Joan Collins (Dublin South Central, Independents 4 Change) | Oireachtas source

The programme for retrofitting looks great on paper. If the very ambitious targets are achieved, it will make a huge difference to energy bills and people’s health and reduce carbon emissions. However, there are serious questions as to how the target of retrofitting 50,000 to 70,000 homes per year will be met and how the target of retrofitting 500,000 homes can be met.

Despite the grant of up to 50% of the cost of a deep retrofit, there is a genuine issue with requiring homeowners on low to moderate incomes to come up with €20,000 to €25,000 from their own resources to avail of the scheme.

With regard to local authority housing, last year local authorities were given the rather modest target of upgrading 2,400 homes under the energy efficiency retrofitting programme and the midlands retrofit programme. However, just 1,500 properties were retrofitted, with the remaining 900 to be completed by the middle of this year, they hope. The latest Housing for All progress report attributed the significant delays to the pandemic, citing “reduced capacity in the construction sector and related COVID-19 protocols for surveyors and contractors, given the homes retrofitted under these programmes are occupied”. However, that is not the only reason for the hold-up. A report from Dublin City Council to its housing committee has stated that, with funding at the current rate, it will take 12 years to carry out its retrofitting programme. I am sure that is replicated across the country. The meeting was a special policy committee meeting. Those concerned were advised to have the information in writing.

The second issue is the construction industry’s ability to carry out the works to a high standard.

There are serious questions about an industry with poor regulation that is dominated by subcontracting and awash with bogus self-employment. Of 100,000 apartments, almost two out of every three built in the Celtic tiger years had serious defects, such as fire safety issues, leaking roofs and balconies. As highlighted earlier, 40 schools built by the same construction company all had serious defects which cost the State €1 million each to rectify. It seems to me that there are a lot of builders with the first name Gerry operating in the industry. Shoddy building work, a lack of qualifications, zero numbers in apprenticeships in many trades and a lack of upskilling are a consequence of the shift from direct employment to the casualisation of construction work. Construction firms are employing five subcontractors for every one tradesperson who is directly employed. The industry now claims there is a shortage of 27,000 workers to meet existing demand before the retrofit plan even gets under way. The consequences for the wet trades most relevant to retrofitting, that is, bricklaying, floor and wall tiling, painting, decorating and plastering, have been dire. Between 2012 and 2020 there were no apprentice floor and wall tilers registered in Ireland. In 2020, members of the Construction Industry Federation were employing, as tilers, zero apprentices, 50 people with full-time jobs and 693 causal subcontractors.

There was a long-established tradition of family involvement in certain building trades, such as bricklaying, plastering, carpentry, etc., but if you talk to construction workers today, very few would advocate their trade to their children. Why would they, when they are forced into self-employment with fewer rights, poor conditions and no security of employment? The Joint Oireachtas Committee on Social Protection, Community and Rural Development and the Islands produced a report on bogus self-employment, which, I must say, has received a good response from the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. However, there needs to be a speedy implementation of the proposals in the report. That would be a good start towards the necessary reform of the industry required to make it fit for purpose. A failure to reform the industry could well result in the national retrofit programme becoming the pyrite and mica scandal of the future. To come back to the issue of affordability, the proposed loan fund is welcome and is a recognition that large numbers of households will struggle to avail of the scheme. The Minister, in his opening remarks, made great play of the number of inquiries from the general public in relation to the scheme. Of course, given the huge increases in energy prices and the general cost of living, people will be interested in a scheme that will cut their energy costs. However, inquiring about the scheme and having the wherewithal to avail of it are two separate things.

See this speech in context