Alan Farrell (Dublin Fingal, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I was going to talk about embodied carbon and trying to save buildings from unnecessary demolition, but I think this issue has been covered by both previous speakers. The retention and repurposing of buildings is very important, but it leads into the other issue, which is the over-reliance in the Irish construction sector on concrete. I tabled a series of parliamentary questions in recent weeks on the use of timber-frame construction in buildings. I have been provided with various reports and things like that which are a good few years old and, unfortunately, allude to an industry that is just not willing to use this approach.

There may also be a reluctance on the part of the State to look at the fire regulations associated with this type of building with timber-frame methods, as well as the structural regulations governing the height a timber-frame building can go to. I have my concerns in this regard. It seems to be a sort of an Irish solution to an Irish problem, when the Scots and the Nordics do not seem to have this problem but we do. What I would like to know, therefore, is whether we can start the process or whether we are in the process of changing regulations to promote and incentivise, and I am using these two words carefully, the use of timber-frame construction to reduce dramatically the amount of carbon-heavy concrete in our construction sector. I ask this particularly when we are in the midst of trying to defeat this housing crisis and, time and again, ramping up construction.

The other issue concerns the inspection side of things. The Chair touched on this issue and it is an important part of this conversation in the context of the old approach of labels in the sector being signed off on by the same people building the properties. This is not an approach I want to be associated with. It should be borne in mind that I got into this House hot on the heels of the pyrite issue and we are now still dealing with mica and other construction defects. Self-certification is just not going to cut it. While I somewhat agree with the Chair regarding going the full length in this regard, which is what the UK is doing, there is an interim place that I think bolsters this committee's work in respect of the climate action objective, which is to ensure the standards are being adhered to, especially when it comes to insulation and heating sources.

My understanding is there are still houses being sold today, albeit some of them have been constructed under planning permissions granted quite a few years ago, that still have gas and oil boilers in them. I refer to a situation where we are embedding the use of gas and oil boilers in properties in 2022, certainly in my neighbourhood and constituency, and will be in 2023 because I am sure some of these properties are still on the market, and the Department and the local authorities do not have the flexibility to impose a separate provision mandating that a construction company cannot, even if it has planning permission to build houses in a particular way, put gas boilers, or oil boilers in certain cases, into a property. Will Mr. Armstrong clarify this point? I appreciate that some of this is under his remit and some is not. I listened carefully to his point about being briefed, so perhaps he might be able to enlighten the committee.