Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

These questions are very important. They are not about criticising any individual. Our task as a committee is to identify what is going to work and what is going to happen. We cannot take gambles because there is far less space now. We hear concerns about the profit margin and development. There is far less leeway in the space we have to address our climate crisis. We have no leeway. We have deep debt in terms of where we are at. We need to know things that would be efficient. It strikes me that there needs to be an element of being convinced, if not by the profits, because they may or may not come through, then by regulation. We need to look to drivers we know will deliver. We cannot take a gamble on it happening to align.

I question the idea that it is difficult and non-profitable to develop. I went through the previous crisis and I saw people who went bankrupt and somehow they are multimillionaires again on the back of development. If very high levels of profitability not being profitable enough is a block, then it points to questions about the State construction agency that is spoken about. Many working in the construction industry work on State contracts, so it is not necessarily a block. We cannot have a vulnerability through solely relying on incentives and solely hoping that green construction will turn out to be profitable. We absolutely need to reduce our emissions and this is the underlying goal. This is why we need to look at what the stronger tools are.

I want to pick up on the topic of procurement which was discussed earlier. Mr. Impoco has spoken about procurement. It is something on which I have pushed very strongly in the past. We know that choices are already available, for example, the choice to go with lowest cost procurement. I have had very constructive engagement with the Construction Industry Federation with regard to this. Price-quality ratio is one of the options available, as is lowest cost. We can go for life cycle, price-value ratio, which means the best ratio between quality and price, or lowest price.

Very often, the lowest price tends to prevail or we see a low weighting attached to the quality criteria. We saw that in regard to the national children's hospital where the ratio was 70% on cost and only 30% on quality criteria. However, within those quality criteria I suggest there is the space for us to look at really strong criteria and not simply the specifications. It is not realistic to ask that everybody who is procuring something would use recycled paint or a particular material. It would be ideal if that was looked for as well, but if you have a quality weighting environment, it allows those in the construction industry who are actually innovating and who are actually raising their standards to have a competitive advantage when they are tendering for State contracts. Will the witnesses comment on that? There are two pieces. There is the technical list that comes with the request for tender where such issues as recycled paint and reusable materials are mentioned, but perhaps there could be an even higher premium for reused materials, so it is not just the reusable but materials that have actually been reused. That could be an issue that could give an advantage. Also, there is the separate question of a quality criterion that allows for those who are innovating in emissions reduction to come in. I would like comments on that.

The other area that I would love both groups to comment on is the measurement of embodied emissions. It was somewhat touched on, the idea of refurbishment and so forth. There is often talk of measuring the emissions in the materials that go into construction but demolition creates a huge amount of emissions in itself. Will the witnesses comment on, for example, where a green building with a solar panel on top is being put up but where a building has also been demolished? There might be a 70- or 80-year debt in terms of emissions. Of course, it is the next ten years that matter most. Do we need a moratorium or a really strict limitation on demolition? Should demolition become an exception rather than any kind of rule during the next crucial ten-year period?

My questions are addressed to both organisations.