Priority Questions Nos. 24 and 26 are in the names of Deputies O'Dowd and Cuffe. As neither Deputy is present, we will proceed to Priority Question No. 25 in the name of Deputy Gilmore. As Deputy Gilmore is not present either, we will proceed to Priority Question No. 27.
Priority Questions.
Local Authority Housing.
Pádraic McCormack
Ceist:27 Mr. McCormack asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government his views on whether the recent announcement on social housing will eliminate local authority housing waiting lists; the date by which he expects the elimination to have taken place; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22751/05]
Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Mr. N. Ahern)
The Government's commitment to improving social and affordable housing is reflected in a number of recent announcements. In May I announced this year's allocations for the commencement of 5,500 new housing starts by local authorities to be further boosted to 6,000 starts when new house starts under the regeneration programmes, principally in Ballymun, are taken into consideration. In addition, the main local authority construction programme will deliver the completion of 5,500 units this year. Output by the voluntary and co-operative sector is expected to add a further 1,800 house completions to supplement the main local authority housing construction programme.
At the request of my Department, new multi-annual action plans have been prepared by local authorities for the provision of social and affordable housing for the period 2004 to 2008. These have been approved by my Department and are designed to assist local authorities in identifying priority needs in the next few years and providing a coherent, co-ordinated response across all housing services, including delivery of housing by the voluntary and co-operative sector. Financial envelopes have been secured for the next five years to underpin the multi-annual approach in the action plans.
It is anticipated this year that total social housing provision, including new local authority housing, vacancies that arise in existing houses and output under the various measures, should meet the needs of about 13,000 households. This compares with 8,500 households in 1998. In addition, it is anticipated that the number of households in private accommodation will transfer to the new rental accommodation scheme. The Government's commitment to making housing more affordable is reflected in last week's announcement of the new affordable homes partnership. The partnership will drive and co-ordinate the delivery of affordable housing in the greater Dublin area.
It is also intended that the partnership will take responsibility, as far as practicable, for the affordable housing initiative projects on State lands in the greater Dublin area. This will include the use of the land swap option, similar to that piloted on the Harcourt Terrace Lane site. The partnership will work initially via the existing planning development framework, but additional legislative powers will be available should they prove necessary.
As part of the broader delivery of housing nationally, all local authorities will review their land management strategies to maximise the availability of land for their housing programmes and voluntary and co-operative housing partnerships with the private sector, and to secure more active use of brownfield land and derelict sites. I believe that the development of the action plans and the increased capital investment this year in housing, along with the establishment of the new affordable homes partnership, reflects the Government's targeted response to social and affordable housing need.
Will we be able to use the time saved on other questions for this question?
No. As this is the last week before the recess, the Chair will allow those questions. However, I do not want it to be taken as a precedent for the future.
I will therefore only use the time available to me. How many individuals and families are on local authority housing waiting lists? Does the Minister of State concede that the deficit of data in this area is very strange? Is it not true that the housing needs assessment is published once every three years? How can the Minister of State make policy in this area in these circumstances?
How can the Minister of State justify his announcement last week on affordable housing when there is a lack of housing driving up local authority waiting lists every year? The Minister of State made a statement last week which sounded like it would solve all problems. Would it not be more desirable if the Minister of State sold land on the open market rather than give it away to builders and built houses in suitable areas rather than in the outskirts of cities?
The Deputy is correct. There is a major examination of housing lists every three years. The last compilation in 2002 showed that 48,000 families were on the lists. Families can be represented by just one person; 30% of the list consisted of single people and 32% consisted of one adult and one child. The 48,000 families on the list represented 109,000 people. People can calculate the figures on an ongoing basis but the major needs assessment is done every three years. The figures this year will be out in the autumn. One does not need monthly figures to set long-term plans. The three-year system represents a detailed needs assessment.
Last week's announcement was a considerable response by the Government. It was a fabulous arrangement——
It was fabulous for the builders.
It was the third fall back made by the Government.
There are 193 houses on four tenths of an acre.
We could have gone ahead and built around 30 apartments on the Harcourt Terrace site. Instead of that we are getting 193 units.
When are we getting them?
Up to 140 of them will be built this year and the remainder will be built early next year. That is the real beauty of it. We are not just providing more units, we are also providing them very quickly. We might have had to wait three or four years for the 30 apartments, but now we are getting 140 units this year and the remainder next year. That was a very innovative project and I was very pleased with the announcement.
What happened to the 10,000 houses that the Minister of State promised but never delivered?
We are working on them.
I call on the Minister to answer Question No. 24.
What was the value of the houses he gave away last week?
The Deputy has lost the argument so he should sit down.
Register of Electors.
Fergus O'Dowd
Ceist:24 Mr. O’Dowd asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the steps he intends to take to ensure that the electoral register properly reflects the electorate in time for the next general election, given the reported inaccuracies in same; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22752/05]
Ciarán Cuffe
Ceist:26 Mr. Cuffe asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government if in light of recent research that shows that there were between 660,000 and 800,000 surplus polling cards issued for the general election in 2002 and that the electorate is much larger than the adult population, he plans to devote the necessary resources and develop adequate systems in order that a centrally co-ordinated, computerised and widely accessible electoral register can be established, in order that an independent body is established to oversee this development and the maintenance of the system, in order that the register can be thoroughly checked on a house-to-house basis in advance of the next poll and to allow for names on the electoral register to be cross-checked with a database such as the database of PPS numbers; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22757/05]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 24 and 26 together.
There is a problem in this area and not enough attention has been paid to the issue of the voting register. We have had a number of priorities in recent years. Throughout the 1990s, we had the issue of the electoral code. The expenditure and donation regime was discussed and then we discussed the voting system. There has never really been a major debate on the voting register.
The compilation and publication of the register of electors is a matter for the appropriate local authority in accordance with electoral law and includes the carrying out of house-to-house inquiries, delivery of registration forms and running local awareness campaigns. It is the duty of local authorities to ensure the accuracy of the register. In carrying out this work, local authorities depend to a significant degree on the co-operation and engagement of the public.
There have been a number of reasons put forward for the state of register. Rapid population growth and development, increased personal mobility and other changes in modern society present difficulties for the preparation of the electoral register. I do not accept that these reasons explain fully the condition of the register. In overall terms, the number of people on the register in 2002 eligible to vote at Dáil elections was 3.002 million. However, census data for 2002 indicate that there were 2.71 million voters over the age of 18 who were eligible to vote at these elections, representing a difference of 300,000. The main reasons for excess registration seem to include slowness to remove deceased persons from the register, changes of address without advising the local authority, as well as second houses.
I share the concerns that have been expressed on the quality of the register and have already mandated my Department to examine any improvements that can and should be made. There will be a national awareness campaign later this year associated with preparation of the next register of electors by local authorities. We are monitoring developments in Northern Ireland and elsewhere regarding best practice on electoral registration. In terms of the voting process, we have introduced important new controls in recent times. The Electoral (Amendment) Act 2002 contains more stringent requirements for entry to the supplement to the register. In the 2002 general election, polling staff were advised by the Department to require at least 25% of voters to produce an identity document. The Electoral (Amendment) Act 2004 made unlawful possession or use of someone else's polling card a specific offence. Strong legislation must be mirrored locally by vigilance on the part of polling staff.
There is a problem in this area which, as I have already mentioned to a number of Members, will require a cross-party approach to solve. All Members have practical experience which could be used to good effect. It would be very useful to hold full discussions on the matter at the Joint Committee on the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. If it is agreeable, I am willing to bring to the committee in the autumn the guidelines I have mentioned and to establish with representatives of parties on all sides of the House what is best practice elsewhere. We can consider suggestions such as the one Deputy Cuffe outlined in his question. The register requires an appropriate level of attention which it has failed to receive in the past. I want to see the matter resolved in the very near future.
I thank the Minister for his reply. While I note with approval his reference to a cross-party approach to the matter, the fact is the Minister represents a Government which has wasted €50 million on electronic voting machines which do not work or in which we do not have confidence. The Government would have been far better off if it had decided to spend a much smaller sum of €3 million or €4 million per annum on a proper electoral register.
I welcome the highlighting by The Sunday Tribune of the appalling disgrace that over 300,000 people are on the register who do not have the right to vote. It is not good enough that people have been multiply registered. While we can talk forever in committees, cannot the Minister talk to county managers and the Revenue collectors who often do the work in question in local authorities and ask them why the register is a mess, what resources have been invested and what action is required? It is an action the Minister could take quickly.
Dedicated staff are required to visit voters. As the Minister rightly says, commuters are a significant problem as they leave home at 7 a.m. and do not return until 7 p.m. or 8 p.m. It is almost impossible to meet a commuter at his or her home, especially if he or she works in Dublin, as he or she is always travelling and is not home on weekends. Will the Minister engage proactively with county managers and those they have charged with the duty to compile the register to push the agenda forward? We will have them before the committee in the autumn. We would be better off to invest a great deal more money in a proper electoral register and encourage a great deal more people to vote. It does not matter if it takes two or three days to count their votes after an election. Let us encourage and enfranchise our citizens and ensure we get them out to vote.
I do not disagree with the Deputy on any point other than his attempt to introduce a different issue in his introductory remarks. The Deputy is correct to say local authorities have differing records. In some areas, there is good practice while in others it is very clear the practice is not good enough. I will engage with local authorities as soon as the guidelines have been produced.
I have already indicated in my earlier response that I am very anxious to engage all sides in the House not only on the preparation of the register but also on voting and verification procedures. They are issues about which we are all concerned. There is a great deal of experience within the political system which can be used to assess how the system is failing——
How it is abused even.
——and inform its improvement. I am willing to engage in the most open way possible with Members on the matter.
Does the Minister agree there is a glaring anomaly in the current system of compilation of electoral rolls which delegates the function to local authorities without providing for the centralised cross-checking of the individuals registered? Does the Minister accept his Department has overall responsibility for registration and in delegating responsibility to local authorities needs to keep a check on the figures? The Minister will be aware that the electoral office in Northern Ireland calls to each household twice a year at a cost of £6 million. Surely, the system could be replicated in the Republic for approximately €15 million, a mere fraction of the cost of electronic voting.
I am sure the Minister is aware of the massive population movements of the last decade and that people tend to move more quickly than they did before. Does the Minister accept the current system is based largely on trust and that while the Government has expended tens of millions of euro on an electronic voting system to make very careful cross checks, it has failed to ensure voter registration is cross-checked at county level? Does he accept that a simple system of checks at a national level using personal public service numbers and a central office would make a great deal of sense? This would provide a more secure system which more accurately reflected those who have a right to be registered. It would also ensure that those who are deceased are no longer registered.
I agree with Deputy Cuffe on many of his points, including his reference to the accuracy of electronic voting. We will leave that for another day, however.
We will leave it for years.
I referred to cross checking.
While local authorities are currently required to conduct door-to-door inquiries, Deputy Cuffe was correct to say standards vary from authority to authority. I will put it no stronger than that. The process has always been decentralised and I am not disposed to centralising every activity. I would prefer, with reference to Deputy O'Dowd's contribution, if local authorities did their job more efficiently and that we introduced a system to make sure that happened.
Deputy Cuffe referred to voter security and the use of personal public service numbers. While I am aware of the procedures operated in the North of Ireland, to introduce the cross-check Deputy Cuffe mentioned would, especially on voting day, require an information technology link between the Department of Social and Family Affairs and the electoral database. A number of issues, including data protection, would arise with this approach. Nonetheless, I am open to considering any proposal which offers security in voting, has the potential to make the process more open and transparent and ensures the register is properly prepared. Whether we accept the number of surplus polling cards issued is 300,000 or 800,000 as hypothesised in the article referred to by Deputy O'Dowd, it is simply not good enough to have a significant level of error in the electoral register. I will impress on local authorities the need to carry out the job more effectively as the process of compiling the electoral register for next year continues.
We are producing guidelines which I will make available in draft form to the joint committee this autumn. As we all share the same concern, I am prepared to sit down with any Member to discuss how to improve matters.
The issue of people living in flats and apartments is one which particularly needs to be addressed. There is generally no difficulty with the older estates on which people have traditionally lived. Problems arise in areas in which people move about very quickly and it is to these the Minister should direct the attention of local authorities. Recently, I came across an apartment complex from which no one voted at the last election as people had moved on and the local register was out of date.
I also ask the Minister to direct the attention of local authorities to the issue of the registration of people in rural areas alphabetically rather than by address. One does not know who is where. It is a matter which must be addressed for those of us who want to canvass every house by name but do not know everyone in a rural area.
I take Deputy O'Dowd's point. He is an excellent public representative but does not know absolutely everybody living on the highways and byways of Louth. If we had a postal code system, it would improve matters. It is also the case that local authorities are, to put it at its mildest, remiss in the matter of naming roads. Even in centres like Greystones, there are roads which have yet to be named. Deputy O'Dowd's point on multiple occupancy addresses is valid. There is a propensity on the part of enumerators who check registers to miss many of the places in question. Additionally, there are increasing numbers of gated multiple-dwelling units to which it is impossible to gain access.
I will try to address in the guidelines any reasonable suggestion a Member makes. There is a great deal of experience in the political system which can be brought to bear. We have all known for years that the electoral register has contained a significant degree of error and it is time the issue was addressed. I am anxious to proceed.
I hope the Minister accepts that reform of the electoral rolls is not rocket science. It is a comparatively simple undertaking, and using personal public service numbers does not raise significant data-sharing issues. The electoral rolls close a considerable time in advance of an election taking place. Surely a little cross-checking could be done at that point at national level and if there were duplicate PPS numbers one would simply write to the individuals advising them of this and giving them a chance to remove themselves from the register in one location? That could be done a long time in advance of the election. It would allow us to deal with the 300,000, 800,000 or whatever number of people who are registered in two or more locations. It could be done comparatively simply. Would the Minister consider doing this relatively quickly and bring in the necessary regulations to ensure we can have a lot more confidence in who is on the register and that people are not registered in several locations?
I see the attractions of the PPS approach as it offers a unique number which can be cross-checked. However, a system of cross-checking would have to be built into that to ensure efficiency when the registration system is in operation. Local authorities would have to be able to counter-check names against PPS numbers, and that is not as simple as it would appear. It is not rocket science if the linkage and the IT access are there but it raises a number of issues.
As Deputy Cuffe said, one of the problems we have is that the register is closed at a specific date which is arbitrarily established. As a poll observer in South and Central America, I have seen polls operated by the Organisation of American States, and registration took place up to a very short time before the election. One of the big problems at the moment is that there is a cut-off point. I know the supplementary register has been introduced but it is not used as well as it could be.
These are issues which we should all discuss because there is a problem in this regard and, irrespective of who was in government, we never addressed it. We have all known for years that problems exist with the register and now is the time to address it. I am willing to discuss it with Members of the House and to take on board reasonable suggestions. I do not think the situation on the PPS is quite as simple, as Deputy Cuffe suggests, although it has many attractions.
Social and Affordable Housing.
Eamon Gilmore
Ceist:25 Mr. Gilmore asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the total number of affordable houses that have been constructed, provided and allocated to date under Sustaining Progress and Part V of the Planning and Development Act 2000; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22462/05]
Part V of the Planning and Development Acts 2000 to 2004 is fully operational and all relevant residential planning applications are now subject to a Part V agreement. Apart from the provision of housing units to the local authority on or off-site, an agreement under Part V may provide for a range of other options. Notwithstanding the availability of these options, my Department's stated preference, which has been communicated to local authorities, is for the provision of housing units whether on-site or off-site.
Under Part V agreements with developers, a total of 508 affordable housing units were acquired by local authorities up to the end of December 2004, 1,215 affordable units were in the course of acquisition and a further 2,260 were earmarked for acquisition on foot of Part V agreements with developers. In addition to the affordable housing units, nearly 300 social units have been acquired together with 12 land transfers to local authorities involving over 11 hectares, a further 156 sites have also been transferred and some €11 million has been received in payments in lieu and under the withering levy. These figures demonstrate the effectiveness and further potential of Part V. I am confident that the Part V arrangement will contribute significantly to the provision of social and affordable housing in the future.
Under the affordable housing initiative substantial progress continues to be made. Over 70 sites have been identified on State or local authority lands, which, including Part V, have a potential yield exceeding 10,000 affordable housing units, meeting the target proposed by the parties to the pay agreement. To date, the initiative has delivered nearly 500 units, including from Part V. Delivery will continue throughout 2005, with an estimated 1,350 units forecast for completion and projects with a potential of 2,200 units either under construction or commencing construction during 2005. Projects with an estimated potential of 3,400 units will commence construction during 2006.
To promote the earliest possible delivery of units, a fast-tracking mechanism for delivery of units has been agreed and is being implemented. This followed a pilot land exchange arrangement for a 0.4 acre city centre site at Harcourt Terrace Lane which is to be exchanged for 193 additional affordable units to be made available on a phased basis over the next nine months. Some 140 of the units will be delivered in 2005 with the balance of 53 available early next year. In light of the positive outcome of the pilot land swap, a number of other sites will be developed using the same model.
I assure the House that there is a strong commitment in Government to deliver on this initiative and I believe that the substantial progress made to date and our arrangements for accelerating delivery emphasise this commitment.
The Minister of State indicated that 500 dwellings have been provided under Sustaining Progress, including some from Part V. How many houses under Sustaining Progress, excluding those provided under Part V, have been provided to date?
Do I understand the Minister of State correctly that from the Part V initiative that was originally announced in 1999, only 508 affordable dwellings have been provided to date, at a time when housing construction is running at almost 80,000 units per annum and when we were to expect 20% of development to be provided by way of social and affordable housing initiatives?
Will the Minister of State explain the inconsistency between the figure he has given me today and the figure which he provided for me on 18 May? Today he informed me that 1,215 dwellings were in the course of acquisition but on 18 May he informed me that 1, 910 dwellings were in the course of acquisition. He also informed me today that 2,260 dwellings were earmarked for acquisition but on 18 May he informed me that 2,885 were earmarked for acquisition. What has happened in the past six weeks that has caused 700 dwellings that were in the course of acquisition to disappear and 600 which were earmarked for acquisition to also disappear?
Will the Minister of State indicate to the House the valuation put on the Harcourt Terrace site?
Deputy Gilmore's question is about affordable units but the total dividend from Part V would include social as well as affordable units. The figure of 508 units relates to affordable housing. However, the total dividend from Part V is about 800 units.
Is that 800 in all?
It is approximately 850. Where I referred to 1,200 affordable units today, that would amount to 1,900 Part V units in total.
How many housing units relate specifically to Sustaining Progress, excluding Part V?
It is small, it is only about 30 units.
Thirty.
This is where Deputy Gilmore deliberately tries to blackguard and act the fool. He is the only person he is codding.
The Minister of State is codding the public.
No, I am not. It takes time.
Ten thousand units.
The public is more sensible. People realise that it takes time to build houses. One cannot just produce houses overnight. The affordable housing initiative was first mentioned two years ago. Some 350 units will be produced this year under Sustaining Progress that are not related to Part V. That will increase substantially. Any developer would say the same thing.
It is a long way from 10,000.
I am sorry if I sound boring repeating myself but it takes a minimum of three or four years from the time one gets a site to the time houses are provided. Next year will see a higher output of housing units. By the end of the year we expect to be on 13 sites.
Are they all in Finglas?
They are not but——
They are certainly not in Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown anyway.
What is the valuation of the Harcourt Terrace site?
The local authority in Finglas has been active in this area, mainly under the 1999 scheme, and there is some affordable housing initiative. The valuation of the Harcourt Terrace site is €39 million.
The Minister of State is not getting good value if that is the case.
We are receiving a net consideration for this site of €15.6 million, which is €2.6 million more than its pre-sale valuation of €13 million. This equates with €39 million per acre and is at the top of the range of sale prices achieved in city centre locations. It is a very good deal. We could have provided approximately 30 apartments on the site and some commercial units but instead are getting 193 units——
The Minister of State would have done as well as he did for the past three years.
——and much quicker. That is the real beauty of it. We could have got 30 apartments but it might have taken another three or four years. We are to have 140 of the 193 units this year. It is not just a case of getting more but of getting them much quicker. This is a really good deal.
Thirty out of 10,000.
No, it is not 30 out of 10,000.
It is. That is what has been produced.
The social partners know the deal into which they entered. Deputy Gilmore keeps getting mixed up deliberately.
It was always separate.
The deal includes 10,000 affordable houses, including Part V.
It was always separate.
The social partners know this.
It excluded Part V.
It most definitely did not. I am sorry the Deputy keeps confusing himself.
It excluded Part V.
It did not.
That was the deal.
It did not.
It is absolutely certain that there will be more houses completed than Dún Laoghaire Rathdown County Council has delivered in the past ten years. It is an appalling council dominated by the Deputy's party.
Nice try.
Question No. 26 answered with QuestionNo. 24.
Radon Gas Levels.
Emmet Stagg
Ceist:28 Mr. Stagg asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government if, in view of the fact that the RPII estimates that between 10% and 15% of all lung cancer deaths in Ireland, which is the equivalent of 150 to 200 deaths per annum, are linked to radon gas exposure, he will consider the introduction of a radon testing scheme for homes and a grant to assist with the cost of remedial measures in cases in which houses are found to be above the accepted safe level of radon; if, in view of the recent survey from the RPII showing that new homes fitted with barriers to prevent the build-up of radon gas still have high levels of the gas, he intends to undertake a review of the building control regulations introduced in 1998, particularly with a view to ensuring that the protective barriers are properly installed; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22463/05]
Over the years the Government, largely through the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland, has committed significant resources to assessing the extent of the radon problem throughout the country and increasing public awareness of radon and public health. While the provision of Exchequer grant assistance for testing or remediation works is not envisaged, efforts will continue to be directed at improving information to householders to enable and encourage them to address monitoring or remedial requirements effectively and economically. The institute has recently embarked on a series of nationwide public information seminars targeted at selected areas with high radon levels. These seminars have received widespread media coverage and generated a large number of inquiries.
In October last I announced the publication of an updated technical guidance document under the 1997 building regulations containing enhanced radon prevention measures as recommended by the institute to be incorporated in the construction of new houses and buildings with effect from 1 April this year. The enhanced measures which call for radon sump outlets to be clearly identified should help to further raise awareness among householders and the building industry.
The institute has published the results of a recent survey undertaken by it of a number of houses in Kilkenny built before and after July 1998 when the updated 1997 regulations standards came into effect. This survey showed that, of the 33 houses built after July 1998, three had radon concentrations above the national reference level, including one which was very seriously affected and had a radon concentration of over seven times the reference level. However, the survey results also showed a reduction of some 33% in the average radon concentration in the houses built after July 1998 compared with the average concentration for houses surveyed by the institute under its national radon survey carried out in the period 1992 to 1997. I expect further improvements will emerge from the enhanced measures I have mentioned.
The testing of domestic dwellings for radon is straightforward and inexpensive, amounting to approximately €40 per house. I urge householders, particularly those in high risk areas, to check their houses for radon concentrations and carry out remediation work, if recommended.
Both my Department and the RPII will continue to use all appropriate opportunities to raise public awareness of the dangers of radon and every effort will continue to improve information to householders to enable them to address monitoring or remedial requirements effectively and economically.
I remind the Minister that we are talking about 200 entirely avoidable deaths per annum. He has stated enhanced measures for excluding radon gas from houses were introduced recently. He has also referred to the building and other regulations made on foot of these which were developed by his Department under the guidance of his constituency colleague, Deputy McManus, when she was Minister of State at the Department. Does he agree that the regulations are not working because of one simple failure, that is, the expectation the building industry should self-regulate? If I were to pick one industry in the world that should not be asked to self-regulate, it would be the building industry. Strict regulation should be imposed on it rather than self-regulation.
That the houses supposed to have exclusion systems fitted since 1997 are now found to have dangerous levels of radon gas indicates clearly that the measures required to be taken at construction stage are not being implemented correctly. I am sure the Minister will agree. There is no inspection at any stage except at the end of the process, at which time an architect signs a piece of paper. This architect is hired by the builder during the planning process and subsequently paid by him or her to state the development is built in accordance with the building regulations, including radon gas regulations. Does the Minster have any view on enforcing the regulations rather than allowing self-regulation? Does he agree that there should be a requirement on those selling pre-1997 houses to have a radon test carried out on the dwellings before they are sold?
I do not agree with the Deputy's gloomy view of the effect of the 1997 regulations. In so far as we do have a study — the study conducted by the RPII on houses in Kilkenny after the regulations came into effect — it suggests there has been a significant improvement. I accept it also suggests there is room for further improvement. I have sought to make the issue much more clear in the new regulations which I have outlined. For example, radon sumps should be marked clearly and readily identifiable.
On the general issue, the regulations I have introduced are being enforced. The Deputy's points on inspection and the sale of houses require further consideration. He made a point on the sale of older or other houses. As he will know, the RPII has made a submission to the Law Reform Commission advocating the inclusion of radon-reducing measures in further legislation on house conveyancing. I must give further consideration to this suggestion.
The regulations that have been introduced further strengthen the procedures. There is an overwhelming onus on property owners to ensure radon levels in their homes are properly monitored. It is not expensive to carry out a radon test. Paying €40 is certainly not difficult for most households. In a number of areas local authorities have provided monitoring devices, particularly for rented accommodation. I encourage householders to take up from the RPII what is available in terms of monitoring. I will give further consideration to the matter of conveyancing.
Money is the usual problem. We have asked the Minister repeatedly to introduce grants to assist with the cost of remediation where required. I am not referring to testing for radon as this involves a relatively small sum of money. Last year the Department sent back €154 million which it did not spend to the Department of Finance. It sent back another €17 million pertaining to disabled persons' grants because it did not spend it. Therefore, there is no question of the Department not having the money.
Some 200 people are dying per year because of the radon problem. Their medical treatment is costing the State €200 million per year. The average cost of treating a lung cancer patient, from the time he or she is diagnosed with cancer to the time he or she dies, is €1 million per year, given that such patients usually die of cancer. Radon poisoning is costing the State a fortune. I ask the Minister to remedy the problem with a relatively small sum of money. The problem is, as I am sure the Minister will agree, that there are or should be two Departments involved — the Departments of Health and Children and Environment, Heritage and Local Government.
The Deputy touched on a number of issues. Grant schemes announced by one Government in 1997 were never funded.
That is because Fianna Fáil came into Government and abolished them.
Grant schemes have been introduced elsewhere and have not been terribly successful.
Regarding the Deputy's other points, there are statistics. Nobody can put a price on an individual life and we should ensure that people, including property owners, take due responsibility.
I am speaking of medical costs.
I accept that is what the Deputy meant.