This is a Seanad Bill which has been amended by the Dáil. In accordance with Standing Order 103, it is deemed to have passed its First, Second and Third Stages in the Seanad and is placed on the Order Paper for Report Stage. On the question "That the Bill be received for final consideration", the Minister may explain the purpose of the amendments made by the Dáil. This is looked upon as the report of the Dáil amendments to the Seanad. The only matters, therefore, which may be discussed are the amendments made by the Dáil. For Senators' convenience I have arranged to have copies of the amendments made available.
Radiological Protection Bill, 1998 [ Seanad Bill amended by the Dáil ] : Report and Final Stages.
Mr. Ryan
On a point of order, if one were to call a vote on these amendments would one be voting on all the amendments or is it possible to have votes on individual amendments?
No, what is before the House is not the amendments but the Bill as amended.
Question proposed: "That the Bill be received for final consideration."
As Members aware, they may speak only once on this question.
I am delighted to be back here today to report on this Bill just over three years after I first introduced it in this House. Senators will not therefore be surprised to learn that in the intervening period it has been the subject of substantial amendment.
Before I deal with the substance of the changes to the Bill, I wish to bring to the attention of the House a typographical error at page 10, line 6. To correct this error it is necessary to delete "conferred on imposed" and substitute "conferred or imposed". I understand that the correction can be made under Standing Order 121 of the Seanad by the Clerk, under the direction of the Cathaoirleach, and does not require to be made by way of formal amendment. I ask that the House accede to my request to have the necessary correction made.
I will direct the Clerk to make the necessary corrections.
Thank you, a Chathaoirligh. The principal amendments concern the introduction of a grant scheme for remediation works for houses with an unacceptably high level of radon and the deletion of certain provisions concerning chiropractors. I will mention very briefly each of the amendments that have been made dealing first with the radon grant scheme and then the position of chiropractors.
The Long Title, as revised, reflects the expansion of the contents of the Bill to include the grant scheme. The interpretation provision, section 1, has been modified to define a number of terms used in the Bill in relation to the proposed grant scheme. The framework for the establishment of a grant scheme for certain remediation works to houses that are used as residences is provided for in the new section 5. That section authorises the Minister to allocate money to the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland 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 institute to cover the costs of administering the scheme. 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 and to require the institute to provide information to the Minister when requested and maintain records for a period to be prescribed by regulations.
Inspections are provided for in section 6 and are limited to houses and remediation works which are the subject matter of an application under the scheme. In section 6(2) provision is made to exclude the Minister and the RPII from liability 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 remediation works. The incorporation of this immunity provision as well as that contained in section 10 is on the express advice of the Attorney General's office.
Section 10 addresses the issue of the immunity of the Minister and the institute from suits in cases where damages are 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. I emphasise that these provisions do not in any way deprive applicants of any remedies that they may have against negligent contractors.
The new section 7 deals with the payment of the grant. The grant covers 50% of the costs of remediation works up to a maximum level of €1,000. It is payable only on completion of the remediation works and compliance with the provisions of the Act and regulations made under section 8. I am advised that estimates for the cost of radon remediation measures vary from about €1,000 to €2,000. A grant of 50% is reasonable given the estimates.
Section 8 empowers the Minister to make regulations for the administration of the scheme by the institute and sets out the detail of the operation of the scheme. It contains a non-exhaustive list of the areas that may be covered by the regulations such as the duration of the scheme, requirements for applicants and houses, types of remediation works, inspections and requirements for contractors. Provision is also made requiring the Minister to lay such regulations before the Houses of the Oireachtas.
Section 9 deals with accounts and audits and contains 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.
I mentioned the immunity provision in section 10 when I discussed section 6. However, I wish to reiterate the point that these provisions do not in any way affect any remedies an applicant may have against a negligent contractor.
Section 11 is concerned with offences and penalties. This section creates three summary offences. They concern obstructing inspectors and the provision of false and misleading information. The penalty on conviction is a fine of up to €1,904 and-or imprisonment for a period not exceeding six months. The new section 12(3) modifies the commencement provisions so that the Minister may bring different parts of the Act into operation at different times.
In so far as chiropractors are concerned, section 2(b) of the Bill contained an amendment to section 30 of the Radiological Protection Act, 1991, to the effect that only practitioners meeting criteria set down by the Department of Health and Children, primarily doctors and dentists, would be licensed by the RPII to use x-ray apparatus for medical diagnostic purposes. The text was incorporated into the Bill in an effort to deal with an apparent anomaly in legislation administered by my Department and the Department of Health and Children concerning the position of chiropractors and the use of x-ray equipment. That provision tried to deal with one aspect of much broader and important policy issues concerning public health, safety and the regulation of persons who offer various forms of therapeutic treatment but who are not medical practitioners. Unfortunately, the attempt to resolve the issue in this way caused considerable delay to the introduction of the main provisions of this Bill. Accordingly, and having been advised that the Minister for Health and Children will shortly be in a position to effect the transposition, by means of regulations, of the Medical Exposures Directive, I sought and obtained agreement on Committee Stage to the deletion of the provision that was significantly delaying the passage of this important legislation.
I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Jacob, to the House to conclude the final Stages of this important legislation. I am glad he clarified that it is three years since this Bill was introduced here because I was wondering where I was when the Bill came before the Seanad.
So were we all.
I thought I was in America or elsewhere. I am glad that it has come back again. At this juncture I will not contribute anything which will substantially change the legislation. As the Minister of State said, it has done the rounds of the House and considerable debate has taken place in the Lower House on all the amendments.
I welcome the provision of grant aid for remediation of radon gas for dwellings located in areas where this is a particular menace. If there was anything missing from this Bill – perhaps it is included; I have not had time to read the entire Bill – it is that geographical areas where radon gas is predominant should be identified. If they were, perhaps planning authorities might take it into consideration when issuing planning permission because there seem to be definite geographical locations where the incidence of this particular gas is much higher than others. People buying property, especially second hand houses, in rural and urban areas should be advised to do a preliminary test for radon gas. It is a simple test and the equipment is very easily obtained and easy to use. It is a question of installing it for a while to get a reading.
The amendments are worthwhile. If I had any reservations about them, it would be the fact that the grant level is possibly too low in many instances given that the costs of remedial work to any kind of property are soaring and price inflation in the building industry is extremely high. Nevertheless, I welcome the grant and commend the Minister of State for accepting that amendment in the other House. Many people will benefit and it will raise public awareness of this problem. Very few were even aware that there was such a problem. Fewer still believed that it posed a threat to our health. The Bill has created an awareness of the potential dangers and hazards of radon gas.
I welcome all the amendments to which I certainly cannot add at this juncture, except to say that emphasis could be put on certain geographical areas where there are high radon gas levels in order that people would be more conscious of them when selecting and building houses. As I said, it is only in recent years that this has been identified as a problem. Like all new problems, they tend to be ignored for a long time until the scientific evidence is irrefutable that there is a specific danger to health. That evidence has now been well established by the scientific community and it is up to the public to respond and take cognisance of all the implications that radon gas has for house building and house purchasing in general.
I, too, congratulate the Minister of State on having brought forward this Bill. For a very long time we totally underestimated the problem posed by radon gas and the effect it has on human health. The Minister of State should encourage the development of baselines in various areas to signify the approximate extent of the problem in those areas. It would be worthwhile doing this.
When the Minister of State was in the House discussing Sellafield I pointed out that if there is an influence on human health here, we are in a rather weak position to point it out because we do not have baselines regarding the problems caused by unlicensed dumps which may contain hazardous material due to the high levels of nitrates in ground water. We need to try to estab lish baselines in order that we can see the current levels, to determine if they are increasing or decreasing, and what effect they have on human health. Certainly, the importance of radon, even among the medical profession, has been recognised only in the past two decades. I congratulate the Minister of State very much on taking action in this area.
I welcome the Minister of State back to the House to deal with this Bill. Like Senator Caffrey, I was not present when it went through its early Stages in the House. As we know, it amends the 1991 and 1995 Acts. It is very important that we welcome the developments brought forward in it because, in the light of the wide use of radioactive substances, it is vital that the functions, licensing and regulatory roles of the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland are constantly reviewed and upgraded. Present colleagues would be more aware than I that there is an increasing use of radioactive substances in laboratories, hospitals, dental surgeries and other such places. It is vital that their use and movement are properly regulated. In the light of this, it is all the more necessary that the role and functions of the institute, particularly its regulatory and licensing functions, are reviewed on a constant basis and, if necessary, they should be expanded or extended to cover ongoing developments.
I commend the work of the institute which has a wide range of functions. It monitors and provides professional expertise of the highest level for the Government in respect of the nuclear industry and its proliferation. We are all only too painfully aware – I did not have the opportunity to comment on this last week – of the huge risks to life and the environment both in Ireland and the United Kingdom posed by Sellafield. Considerable work has been done by the Minister, backed up by the professionals in the institute. I commend the commitment, zeal and professionalism they bring to bear on their work.
The recent commissioning of the MOX plant was a blatant and abominable affront by BNFL and the British Government to a friendly neighbour. I know the Minister of State is drawing very heavily on the expertise available to him in the institute and that he will build on the rights established as a result of an interim judgment by the tribunal on the law of the sea before Christmas. Clearly defined rights have been laid down, the corollary to which is that duties have been clearly laid down which the British Government must honour. I know the expertise will be and is available to build on these rights in any actions, some of which have already been initiated and are in progress.
As somebody who taught in schools for a number of years before coming to the Houses, I certainly was not aware of the existence of radon or the threat it posed to health. It is very encouraging to find that the institute is doing quite extensive work throughout the country and has mapped areas, although not to the extent that Senator Caffrey has called for. I ask that the proposals he has made be followed up as a matter of priority. However, there is extensive work being done. As far as I am aware, the national survey is near completion, if not completed.
Since the risk posed has come to public attention in recent times there is no doubt that every effort should be made, as a matter of priority, to ensure the areas of highest risk are designated as such and that appropriate remedial action is taken. In this context, I welcome the decision by the Minister to introduce a grant of 50%. Senator Caffrey expressed the opinion that this might not be adequate. I am not competent to express support for, or refute, such an opinion. However, in view of what has been put to him by the Senator, the Minister of State might look at the matter again. There is no doubt that, because of the now known risk to health caused by the presence of radon gas, we should ensure there is every encouragement and incentive in order that the owners of domestic and public dwellings can eliminate this risk as early as possible and take adequate and full remedial action.
I commend the Minister of State on bringing back the Bill for completion and commend the institute for the wonderful work it is doing. It is very encouraging to find that such refreshing, informative and transparent work is being done by it to inform the public and allay its fears in respect of radiological safety where possible. Once again, I commend the Bill to the House.
Mr. Ryan
Ní thógfaidh mé mórán ama ach amháin é seo a rá. I agree that the RPII does a wonderful job, but it is worth pointing out that it was a late convert to the view long held by the public in Ireland that Sellafield posed a major risk to our health and safety. For quite a while it was inclined to play down the risks associated with it. It is a long-standing view of mine that we should never rely too much on experts. Speaking as one who would probably be described as an expert in certain areas, technologically speaking, the public should never rely on experts. Experts are advisers and rarely have to take ultimate responsibility for the consequences of their advice.
The RPII was led by public opinion rather than informing it on the issue of Sellafield. It is worth remembering this about other agencies, including the Health and Safety Authority and the Environmental Protection Agency. They have an important role to play, but the public should never allow itself to be persuaded that these expert bodies can hand down authoritative judgments which last forever. The RPII's attitude to Sellafield is a good example. I have been critical of the Government on the issue of Sellafield, but the Minister of State's current view is much more radical than that held by the RPII 15 years ago. We have all learnt. If we had listened to the experts we would probably not have come to the view we now, as a united community, have about Sellafield.
I welcome the amendments because they are a necessary part of any attempt to protect people from background radiation. The Minister of State said the standard of 200 becquerels per cubic metre applies in most European countries. Does this mean that some countries have a more rigorous or a less rigorous standard? I would be interested to know which is the case. I hope we are enforcing standards which are the most strict in Europe. I am not in a position to know this and I hope the Minister of State can tell me.
My second question refers to the amount of funding which is available. It is one thing to make a grant scheme possible but an entirely separate thing to make enough funds available to deal with a large number of applications. Do we have any idea how many applications can be expected in the first 12 months, the scale of funding and how many applications will be funded? Members of local authorities will know better than I do that there are many grant schemes, for example, for the conservation of listed buildings and so on, for which funding applications must be submitted by the beginning of the financial year. Applications submitted later than that will probably have to wait a full year. Although owners of listed properties are constrained by planning laws, the grants to help them maintain their properties usually run out within a month or two.
I am concerned by the immunities from litigation granted by the legislation. When we debated the Disability Bill we had a long discussion about the attempt to make the obligation to provide services to people with disabilities non-enforceable in court. I would not like everybody to be able to sue the RPII or the Minister for everything they did not do and I accept that the Minister of State says that negligent contractors are still capable of being sued. However, it is also conceivable that the RPII might be negligent. Expert bodies are not perfect and neither is the Minister of State, although he is not far off it.
The public should not be precluded from taking the same action against a negligent Minister, Department or State agency as they might take against a private individual. That is what republican democracy is about. I am happy to talk about restrictions which would prevent limitless open-ended cases, but gross negligence on the part of the RPII should be capable of being redressed. The scale of negligence that appears to have been shown by the Irish Blood Transfusion Service in the past concerns me and the idea that such a level of negligence would be excluded from civil action for damages also concerns me. I do not suggest that this would happen. However, our experience has been that bodies which have high levels of responsibility for human safety have not done their job very well. Otherwise we would not have the hepatitis C and other scandals. Bodies which should have known better did not do their jobs properly.
Are we saying that if the RPII fails to do its job properly in the area of the grants scheme, fails to give good advice or is negligent in dealing with the advice it gives, it can not be sued? This would eliminate accountability and that is not right. I am not in a position to vote against this amendment. I accept that the contractors are open to being sued, but no State agency should be given a blanket exemption from responsibility for its own negligence.
Are chiropractors who want to use x-ray equipment regulated in some way? The idea that they might not be is something which would make most of us very nervous. X-ray equipment is potentially dangerous and some level of regulation is necessary, even if it is not currently applicable here. In principle, I welcome the introduction of the grant scheme. It is long overdue.
I thank Senators for their contributions and for their broad welcome for this grant scheme. It is an excellent thing. The exhortations of Senator Caffrey and other colleagues that public awareness be raised will be realised by the announcement of this new scheme. There will be an amount of advertising by the RPII and by the Department and this will raise public awareness, which is necessary if we are to deal with what Senator Caffrey calls this menace. We are at one with Senator on that point.
Senator Liam Fitzgerald lauded the RPII for the work it has done and I share his sentiments. The entire country has been surveyed and the findings are more or less as Senator Caffrey indicated. The areas which have been established as high radon areas are in counties Carlow, Galway, Louth, Mayo, Sligo, Waterford, Wexford and Wicklow and the cities of Cork and Galway. Not all houses in high radon areas are affected. This is why it is important that the test which is available at the institute is availed of and the levels of radon in individual homes established. The important work of surveying schools has been done and remediation works are well advanced. I am grateful to the Minister for Education and Science for footing the bill for that important work. Our children spend a great deal of time in school. In some schools, certain rooms were found to be safe while others had high levels and required remediation work.
I agree with Senator Fitzgerald's sentiments regarding the RPII. I took careful note of Senator Henry's remarks on other issues with regard to baselines and they make good sense.
The survey that has been carried out nationwide has established where we have difficulty with radon. Radon has been with us from time immemorial. Perhaps the State and successive Governments ought to have been more aware of it before but, Deo gratias, we are doing something about it now. The problem areas have been identified and the problem in houses, schools and parts of schools has been or is in the course of being identified. This is probably the penultimate leg in dealing with it and, by putting this grant in place, we are encouraging people to do the final part themselves.
Senator Ryan raised the question of immunities. As far as this Bill is concerned, the immunities reflect the fact that the carrying out of remediation works is a matter of contract between the house owner and the contractor. Neither the Minister of the day nor the RPII is responsible for carrying out the works. Inspections on behalf of the RPII are to verify that the works are required in the first instance and that they have been carried out to the required standard. It is appropriate, indeed prudent, to have that immunity factor included in the legislation.
Senator Ryan also raised the issue of chiropractors. That is largely related to the Department of Health of Children but it is the issue that delayed the finalisation of this legislation for many years. That is a good thing in a way. We have the radon grant and the important thing was to secure the funding. That is not easy and one has to push for it. However, we got the funding. I would like to have announced it a couple of years ago but we have it now. Thereafter, we had to put the scheme and its structure together. At the eleventh hour, however, it became apparent, from directions given by the Office of the Attorney General, that the RPII, which we had intended to administer the scheme, was not legally empowered to do so. We are using this legislation to empower the RPII to administer the scheme. I am happy, therefore, that this legislation was available to deal with that aspect of the issue.
The competence and qualifications of persons entitled to use X-ray equipment are matters for the Minister for Health and Children. My responsibility, through the RPII, relates to the calibration of equipment and the use of certain dangerous substances. That control is provided by the institute but the competence and qualifications of the persons entitled to use that equipment is a matter for the other Department.
A question was raised about the 200 becquerels per cubic metre and where Ireland lay on the scale in the European context. The International Commission on Radiological Protection, the ICRP, published a report, publication 65, on protection against radon at home and at work. It 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 that range. My own inquiries indicate that it is, in the main, the standard adopted by other European countries.
I hope I have not omitted any other issues raised by Senators. I am grateful to the Senators for their contributions today and for their support for the legislation. I take the points made with regard to the scale of the grant but I believe it will do the job we want. It will encourage people to take the necessary remediation action and I am glad the funding to do it is in place. I thank my officials for their excellent work. A great deal of the work on this legislation was done behind the scenes. I also thank the RPII and my colleagues in the Houses for their help and support with this important and welcome legislation.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill passed.