Michelle Mulherin (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

Ms Neary mentioned works done in different local authority areas. The test on the heating system or whatever system is being made in the local authority is for the cost-optimal technology, meaning whatever is more cost efficient. In a county such as my own, Mayo, when the councils went and did an energy retrofit, which is very good, they also changed the heating system. They changed the heating system to an upgraded oil boiler. There are many people who are now locked into a fossil fuel, oil. I could never understand why more was not being done. People complain that we are not levying more carbon taxes but, at the end of the day, these people have no choice about switching their heating system. They are very much dependent on State policies, whether of the local authority or what central government is doing for them. I suggest that is a missed opportunity and, going forward, those heating systems will not be pulled out again.

The point made to me the most by many people who had this work done was that, while they were glad to get new windows and such, there could be older people who had ranges, fires or even back boilers taken out of their houses. They were no longer allowed solid fuel because it was wrong and it was a fossil fuel, but they were allowed to have oil. At the same time, from their point of view, they had more control over burning solid fuel on an open fire with a back boiler than they had with oil. There are now people living in a form of fuel poverty because they are watching whether the price of oil is going down and if they will have enough. I fully appreciate that where people are on basic incomes, they are getting a fuel allowance, but it is not conducive to comfort people who are older or sick and who need much more heating. It does not make any sense. The Department has presided over that and it is wrong.

I refer to the witnesses' presentation. We would like to think that, as we move forward with energy efficiency and renewable energy, there comes a point at which it becomes more economically viable. If we invest in renewables, over the longer term, we will pay less, whether as a business, a home or the State. There is an initial cost, whether it is changing the heating system, upgrading, etc. I want to look at the issue of cost.

At a previous meeting of this committee, I asked the question, maybe of the Department of the Minister, Deputy Naughten, if there was a committee or group of people who were looking at the cost of building houses to nearly zero energy building, NZEB, standard, and the answer was that it would be better if the witnesses gave us costings. I see the witnesses gave us a costing of 0.7% to 4.2% of an additional cost on a social house. I presume that would also apply to the private sector generally across the board. That will be an additional cost for all the houses we need to build in the country to address our housing situation, not that many houses were built in the past ten years. I know there have been complaints, even prior to the operation of the NZEB standard, about new building regulations. These have not just been about energy performance but also about structural soundness, making sure there are no problems with blockwork, and the fact the procedures required have created additional costs. I wonder about the effect of that, apart from the cost of building materials, when it comes to the cost of houses. Besides NZEB requirements, what have changes in building regulations and standards in the past ten years added to the cost of building a basic house? Do the witnesses have that information?

What is the witnesses' term for the major upgrading of a house?