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

I have a general comment and then a final question on concrete. I am saying this more for the benefit of the record and the work we will do after this, but we have a particular problem in our urban centres. Building apartments, of which we need lots, is slow, expensive, dirty for the people who are working on-site, inefficient because of disruptions caused by rain and the natural environment, and involves a lot of embedded carbon. One of the reasons a number of us on the committee, including the Chair, Deputy Duffy and others, are so keen to have this conversation is that we are seeing some of the new technologies we are talking about here fix a bunch of other problems in other jurisdictions. For example, one of the great benefits of volumetric methods of construction is that much of the work is carried out in a factory, which means much better conditions for the workers. Why are we finding it so difficult to get young apprentices? It is not just that the work is insecure but that it is heavy, dirty and messy. That is what young people tell us when we ask them why they will not take up these trades. There is also less disruption from the elements and so on. For me, the ideal end point, in some senses, is combining many of the benefits of volumetric construction with some of the flexibility of the panel systems.

We should also be a little bit innovative regarding exteriors. I have seen some really wonderful mid-rise mixed-use apartment developments in London, England. It is all cross laminated timber, CLT, construction but the homes have a traditional outer leaf of brick. It is really thin, more of a brick facade, so the embodied-carbon footprint is very light. For those who want to live in a brick building, it provides that kind of aesthetic security. These are being built for €2,000 to €2,200 per square metre. The Society of Chartered Surveyors Ireland tells us that the cost of building apartments in Dublin is €3,000 or €3,500 per square metre at the minute. One of the things that is really exciting about this conversation is that not only could the green buildings of the future be produced - I take Mr. Barry's point that is not just about embodied or operational carbon but all those other issues as well but let us fight each battle as it comes to us - but labour conditions could be improved. The speed at which apartment buildings are constructed could also be improved.

How long does it take to do an apartment development now? It takes maybe two to three years from start to completion, whereas much of this can be done much more quickly. If we are able to convince people, particularly those in senior decision-making levels of government, that there are multiple benefits from going down this route, without being simplistic about it, there will be so many different wins. That is as well as the jobs in the timber industry and all of that. It would be good if, at the end of these meetings, we could make a series of recommendations to the Government to promote that because there are so many wins. We have had a series of battles in the past couple of weeks - I will not mention the turf war - over that element of the agenda. Agriculture, when we start to see the sectoral targets, will be another big battle ground, yet in this area there seem to be so many obvious tangible wins.

To return to Ms Dwyer's point, the tools for the State to positively incentivise the good stuff are pretty uncontroversial. That may not be the case for Cement Roadstone Holdings but it is for other actors. It is one area where there are lots of positives.

Since we have not talked about the bad stuff, my final question is on cement. Much of this conversation has been on how we incentivise the good stuff, measure and get the industry and public sector to use more. Huge amounts of concrete and cement are used in construction, including in houses and apartments, yet we know from industry that it is no more expensive to produce lower carbon cement and concrete. We are told the technology is available in the country. I would like to ask each of the witnesses a final question. While we are positively incentivising the good stuff, how do we get the bad stuff out of the system and how quickly can we do that? Deputy Duffy and I have discussed this. How difficult would it be to transition to 100% lower carbon cement? Could it be done and how long would it take? Is there a role for the Government to use incentives for the good stuff but also to set phase-out dates? We have set a date for phasing out gas boilers in houses. Even though we will not 100% phase out concrete completely as there will always be a role for it, particularly in fire safety, where is the conversation on that? How do we make sure that as we get the good stuff, we phase out the dirtier stuff? What is the timeline? That is a question for everyone in the audience before we finish.