Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I thank all the witnesses for their presentations. In the first round I will stick to the recast issue and I have specific questions for Mr. Armstrong on his Department's observations from last December. I will ask more general questions if there is a second round of questions.

One of my concerns about the observations made by the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage is that throughout the Department supports the intentions of the review. The Department then seeks a whole series of exemptions or exceptionalities which, if they are accepted at an EU level, undermine some of the intentions. I am keen to give Mr. Armstrong an opportunity to clarify the logic, rationale and, in some cases, the criteria against which the Department seeks some of these flexibilities. I have five observations and I will go trough them quickly to give him as much time as possible to respond.

I refer to the observation on Article 2(2)(O), emissions buildings. Again, the Department says it supports the objective but states "where technically feasible" at the end of the section. Please outline what "where technically feasible" means. In practical terms who determines or against what criteria would technical feasibility be decided? I ask so that we can fully understand the matter.

On Article 2(19), deep renovation, the Department is not just looking for "where technically feasible" but also "economically and functionally feasible", which is an even broader potential set of opt-outs for a very important provision. Please outline what is meant by "economically and functionally feasible" and the criteria used? When determining whether something is economically feasible is an assessment done on the economic feasibility of not doing it or the longer term economic cost, and is one married against the other?

With respect to Article 2(23), there is a series of suggested exemptions with respect to whole-of-lifecycle emissions. My reading of the comment, and I could have misinterpreted it, is that it gives more priority to the operational emissions rather than the embodied emissions because the operational ones are a larger component. The problem as we know, given what Mr. Armstrong outlined at the start about the increase in residential building, is embodied carbon will become a much larger feature of our overall carbon emissions and at present it is 10% across all categories. Have I misinterpreted or has he given greater privilege to the operational over the embodied? If so, why? If not, and I have misunderstood, will he please clarify?

In terms of observations on Article 7(12), there is a series of exemption requests on dates, so on 2027 and 2030, where buildings are already designed or commencements have started. Is there a concern that if one does not try, even at that late stage, to apply some of the higher standards that they will have to be done anyway? I ask as it is more expensive to retrofit them after the fact in five, ten or 15 years time than introduce at least some level of inconvenience for builders and developers at that point.

I am greatly concerned about Article 9(1) in respect of minimum energy performance standards. There is a general request made for additional flexibility for the private rental sector. We know that in many cases the energy efficiency of the private rental sector is very low. We know that is where we have a heavy concentration of lower-income families with higher levels of energy poverty. Therefore, should we be encouraging too much flexibility in the private rental sector? Clearly, we do not want to do anything that further disrupts supply but if the trade-off is poor energy efficiency and, therefore, more negative impacts over the longer term on fuel poverty then that is not a good trade-off. Is there not a better way to deal with the challenge?