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

When we did the report, as the Minister of State referenced, we had officials from the Department in. They told us they were waiting for the European Union to complete its work in this area, which is due to be completed in 2027, and that only after this were they going to act. The Minister of State has broadly repeated that timeline here. The difficulty is that we have legally binding emissions reductions targets in the built environment to hit by 2030. The Minister of State confirmed to us that the measurement methodologies and the architecture to ensure our built environment between now and 2030 is not going to change, and it is really only going to change from 2028, 2029, and 2030 onwards. This means the Minister of State is now stating on the public record, with respect to the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage and those areas he has responsibility for, that we are simply not going to meet our 2030 emissions reductions targets in the built environment. This is the problem here. The Minister, Deputy Darragh O'Brien, was in here earlier discussing this. He kept talking about modern methods of construction, MMC, and timber frames. This is not the issue at hand. Our building control regulations allow for timber frame but our problem is that only half of our estate houses currently use timber frame construction. Even if 100% of houses were timber frame that is not the quantum of change in building materials and methodologies that is required to get to the 50% reduction by 2030.

We are not trying to change building standards through primary legislation; it is the very opposite. We are, obviously, referring to the fact that we are deeply disappointed that the review of Part B is not going to deal with some of these issues. If I am wrong and if that has changed, please let us know. When the revised Part B comes out, if it does not facilitate the use of timber-based product, for example, such as cross-laminated timber and others over 10 m, then we have a problem. That, however, is a separate argument. We are saying, as is the Irish Green Building Council which represents architects, planners, builders, and people across the public, private and semi-State sectors, that there is also a planning requirement. Section 44 provides for the obligation to prepare housing development strategy. If we cannot even name in that section a requirement to include mechanisms to address whole-life carbon emissions, then we have a problem.

What are the planning issues in this context? We dealt with this at some length with the Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, but since the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell, is here, we will deal with it again. That deals with things like demolition, demolition audits and aspects of reuse. It also deals with issues around using the planning system and using the housing strategies to signal to the public, the private and the semi-State sector that building technologies have to change. They have to change to such an extent that if I hear somebody talk again about timber frame as a modern method of construction, I will pull my hair out. Timber frame construction has been around for 100 years. In fact, before we were building houses with poured concrete into moulds in Crumlin and Cabra in the 1930s houses were built with timber frames. The types of building technologies we are talking about are technologies that are not 2-D panelised and not frame, but are almost 100% low-carbon building technology that is off site manufactured and then assembled on site. Obviously, if the design is for more than 10 m, there must be a certain amount of concrete for fire prevention, stairwells and lift shafts and so on.

This is not about timber frame. Timber frame is not a modern method of construction anyway. As that report sets out, it is about including the planning recommendations for what is required. Apologies if this sounds patronising as I do not mean it to be but I get the sense the Minister of State just does not understand what we are talking about. The Minister of State does not understand the significance of making these sections of this Bill attentive to the need to address seriously whole-life carbon impacts.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan has already mentioned the two EU member states that have already progressed. They are not waiting for 2027 and the European Commission. They are moving forward and moving forward in areas we could move forward in. The Commissioner responsible for this has also said we do not need to wait for the EU and work could be done now. I am aware that the Minister of State will not accept the amendment but I urge him to go back to his officials and go to people outside of the Department, such as the Irish Green Building Council, and to look at this. If we do not get whole-life carbon and embodied carbon into this Bill - currently, it is not in the Bill anywhere - it is such a wasted opportunity and we should not have to come back with amending legislation at a later stage. I have taken a bit more time to speak than I normally do but this is so fundamental to our concerns.

At the Irish Green Building Council event every political party was represented. Deputy Francis Noel Duffy was on the platform with his colleague MEP, Ciarán Cuffe, who was in the audience. Senator Mary Fitzpatrick was there for Fianna Fáil. Deputy Richard Bruton was there, albeit briefly, from Fine Gael. Deputies O'Callaghan, Bacik and I were there for the Social Democrats, the Labour Party and Sinn Féin, respectively. There is cross-party consensus on this and it should not be controversial. Given how controversial other areas of the climate agenda are - we all saw the disagreements between Sinn Féin and Fine Gael yesterday over the EU nature restoration law - this is one area where there is no disagreement. This is one area where there is strong cross-party consensus. For the life of me, I just cannot understand the reluctance to get it into this Bill in the appropriate places to provide the impetus to all levels of our plan making and to all forms of development that emerge from it afterwards by moving in the right direction, not after 2027 and not by 2030 but on enactment of this particular Bill.