Northern Ireland Assembly

5.15 pm

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.

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.