David Norris (Independent)

I stand corrected. Regardless of whether the introduction was 2006, it will not be put in place yet anyway. Cynically, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Roche, got a transitional arrangement agreement under which construction works for which planning permission was sought on or before June 30 last are exempt provided they are substantially completed by the end of June 2008. It is another exercise in procrastination, another delivery of a large number of energy inefficient houses on to the market. This is to the detriment of the customers and our obligations.

We have mentioned the Kyoto Protocol. We have already had to buy €185 million of carbon credits. If this matter is not properly addressed, it is estimated we could pay up to €5 billion in a few years' time. That is a big bill for the taxpayer.

The general standard is still relatively low because nothing has been done. This is another area in which the Minister could be involved in, part L of the building regulations. That section deals with energy efficiency. Nothing has been done to strengthen the area since we adopted the current version in 2002. It will not be revised until 2008, as once again an option not to do so was exercised by the Government. It has again weaselled out of it, deliberately avoiding the targets set.

This makes the amendment to tonight's motion one of the most laughable I have ever seen in this House. Senator O'Toole is completely correct. The penultimate paragraph has the gall to congratulate "the Government for its prompt action in implementing the EU energy performance of buildings directive". Is the Government stark raving mad? How can it congratulate itself on actions it has not taken? It is congratulating itself on an absolute dereliction of duty in this area. I am surprised even the brass necks on the other side of the House are prepared to try to pull this one off.

The issue does not just concern homes, but businesses. There are a significant number of new office blocks, particularly in Dublin. These are not especially energy efficient. Office blocks, by and large, consume twice as much energy as naturally ventilated alternatives. I do not want to be seen to attack authority all the time so I wish to acknowledge that Fingal County Council has produced an environmentally friendly building in the shape of Fingal County Hall. It is energy efficient and the type of building we could construct everywhere instead of environmentally destructive buildings.

I have spoken about the way the Government, for its own reasons which may be fairly murky, favours one sector of the cement industry over another to the disadvantage of the green cement sector. The cement industry represents a highly carbon-intensive part of our industrial framework and is the second largest industrial source of emissions. It emits into the Irish atmosphere one tonne of CO2 for every tonne of cement it produces. A tonne for a tonne is a staggering statistic but it can be reduced and has been reduced by up to 300,000 tonnes per annum, or 7%.

In 1990, when wooden houses were first constructed, they represented 1% of the total but that figure now stands at 27%. In a few years it will be 50%. Senator Kitt might have been correct that in the early days they were relatively expensive, but they are now cheaper as well as more efficient than other methods of construction. They are much more comfortable to live in, being cool in the summer and warm in the winter. They can also be built much more rapidly than other forms of house.

Information on wastage in buildings and on suggested alternatives was communicated to the Government by Mr. McCaughey, who also drew attention to the Government's obligations, in the course of evidence to the Joint Committee on Environment and Local Government. He said:

Although I sent my original letter to the then Minister, Deputy Dempsey, informing him of the British Government Departments' research on 4 February 1998, nothing was done about it until 1 January 2003. During those five years, a staggering 250,000 houses were built to a standard of energy efficiency that was 35% below what it should have been.

Again, this was a bad deal for the country, the house buyer and the house owner and something of which this Government should be thoroughly ashamed.

I commend Senator O'Toole on putting this motion on the Order Paper. I am astonished at the gall of the Government in tabling such an unrealistic and not entirely honest amendment. It is about time we faced up to our obligations to our young people trying to buy decent houses that will not bankrupt them in energy costs nor spoil the environment. I congratulate the Senator.