Northern Ireland Assembly Flax Flower Logo

Northern Ireland Assembly

Monday 5 February 2001 (continued)

5.15 pm

Mr Weir:

I share many of the concerns expressed by my Colleagues on the Finance and Personnel Committee. We are being asked to choose between the lesser of two evils: if we simply accept the building regulations as they stand and withdraw the prayer of annulment, we could be accepting unsatisfactory regulations.

Many of the related issues have already been raised. We could be taking a gamble with public health. Regulation relating to radon appears to be a movable feast; there is no universally agreed acceptable level of risk. For example, the English and Welsh regulations refer to areas with a more than 3% chance of radon contamination; in Scotland, the figure is 1%, as with these regulations. The danger is that we will take a risk with public health, and that may be viewed as a very foolish decision in a few years' time.

The fact that the system is based on a grid reference using square miles, means that we face a ridiculous situation in which a particular house may be covered by the regulations but the house beside it may not. Building control regulators have said that that would create administrative problems.

For some parts of Northern Ireland - albeit a small percentage - the figures are not available; the squares on the map are blank, simply because there has not been adequate investigation in those areas. One set of squares might be covered by the regulations, and, right beside them, others would not. I am not sure that the House should accept such a partitionist solution, if I might use a phrase that has more resonance for Members opposite. The Assembly should not allow a situation in which some parts of Northern Ireland are covered and some parts are not.

I must temper those remarks. Despite the fact that the best evidence available was provided by building control, there was, during consultation, no universal acceptance that all of Northern Ireland should be covered. At the moment, I am inclined towards the view that all of Northern Ireland should be covered. I want to hear more details and gather more evidence before making up my mind as to whether Northern Ireland as a whole should be covered.

If we accept the prayer of annulment, as suggested by other Members, we will delay other important aspects of building control regulation relating to fire safety and disabled access. Even then, the issue is not absolutely black and white. During the consultation, there was not even universal acceptance that the building regulations were completely right on the matter of disability access.

If the Assembly annuls the regulations, it will delay, by up to a year, the provision of protection to the areas that are most strongly affected by radon. As Mr Hussey said, we must be careful that we do not throw the baby out with the bath water. Mr Close read out a long list of people who were consulted, dating from the start of the consultation process in April 1998. However, one of the most blatant omissions from the list is the Northern Ireland Assembly. I appreciate that the Assembly did not exist when the consultation began, but it has been in existence for two and a half years. Yet the Assembly's only opportunity to consider the regulations has come at the tail end of the process, giving us only a short time to decide whether the regulations should be annulled or accepted.

The Assembly did not have the opportunity to look at these at the pre-drafting stage. With proper investigation at that stage, we could have avoided many of the problems that have arisen today. We could have weighed up the opportunity for amendments. However, now we find ourselves in the position that we either have to fully accept these regulations or get rid of them.

Like other Members, I will be listening very intently to what the Minister has to say with regard to the assurances he can give. The Minister should draw some comfort from the fact that, with the exception of his Budget statement, Members have rarely been so keen to listen to his closing remarks.

I would like a re-examination of the matter. There are, in particular, two important issues. First, the consultation must genuinely include the views of the Assembly, which have been largely ignored until now.

Secondly, if we get the assurances that consultation will happen and that new regulations will be looked at, that consultation must be genuine and the views of practitioners taken on board. We do not want a situation in which the Department starts with a predetermined attitude as to the areas that should be covered and at the end of the process simply rubber-stamps that, having gone through the process of supposed consultation.

If the Committee takes the view that it is not going to push this to an annulment, then this is very much a test case. If consultation turns out simply to be a facade, the Committee will not be so kind to the Minister in the future when deciding on the issue of annulment. I wait with anticipation to hear what the Minister has to say.

The Minister of Finance and Personnel (Mr Durkan):

I welcome the opportunity to make a statement on what is clearly an important matter. I recognise and understand from the arguments that have been voiced here today and previously at Committee meetings the strong feelings that Members have on the radon issue. However, let us remember, with regard to building regulations, that it is not the only issue we need to consider.

I do not wish to minimise in any way the fact that when radon concentration is high it poses a serious risk to health. Members have spoken today in strong and advised terms about that risk. Measurements of radon levels in homes have been undertaken, as Members have indicated, by the National Radiological Protection Board for several years, and the results have been published periodically. Over 15,000 results are available, and these provide substantial information on the distribution of radon levels in homes throughout Northern Ireland. This data forms the basis for the National Radiological Protection Board's most recent advice to Government on the level of radon in homes.

On the basis of a comprehensive survey and report by the board in 1999, it was decided to include radon protection measures in the next update of building regulations. The survey report - which again some Members touched on - was based on five kilometre squares of the Irish grid, and it classified Northern Ireland into four area categories: first, areas where less than 1% of dwellings were above the level at which action is considered necessary to prevent possible damage to health; secondly, areas where 1% to 3% of dwellings were above the action level; thirdly, areas where 3% to 10% of dwellings were above the action level; and fourthly, areas where more than 10% were above the level.

The National Radiological Protection Board recommended that all areas with a risk above 1% should receive protection against radon. Identical recommendations were made by that board for England, Scotland and Wales. The Northern Ireland building regulations laid on 15 December 2000 - the subject of today's prayer of annulment - require that all new dwellings in areas carrying a risk factor of above 1% should have protective measures at construction stage to prevent the ingress of radon.

A comparison with the rest of the United Kingdom, where regulations have now been introduced, shows that Scotland has adopted the same standard as is proposed for Northern Ireland. England and Wales - as Peter Weir mentioned - will introduce protective measures only in areas where 3% or more of dwellings are above the level at which action is necessary to prevent possible damage to health.

I have acknowledged the concerns expressed by the Finance and Personnel Committee - which have been reinforced by Members this afternoon - that the present building regulations exclude certain areas of Northern Ireland, primarily in County Antrim, parts of Armagh and Down and the Greater Belfast metropolitan area. Members were also anxious that the regulations excluded non-domestic properties such as schools and hospitals.

I have very carefully considered the strong representations made, and I am persuaded that it would be appropriate to take a fresh look at the radon issue. An appropriate period should be allocated to further examine the arguments, such as those that have been suggested today, for a change of policy. That is only proper, so that the views of others, including the construction industry - as mentioned by Peter Robinson - health practitioners and the public can be sought in a proper consultation exercise. I have also indicated to the Finance and Personnel Committee, through Mr Leslie, that I am happy to formally refer the issue to the Committee for its advice. That would also allow a full investigation through that channel.

It was also suggested that allowing a wider consultation on proposals to extend the effect of the regulations would not be beneficial. Seamus Close suggested, on the basis of previous consultations, that nothing new could be gained from a wider consultation. The previous consultation had the proposals that are currently in the regulations as its favoured option. That may have coloured the response rate to the consultation - not least when one looks at what local councils replied to the previous consultation. It is possible that some people in some areas did not see their status or circumstances being changing by the recommended option, so they did not make a response.

Given that the Assembly is talking about a different proposal, it should subject it to specific consultation. The Assembly is not just talking in any new consultation about extending the protection for dwellings to the whole of Northern Ireland but, as the Committee requested, also considering non-domestic properties. The nature of that proposal would be different, and the span of interest in it could be different. Therefore it must be recognised that there is a need for further consultation. If this proposal has the merit and worth that Members attach to it then it is worthy of having the same proper consultation that the measures in the regulations to date have had.

5.30 pm

Some Members recognised that during consultation on the regulations not everyone was of the view that not extending the protection to the whole of Northern Ireland was a problem. Some people would feel that where there is no real evidence to suggest a risk, there would be no particular requirement to extend a protection. That view may well express itself again in a further proposal or consultation. We also need to remember that there are other interests at Government level that would need to be reflected in any wider consideration.

(Mr Deputy Speaker [Sir John Gorman] in the Chair)

Some Departments have particular interests in the areas of non-domestic properties. The Housing Division of the Department for Social Development would have an interest. It previously gave a view supporting the approach currently being provided for in the regulations. Therefore any proposal to look at things differently would interest the Department for Social Development.

Mr Shannon mentioned that the Department of the Environment provides a free test service for houses in designated areas. That Department would be interested in the implications of the whole of Northern Ireland effectively becoming a designated area. Therefore within government, there would need to be some further consultation and consideration of these proposals.

I feel that I am dealing fairly and sensitively with the Committee's concerns, while reflecting that there are no shortcut answers. These measures need to be subject to the full and proper consultation that people would expect in relation to any other regulations. I hope that in such circumstances the motion for annulment of the Building Regulations 2000 will be withdrawn.

When the Committee discussed the matter on 30 January, members were anxious to ensure that other provisions in the regulations, such as access for the disabled, should be introduced without delay. We must remember that those provisions fulfil certain requirements under disability discrimination legislation. They would be safeguarded in the event of annulment proceedings being dropped.

By allowing the building regulations to stand with effect from 1 April 2001, approximately 50% of the Northern Ireland area would have radon protection measures in place. If the regulations were to be annulled that would not be the case.

Mr Close said that no assurance would satisfy him. He made the point after he had, in very strong and fair terms, stressed the importance of the health risk of radon and talked about the number of deaths per year. If we annul the regulations we will, in effect, delay protection for the areas in which it is most obviously needed. Therefore the urgency and importance that Mr Close attaches to this matter would not be best served by annulling the regulations. In fact, it would be quite a perverse way of trying to accommodate or reflect that urgency. Surely it makes more sense to take the current regulations, affording the added protection that they require and then, in turn, building on that through the consideration of the measures that the Committee is now asking us to consider. Let us remember that the motion is not only concerned with the protection against radon, but with other measures such as safety.

Some measures deal with windows and glass and others with fire safety, including battery power back-up for hardware; smoke alarms; and safe exits. I thought people would want to see this sort of safety measure progress, but an annulment mechanism will stop all of those key safety measures and safety improvements. As I have said, the regulations say that dwellings must be accessible to people with disabilities. I thought that Members would want to see this key improvement implemented.

If we are to annul these regulations and recast new ones on the wider basis recommended by the Committee, a process of consultation will still be required which will involve examining all these measures again. Depending on the issues involved, this will probably make it a more protracted consultation than the focused process which is all that would be required for the specific, additional measures sought by the Committee.

Some Members have said that finance should not be an issue. This is not an issue of public finance; it is really a question of private finance. The burden will tend to pass to the end user despite the initial costs borne by the construction industry. Some responses to the previous consultation questioned the appropriateness of provisions such as disabled access, for instance, and suggested that their cost would be burdensome. If today's proceedings were to fall in favour of annulling these measures and consulting on the additional measures proposed by the Committee, the case would be reopened on all these matters with wider consultation on the entirety of the regulations.

I ask the House, and the Committee in particular, to have regard to the fact that people in the House and the Committee do not seem to have a particular problem with what is in the regulations. On the contrary, they have a very legitimate and soundly expressed problem with what is not - repeat: not - in the regulations. We should proceed with the contents of the existing regulations and then pursue what is left out through a timely and concentrated consultation exercise.

I must remind Members that these regulations will be subject to European approval as well. While I have undertaken to refer the matter formally to the Committee, it could take several months for Europe to respond. That is one of the reasons for my not pretending to be in absolute control of a specific timetable.

Mr Close mentioned that I had been asked by the Committee to give an assurance of one absolute outcome by a specific date and that I had resiled from giving that specific assurance. On the very good grounds that I have already outlined, I simply could not give that assurance. Other interests and factors are involved. However, I believe that we can approach this in a time-effective way.

I fully appreciate the points that have been made about the consultation process. In particular, I recognise that the Committee wants to be assured that on future occasions its role will be invoked in a much more significant way and at an earlier stage in the preparation of statutory rules. I assure the Committee and the House that this point is well taken.

I hope that I have made the necessary acknowledgements of the positions outlined by the Committee. I have addressed some of its concerns and dealt with the serious arguments commending provisions contained in the regulations. I hope that, on this basis, the Committee will feel able to withdraw its motion. If it does not feel able to do so, I hope that the Assembly will endorse a delay with these regulations and note that I have already committed myself to pursuing other areas of outstanding concern to the Committee.

Mr Leslie:

I thank Members for their contributions to the debate. I extend particular thanks to members of the Finance and Personnel Committee for having managed to act in concert, without having arranged to do so, and for assembling a fairly well thought out set of arguments which reflect the Committee's concerns.

I am pleased that the Minister seems to accept the thrust of the Committee's proposal in what I believe is a vital area of public safety, and I also note his undertaking in relation to pre-drafting scrutiny. I would have been more comfortable with the Minister's remarks had he spent slightly less time talking about the extent of further consultation that is needed. However, I do believe this matter to be sufficiently worthy to merit it, and I appreciate that, if this regulation is laid, the process of consultation cannot start until the regulation comes into force in April. If it does start then, it will be possible to lay an amended regulation towards the end of the year, which could come into force by April 2002. Therefore, if it were to emerge from further consultation and consideration that it was deemed appropriate to designate the whole of Northern Ireland as a radon- affected area, it would be possible to make a regulation to that effect by next April.

I acknowledge the Minister's remarks about the value of bringing the other matters covered by this regulation into force by the earlier date of April 2001. The Committee, throughout its deliberations, was entirely aware of the significance of achieving this.

In the light of the undertakings which the Minister has made to the Assembly, and having taken the temperature of the Committee members - for this involves our revisiting our earlier decision to move the motion - I think it appropriate for me to ask leave of the Assembly to withdraw the motion of annulment.

Mr Deputy Speaker:

Leave to withdraw requires unanimous consent. [Interruption] It is clear that there is not unanimity, so I shall put the Question.

Question put and negatived.

Adjourned at 5.45 pm.

<< Prev

TOP

30 January 2001 / Menu / 6 February 2001