HC Deb 08 July 1996 vol 281 cc27-34

`.—(l) In the case of grants for the purpose of work to reduce the concentration of radon in the dwelling it shall be mandatory, subject to the provisions of this Part, for the local housing authority to approve an application for grant where—

  1. (a) the concentration of radon in the dwelling has been shown to be above the action level for radon, and
  2. (b) the nature of the work for which the grant is being made is as specified in guidance for local housing authorities produced by the Secretary of State.

(2) The action level for radon shall be determined by the Secretary of State after consulting with the National Radiological Protection Board and such other bodies and individuals as he sees fit.

(3) Grants shall be available in full to meet the cost of work arising under this section.

(4) The Secretary of State shall make arrangements for the full reimbursement of local authorities for grants made under this section.'.—[Mrs. Maddock.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mrs. Diana Maddock (Christchurch)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Speaker

With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 112, in clause 12, page 7, line 35, at end insert— '(g) to reduce the concentration of radon in the dwelling;'.

Mrs. Maddock

New clause 14 and amendment No. 112 set up a mandatory grant framework for dealing with radon gas in people's homes. For the benefit of hon. Members, I shall take one or two minutes to describe radon. It is a naturally occurring radioactive gas which, like some other dangerous substances, is odourless and colourless. It can, however, be detected by a simple and cheap test.

The risk to those with the gas in their homes is considerable. The gas is known to be a health hazard. We know that, because underground miners who have been heavily exposed to the gas suffer high rates of lung cancer. Investigations into the problem have estimated that radon in people's homes may cause lung cancer in about 2,000 people every year—5 per cent. of the total incidence of lung cancer in Britain. That figure makes it second only to smoking as a contributory factor to lung cancer.

Radon gas is not evenly spread across Britain; it is particularly concentrated in the south-west and there are other pockets of concentration across the country.

The Government have designated some areas as radon-affected areas. They include Devon and Cornwall, parts of Somerset, Northamptonshire, Derbyshire and, in Wales, Pembrokeshire, Clwyd and some parts of Powys—it is quite a wide-ranging problem.

Mr. William O'Brien (Normanton)

The hon. Lady said that the problem is not evenly distributed throughout the United Kingdom. What action has been taken to ensure that local authorities carry out tests to see whether there is radon gas in their area? If no action has been taken, does the hon. Lady intend to introduce provisions this afternoon to ensure that it is?

Mrs. Maddock

I am grateful for that intervention. As I continue with my speech, I hope to answer some of the questions asked.

High concentrations of radon tend to be the result of particularly permeable ground containing a high level of uranium, because radon comes from within the earth and travels through cracks and fissures until it reaches the surface. Once it has reached the surface, it normally spreads out into the atmosphere and disperses relatively easily, but it can be concentrated in buildings, including people's homes, which is why I introduced the new clause. It is concentrated in homes because the air pressure in buildings is usually lower than that outside. Unless a building is well ventilated, radon will concentrate inside.

Modern developments in home insulation have meant that the problem has increased in recent years. Subsection (1)(b) of new clause 14 proposes action to tackle the problem with ventilation in homes. Two things can be done: first, ventilation can be installed in the roof space of houses and, secondly, a sump can be installed at ground level to soak up radon. The sump is more effective, but it is usually more expensive, costing between £500 and £1,500 for a contractor-fitted system. The do-it-yourself option is cheaper at £150 to £400 and is very effective, typically reducing radon levels by about 90 per cent.

Roof space positive ventilation is much cheaper, costing between £350 and £450 and about an extra £100 for installation. That method reduces radon levels by only half to two thirds.

Radon concentration is measured in becquerels per cubic metre: 1 bq is one radioactive emission per second. The Government have adopted the action level of 200 bq/cu m, which is at the bottom of the action range proposed by the International Commission on Radiological Protection of between 200 and 600 bq/cu m.

The action levels in subsections (1) and (2) of the new clause were proposed with the Government's figure of 200 bq in mind. New evidence may become available from time to time and the Government should have the necessary flexibility to vary that action level.

The action level varies from country to country. In Canada, the figure is high—800 bq—but in the Netherlands, it is low. Ours is broadly in line with that of Norway, Sweden and Australia, among others.

The Government deserve some credit for their response to the risk to people's health from radon. In recent years, the National Radiological Protection Board, an independent statutory body, has been funded to carry out a programme of radon measurement. This year it completed its mapping of radon levels over England and Wales.

The hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) asked about local authorities, which have an opportunity to publish information about radon. Publicity is often insufficient and people are not always aware of the free offer that is available. The radon levels of 250,000 homes have been measured using the Government funding.

The 1991 building regulations require all new properties in action areas to have mechanisms to reduce the concentration of radon because of the recognised risk of lung cancer, but the operation of the system for existing homes is at best patchy. The radon concentration in about 100,000 homes is higher than the Government's action level, so about 250,000 people may run the risk of contracting lung cancer.

We need a mandatory grants scheme to relieve the risk. The current scheme is discretionary and is not working properly. The most recent survey of environmental health officers was carried out in 1992. Some things may have changed since, but the best picture of grant provision is not good. In the worst affected area of Devon and Cornwall, only seven of 16 local authorities had a written policy for dealing with radon, and only seven had a policy of giving discretionary grants. In 1992, those seven councils approved only 11 grants between them—a tiny take-up, which shows the lack of public recognition of the risks involved.

People must realise the health hazards and must be given more information. Moreover, the Government should set up a mandatory and automatic grant scheme. The evidence shows that making grants discretionary significantly discourages take-up.

4 pm

This morning, as is my wont, I listened to Radio 4 and heard that the Government are to make some announcements about health and the environment. I shall therefore listen with interest to what the Minister has to say. Perhaps the fact that we tabled these amendments for debate today has pushed the Government into taking the issues seriously. The areas affected are concentrated in small pockets, but I still think that the money should be provided by central Government.

I agree that a mandatory scheme will not in itself solve the problem. It must be combined with greater publicity—the Minister may be about to tell me something along those lines in a moment. Greater public awareness of the risks is an important part of the strategy. I hope that the Minister will look favourably on the new clause and the amendments, which explicitly state that radon reduction is a suitable use of renovation grant. Amendment No. 112 refers to that and new clause 14 sets out the framework.

If the Minister cannot accept our proposals, I hope that he will at least promise to review the situation and extend the funding available to local authorities in the affected areas. I hope too that the NRPB will be given more money and that publicity will be stepped up. More work clearly needs to be done. It will not amount to a great strain on the Exchequer; it would cost the Exchequer a lot more to treat people who contract lung cancer.

Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed)

I am glad of the opportunity to support my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) in bringing this matter to the attention of the House. There is a significant concentration of houses with high radon gas levels in Northumberland, in the Wooler area on the edge of the Cheviot hills. When the identification was first made, six or seven years ago, levels of more than 500 bq were found in some properties there. The National Radiological Protection Board is to carry out more inspections; arising from that, there are two points that I want to draw to the Minister's attention.

First, it is difficult for local councils to implement a clear policy of assistance, because the whole subject is dealt with in great secrecy by the NRPB. That may be partly to protect property owners from adverse publicity if their houses are badly affected by radon, but it makes life extremely difficult for a local authority whose responsibility it is to know the condition of the housing stock in its area. I therefore hope that the Minister will reflect on the need for such secrecy. I also hope that local authorities will be told more about precisely what the NRPB is doing and about which houses or groups of houses are having to be inspected. Berwick-upon-Tweed borough council has encountered that difficulty throughout.

Secondly, like my hon. Friend, I refer to the applicability of the grant system to alleviating the problem. A great many householders are worried about their position if they find that they have to pay for significant improvements. I raised the problem some time ago; indeed, when I first raised it in 1990, the Secretary of State for the Environment was Chris Patten. He said then that it would cost between £500 and £1,500 per house to deal with the problem, but that he felt that the means-tested discretionary grant scheme was adequate for the purpose. I do not share that view.

It is not satisfactory if householders, some on modest incomes, but perhaps not modest enough to benefit from means-tested grants, must find that much money to make improvements as a result of a bolt from the blue. People in some areas have had to find money for many other problems with their properties recently. We had an extremely harsh winter and many people, including myself, experienced flooding from burst pipes. It is unfair if home owners are suddenly faced with a big bill to deal with an unseen but extremely worrying problem, so the Government should look beyond the minimal discretionary grant scheme to help them.

The issue has now dragged on for some time. It is six years since I first raised it and people in the affected area still do not have a clear picture of the problem. I hope that, once they know the extent of the problem, they will receive some assurance about financial help to do something about it, otherwise it will be a serious worry. I therefore plead with the Minister to look sympathetically at the new clause.

Mr. Clappison

I listened carefully to the contributions of the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) on this serious subject. I shall look into the right hon. Gentleman's points about liaison between the National Radiological Protection Board and Berwick council.

I cannot satisfy the hon. Lady entirely, but I hope that she will feel that I have gone some way towards doing so on this important subject. We take the subject of radon seriously, as it is a health risk and can contribute to causing lung cancer. As she fairly said, this year we took forward the programme of information and testing to a number of households in additional areas. The programme seeks to deal with the radon problem effectively and completely.

I cannot accept the new clause and amendment because they would fundamentally cut across the principles that renovation grants shall be made at the discretion of the local housing authority and that authorities should develop private sector renewal strategies for using available resources. Making grants mandatory for that purpose would also undermine the flexibility that local authorities need to determine their priorities. However, I can give the hon. Lady some assurances, and my response does not mean that we do not consider radon to be a serious issue.

My Department has already provided comprehensive guidance to local authorities and home owners on reducing radon levels in the home. We also propose to draw attention to the issue in the guidance that we shall provide to local authorities on the new grant regime. We shall urge authorities to consider giving grant assistance for that purpose.

In addition, clause 12(1)(g) provides for the Secretary of State to specify that a dwelling complies with certain requirements with respect to construction or physical condition.

Mr. William O'Brien

When action must be taken to deal with radon in line with the Secretary of State's guidance, will planning authorities have to apply conditions in planning approvals?

Mr. Clappison

The hon. Gentleman seems to be moving into slightly different territory. I am discussing the guidance that will be issued for existing properties. We propose to exercise the powers under clause 12 to provide for appropriate action to be taken according to the level of radon—discretionary renovation grant will be available above a certain level. We intend to make it clear in the guidance to local authorities that home repair assistance will also be available for that purpose to qualifying applicants.

The hon. Member for Christchurch knows the limits of the home repair assistance grants. There are a number of ways to address the radon problem, many of which do not involve the outlay of a considerable amount of expenditure —and I am sure that the hon. Lady is aware of them. However, I appreciate the point made by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, that it may be a considerable amount of expenditure for someone with limited means. Generally, dealing with radon does not involve a large sum.

I hope that what I have said about the way in which the Government will approach the problem, and the guidance that we will issue, will go some way towards allaying the hon. Lady's concerns. I hope that she will understand that we cannot accept the amendments, because they would cut across more fundamental principles. I hope that I have been able to persuade her that we are taking the issue seriously and that it is being dealt with appropriately within the framework of renovation grants.

Mr. Raynsford

The Minister's response revealed the problems that the Government have got themselves into with their approach to the Bill. Essentially, they are repealing the mandatory renovation grant framework that they introduced only seven years ago in the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. The Minister said that he could not accept the amendments of the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) because there would not be many mandatory renovation grants in the future, so it would be wrong to give mandatory entitlement in only one category. That is the Government's problem—it is a problem of their making.

I do not depart from the logic that the Minister adopted. If there are no mandatory renovation grants, it becomes illogical to single out one particular category that can receive mandatory awards rather than others. The hon. Lady and the right hon. Member for Berwick-uponTweed (Mr. Beith) highlighted the serious risks—including the life-threatening risks—connected with radon. However, people who live in sub-standard houses face other serious risks to their health, some of which are life threatening.

For example, people who live in multi-occupied houses risk death from fire or from carbon monoxide poisoning; people who live in particularly squalid and unfit accommodation suffer from respiratory illnesses; and elderly people who live in accommodation that is impossibly hard to heat in winter experience an above average risk of dying from hypothermia. It could be argued that many things are serious health risks and are potentially damaging and life threatening.

For those reasons, there is a certain logic in what the Minister is saying—that it would be wrong to have a mandatory entitlement for people who seek a grant to deal with radon when there is no mandatory entitlement for people who are living in death traps, such as multi-occupied houses, or who are living in squalid conditions. However, that is the Government's problem. I believe that guidance from the Minister is not enough.

The Minister distinguished himself in Committee. On many occasions, he was challenged from the Opposition Benches and he undertook to take matters away and reflect on them. Today, we have seen the fruits of some of that thinking. Clearly, the Minister has had time to reflect on the good sense of Opposition amendments and he has been convinced of their merits. The amendments that he will move today give effect to proposals that we advocated in Committee, and we welcome that.

The hon. Member for Christchurch would do well to press the Minister on this issue. All hon. Members recognise that radon is a serious problem and that there is a need for effective action that goes beyond guidance. Without stretching it to the point of a mandatory obligation on local authorities to give grants in such cases, there is an overwhelming case for measures to deal with the radon problem to be included on the face of the Bill.

I shall, therefore, offer the Minister a suggestion. The Bill commenced in another place and it will return to another place before it completes its passage through Parliament. However, their Lordships are not free to look at proposals that have not been amended in this House. If the Minister were willing to accept the amendments and to put them on the face of the Bill, with an agreement that they would be looked at more thoroughly in another place, it would be a way of ensuring that the issue was kept alive and that an appropriate framework was agreed. That would ensure that there was statutory recognition of the importance of radon, but that there was not the anomaly of radon being given a fast track to renovation grants ahead of everything else. I believe that that is a helpful proposal for the Minister, and I hope that he accepts it.

Mr. Clappison

The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) is sometimes helpful, but his helpfulness is often tinged with playfulness. On his general point about housing renovation grants, he is fully aware of the problems of a demand-led grant system and of the way in which we have tried to address those problems openly. In responding to the same problems, the hon. Gentleman made it clear that a Labour Government would propose no additional resources for the grant system.

I cannot produce more resources—I could not even do so upon reflection. It does not matter how many times the Bill passes through the legislative process—sending it backwards and forwards between the House and the other place will not produce any more resources. During the passage of the Bill, the hon. Gentleman proposed no constructive ideas on using existing resources better. The only ideas that he advanced involved taking resources from those who are in the greatest need and giving them to those in less need. In this case, it could mean taking resources from those who need grants to deal with problems such as radon.

4.15 pm

Although the hon. Gentleman is very beguiling, I cannot go along with his suggestion. I hope that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) will accept that we have made a real attempt to address the problem of radon and that I have gone some way towards addressing her concerns.

Mr. Chris Davies

The borough of Oldham does not have high levels of radon gas emissions, but there are several hot spots. A constituent contacted me recently to say that she had learnt that work had been carried out that identified some properties at risk from the gas. Upon investigation, I obtained a copy of the report from the council. So as not to inflame public fears, it listed the few properties affected only by their postcodes. I am glad to report that my constituent's property was not among those listed, but mine was. That caused me some concern and I looked immediately to the leader of the council for a possible explanation for the gas emissions—perhaps it is simply because of the rock upon which my building is constructed.

My constituent was concerned because her child has leukaemia and, not surprisingly, her distress was increased by the suggestion that a radioactive gas might be causing problems for certain properties. It is a serious matter; it hardly affects my borough, but it is a great concern in other parts of the country. Although the Minister has treated the debate seriously and has suggested that he is doing all that he can, perhaps he should consider the matter still further and do a little more.

Mrs. Maddock

I listened to the Minister's remarks with interest—he always smiles pleasantly when responding to one's suggestions. It is interesting to note that local independence seems to depend upon whether the Government think that they have any money. I have said before that local authorities should be independent. However, it is important to have national standards in certain areas. This is such an area—particularly as we are discussing saving money in the health service, which is funded nationally.

I hope that the guidance notes to local authorities will stress the importance of the issue, so that they will treat it seriously. The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) pointed out that a major problem with the Bill is that it does not increase resources for grants to deal with property renovations or anything else: it simply moves the goalposts. The Minister's reply demonstrated that clearly—I do not recall his exact words, but I think he said that he could not find any more money. The Government are not really prepared to provide funding even though they have highlighted the dangers. On the radio this morning, even though there has been no statement today, they highlighted the importance of the matter. They have said that it is important in their great scheme for considering people's health and environmental matters. The Minister says that it is so important that he is not going to give any money to deal with it. I am very disappointed.

Will the Minister ensure that during the next year he considers how many grants are taken up, how much information is put out by local authorities and whether what the Government do, particularly in respect of the forthcoming statement on health, has any effect? We, too, will watch the matter and will question him again if we consider that what happens is unsatisfactory. It seems that it is down to money. It is dishonest to say on radio that they want to do something about the problem and then to tell the House that they will not put up any money for it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Forward to