Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I have a couple of questions on the public role and the issues of demolition and vacancy. Then I will ask two short follow-up questions. In terms of the public role, the new renovation wave policy document talks about public buildings and social infrastructure showing the way. There has been considerable focus on building this sector. Do we need a stronger emphasis on the public role in terms of public buildings? They are not exactly the low-hanging fruit, but they do not have to be built at the desire of the market because the State has the keys.

It is anticipated under the renovation wave that the requirements with regard to public buildings and social infrastructure will extend to all public administration levels. I imagine local development plans will need to factor it in as well. Should we be doing more front-loading on public buildings, and not just social housing? Would doing so give us the opportunity to set a higher quality threshold? Dr. Kinnane mentioned the danger of a contractor-led one-stop shop. Every individual who goes in is talking to people who are experts. If the State has a key role in procurement, does front-loading a great deal of procurement, for example in retrofitting, give it an opportunity to raise standards and set a high bar for what it expects? This trains the new sector up to be at a higher level when the private contractors start getting involved. This is better than having individual households leading out first because they do not have the same tools we do in terms of quality. How important is it that we have quality public procurement? How important is it to go for a quality weighting, rather than a price weighting only, in our public procurement policy?

There are two issues in terms of solutions to vacancy. Both speakers have made some concrete proposals, one of which involved the idea of legislation on demolition. Considerable emissions seem to be lost by demolition. I have heard different figures but it might take 40 to 80 years for that energy and those emissions to be reclaimed. Of course it is the next ten years that matter. Should we set, if not a full moratorium, a much higher regulation on demolition versus renovation or extension of buildings?

In terms of vacancy, it may have been Mr. Barry who talked about discouraging demolition but also streamlining measures around vacancy and bringing that back into play. What measures really support us on bringing vacant buildings into play? Mr. Barry gave a huge figure. It could be a megatonne off our embodied carbon bill if we were to retrofit 100,000 vacant homes. Will the speakers comment on that? I am interested on the EU perspective on vacancy, renovation and the public-building-first role. I will follow up afterwards.