in order to simplify and streamline arrangements. Last year, the Government established the affordable homes partnership to co-ordinate and add impetus to the delivery of affordable housing in the greater Dublin area, where affordability pressures are greatest. The partnership has made considerable progress, particularly in terms of advancing land exchange projects. The conclusion of three such exchanges has allowed for the early delivery of some 500 affordable homes. Other measures being undertaken include the development of additional affordable housing on private lands.
I thank the Minister of State for providing me with information I did not seek. I question his claim that 11,000 affordable houses were provided in the first six months of this year.
The figure I gave was 1,100 houses.
I would also challenge a claim of 1,100 houses because, according to the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government's housing statistics bulletin, a mere 616 of the 43,899 new units completed in the first six months of 2006 comprised social or affordable housing. While I am aware that some of the new units were one-off houses or in developments of fewer than four units, affordable houses formed less than 1.5% of the total number of house completions, rather than 20%. Can the Minister of State indicate how many of the units completed in the first six months of this year were in developments of four or more houses, so that we can establish the number of affordable and social housing being lost due to changes in the Government's policy wrought by the Planning and Development (Amendment) Act 2002? We have already debated this issue in the context of a Private Members' Bill which was opposed by the Minister of State, and it is clear that the policy is not working.
Deputy McCormack specifically asked about affordable houses, of which some 1,100 have been provided.
Were they provided in the first six months of this year?
Yes.
They are not reflected in the Department's own statistics.
As the Deputy is aware, there are four different schemes, namely the shared ownership scheme, the 1999 affordable housing scheme, the Part V scheme and the affordable housing initiative.
That was not my question.
It is. The Deputy may have meant to ask about Part V, but he asked for the number of affordable houses, which is 1,100.
I want to know about shared ownership, not affordable houses.
Last year, for the full year there were 2,900. Those figures can be broken down if the Deputy wishes. Unfortunately, one of the ploys used is to consider the four different schemes and only refer to figure of output for one of them. In the first six months for affordable houses under Part V, which is one of our schemes, there were 367 units. I do not have the output for social housing, because the Deputy's question was not about that. If he is telling me it was 616 and that was up to 20%, it would indicate that approximately 3,000 of the 44,000 were eligible for Part V. As we discussed the matter last week and in other places, we know that approximately a quarter of house production is made up of one-off houses in the country. Another significant proportion is taken up by old planning permissions, granted prior to the coming into force of Part V. Many more of them are small developments under four and some are on land that is not zoned in towns and villages where Part V does not apply. Working from the 616 figure, approximately 3,000 of the 44,000 at this stage were eligible for Part V. As the old planning permissions die out in the coming years, obviously the figure will be much higher.
Does the Minister of State not accept that developers are giving money in lieu as they are allowed to do under the amended Act of 2002 or are giving land elsewhere? It takes considerably longer for local authorities to convert that money or land to houses. In addition to getting 20% of a development, the houses are available immediately as the builder will get the development completed as soon as possible to get his houses on the market. The Minister of State must accept that the objective of providing social and affordable housing under part V has failed since the introduction of the 2002 Act. What new policies does the Minister of State intend to implement to deliver more affordable housing in communities where it is needed, rather than telling us about the present policy which is proving to be unsuccessful as builders are simply getting out of their commitments to give 20% of the housing as they are giving money or land instead, which may only turn into housing in the long term?
As the Deputy said, since 2002, cash represents one method by which a developer can fulfil his legal obligations under Part V. As we discussed last week, up to the end of June €38 million was contributed in that way. I made it clear last week and do so again today that without these cash payments 12% or 14% would be added to the output. It is not a case of cash representing half of the business so to speak.
It is delaying the housing.
No, it is not. If there was no cash it would add approximately 12% to 14% to the number of units delivered. If it were 616, taking the Deputy's figure for the first six months, it would increase by that amount, which is not radically different.
It is delaying it by three or four years in some cases rather than getting them instantly.
On other measures, the big initiative will be the affordable homes partnership that we launched a number of months ago. There are calls for lands and I expect announcements very soon. That partnership has been working with private developers to bring forward land that was previously not zoned or lands whose zoning has been amended. There will be announcements covering the greater Dublin area in the coming weeks and months.
7 Mr. Stagg asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the number of elderly people and people in receipt of social welfare estimated to be living in homes with above average levels of radon; if he will reconsider his refusal to introduce a scheme of grants to assist in remediation works to the homes of elderly people and those in receipt of social welfare; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [36775/06]
During the 1990s, the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland carried out a nationwide survey of radon gas in domestic dwellings. The survey involved the measurement of radon in approximately 11,000 houses nationwide. Based on the results of this survey, the RPII estimated that approximately 7% of the national housing stock, 91,000 houses, have radon concentration levels in excess of the national reference level of 200 bq/m3. This is the reference level adopted by Government for houses and is the level above which it is recommended that radon remediation works should be considered.
The RPII survey is the only one of its kind to have taken place in the country. The nature of the survey does not make it possible to estimate the number of occupants and their age cohort. As stated in reply to previous questions, increasing public awareness of radon is considered to be a more effective approach than the provision of State financial assistance to householders for radon testing of their homes or for radon remediation works. Such schemes are not operated by the majority of EU member states and could require very significant public expenditure and administrative resources.
The testing of houses for radon is a relatively straightforward, non-invasive and inexpensive process, costing about €50 per house. Furthermore, in many cases, relatively straightforward and inexpensive remediation measures, such as improved ventilation, can be effective in reducing radon concentration levels.
The Government, through the RPII, has, for many years, committed significant resources to assessing the extent of the radon problem throughout the country and to highlighting public awareness of radon and the risks associated with it. In this connection, I refer to the reply to Question No. 607 of 1 November 2006 in which I outlined the numerous initiatives undertaken by the RPII and my Department.
As part of the audit of the condition of the local authority housing stock, which is due to commence next year, I intend that appropriate arrangements will be made to survey the radon concentration levels in those houses. As part of their duties the landlord councils will be expected to take the necessary remedial steps.
I thank the Minister for his reply. The contradictory advice coming from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government never ceases to amaze me. One section of the Department advises householders to insulate their houses to keep the heat in and the Minister has told us to open the windows to let the radon gas out.
It is not quite the same thing.
I am not sure which advice one should take. Is it better to be warm and dead or cold and alive? Some 91,000 homes have death-dealing levels of radon gas. Some 300 people die from the effects of radon gas, based on the RPII figures. I was involved directly with that agency in the first stages of having the surveys carried out and the Minister's constituency colleague, Deputy Jacob, completed the job. I am sure the Minister will be aware that the former Labour and Fianna Fáil Government decided on the advice of the RPII that a remediation grant scheme should be introduced, but the Minister has turned his face against that and has taken some new advice. He should consider some special cases. He has said he will consider council houses, which is a welcome positive step. I ask the Minister to consider those who cannot afford to carry out the remediation works, including old age pensioners and those on social welfare. We should at least have a limited scheme for those who cannot afford to carry out the works themselves. The alternative is literally to condemn these people to death in houses with high levels of radon gas. The test could be carried out before awarding the grant to ensure it is needed.
Ventilation does not simply mean leaving windows and doors open.
The last Minister told people to open their windows.
While I appreciate the humour, it is not necessarily counter to the advice on insulation. We will leave that to one side.
Perhaps the Minister will remove that advice for future reference.
To the extent that anybody advises people to leave their windows or doors open, I will remove that advice. Discussion on the introduction of a radon gas remedial works grant scheme took place in 1997 and I believe it was announced that such a scheme would be introduced. Again, it was to be subject to moneys being found in the then relevant Departments and as the Deputy knows, that did not happen. The issue was reviewed in 2001, as the Deputy mentioned.
The response of other countries to this issue has been, to put it mildly, chequered. The funding is much better spent in advising people to have their homes tested because the changes that are needed are relatively small and inexpensive.
On a previous occasion the Deputy has mentioned people in social housing and the responsibilities of councils. That point is well made and it is the reason I am incorporating that in the review. A cost benefit analysis was commissioned by the Danish Government some years ago of existing houses in Denmark by way of a scheme to grant assistance. It concluded that such investment would not be justified and that the alternative means of reducing the number of lung cancer deaths, which is the key statistic, reducing smoking, was much better. I do not like using the term "cost benefit analysis" when talking about human life but that is the way the analysis on those particular schemes tends to be conducted. The Deputy can be assured there will not be contradictory advice on this matter.
Will the Minister not agree it is extraordinary that the number of people dying from the effects of radon gas is almost the same as the number killed on our roads? We spend huge amounts of money, energy, time and public attention on deaths on our roads and ignore the fact that 300 people die from something that is unnecessary and avoidable. Those deaths could be avoided for very little cost.
I welcome the fact the Minister is including social housing in a programme of retrofitting. Will he look again at the works that are done because the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland has found that some of the new houses that were supposed to be fitted with radon gas exclusion measures are allowing the gas into houses because they were not fitted properly? Even where houses were retrofitted some houses were still found to have gas levels. Obviously the methods used are not as effective as the RPII hoped or perhaps they are not being fitted as well as the RPII hoped. If there was some type of an examination at the fitting stage to that particular part of the house, whether retrofitted or otherwise, it would be of benefit. If a grant scheme was in place it would provide an opportunity to examine the fitting of these measures by the State in the interests of the citizens.
In reviewing the matter, will the Minister examine the situation of people outside the social housing arena who are not in a position to spend €10,000 or €12,000 to have the house retrofitted where they can demonstrate there is a case for some assistance either through the health board or some other system?
I will think about the Deputy's last point, although I am not making a promise on it. I am aware this is an issue in which he has taken a particular interest.
The other point the Deputy made is good. Part C of the Building Regulations 1997 and the technical guidance document provide the basis on which buildings should be dealt with. We do not have statistics on it but the Deputy may have anecdotal evidence that I have heard as well——
The RPII gave it to us at a committee meeting.
I was aware of that but there were cases where, for example, membranes were put down in a careless way. That defeats the entire purpose and to the extent that is happening, it must be stopped. I thank the Deputy for his contribution.
