Joe O'Toole (Independent)

I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Killeen, to the House and thank those who have contributed on this issue. This is an issue I and Senator Brian Hayes have been pushing for many years.

In opening the debate I said that because the issue crossed two Departments, Ministers did not always get the proper flow of information to help them understand the issue. Having listened to my colleagues on the other side, I am convinced of this. No Member on the Government side set out deliberately to mislead the House, but those Senators were given misinformation. I could recite what they said. For example, Senator Brady spoke honestly and with self-belief about a loss of employment. However, the reverse would be the case. The Government did not change construction methods from hollow block building to cavity walls or timber-frame housing in 1998 because it would have needed a greater employment input. There was no question of reducing employment. Cavity block walls can be built more quickly, the only correct argument made by the Minister of State, but it is unacceptable in terms of quality.

I want Senator Brady to consider this matter. I know why he stated that emissions have decreased; the reasons were set out by the Minister of State in his speech. I hope that I do not lose people when I explain my point because I do not have time to address other points. The Minister of State said: "Emissions from the average dwelling fell by 30% between 1990 and 2004". What is the average dwelling? The statement is factual, but a main reason for the reduction is that one in every three houses are timber-framed or other constructions. The briefers did not tell Senator Brady that, since 1990 — the date used by the Minister of State in all of his references — our emissions have increased by 29%. I am not suggesting that the Senator misled the House deliberately, as he was not given that information.

I wish to be taken up on another matter. I have read every piece of research and information, including the reports of NuTech Consultants, UCD and the Building Research Establishment, and all of the regulations. I have also spoken to architects and people in the building industry. I am prepared to talk and would enthusiastically go out of my way to meet anyone who can disprove even a word of my comments tonight. Quicker than anyone else, I will correct myself if I have misled the House in the slightest way. I am not in the habit of tabling motions and do not want to take cheap shots at the Government, but I am trying to point out the issues.

Senator Brian Hayes picked up on the Minister of State's comment that the UCD report claims that "hollow block construction could be insulated to comply with the proposed higher thermal performance standards". Does anyone want to know how this could be done? I dare not put it on the record of the House, but the corner boys in Dingle long ago had a great saying about "could", namely, "my aunt could be my uncle if she had" whatever. "Could" is a word I do not accept in this context.

One house in 1998 was built with cavity walls — two rows of blocks — and another was built using cavity blocks. How could one insulate them to the standards found in Fingal or wherever? In the case of the former, one would drill holes along the bottom or top of the wall and fill it with insulation, a job that could be done in two hours or half a day at most and that would achieve full insulation standards. In the case of the latter, it would be impossible to insulate because the blocks are laid across one another and the cavity between them cannot be filled. In that situation, one must take everything out of the house and off the walls — possibly including the plaster, although the UCD research avoided telling us what one would need to do — and insulate the inside or outside or build another wall. It would be too much work. Saying "could" is unacceptable.

Senator Kitt made important and telling points with which I do not disagree, but he also made a substantial, accurate and articulate point about grant applications and so on. It is frustrating that the grants given to people to erect energy saving devices such as solar panels actually serve to replace energy needlessly that was initially sustainable. We should provide those measures for houses that cannot meet the requirements.

The Minister of State did not answer the question asked by Senator Norris and I, that is, why did we pay €185 million in fines? Senator MacSharry is correct in that we need to raise the bar, but we have not done so. How can one deal with this matter? If we were to put the Fingal conditions, which have been examined by a number of local authorities and supported on the far side of the House, in place elsewhere, it would save 70,000 tonnes of CO2 emissions from new houses each year. During the next 12 years or so, we would save 1 million tonnes per year of CO2 emissions and considerable amounts of money, helping us to meet our Kyoto Protocol obligations. It could be done with the stroke of a pen. Will the Fianna Fáil Parliamentary Party discuss this suggestion when none of us is present to contradict it?

I contradicted the Power of One campaign to get a reaction more than anything else. There is nothing wrong with the campaign, but using it to replace action at Government level is unacceptable. In terms of the Kyoto Protocol, is a failure to regulate now or to extend the Fingal conditions to the rest of the country not irresponsible? Why are we not doing so? The Minister of State spoke about meeting sustainable energy requirements in house building. It may be an important issue, but I am not pushing for it. Rather, I am pressing to advance matters.

The Minister of State was partially right when he told the House that he worked within the EU requirement of three years, but why have we waited three years and pushed the date from 1 January 2005 to 1 January 2007? Why are we delaying the requirement for an energy rating for second-hand houses and why must people buying houses in the next two years wait until 2008 for that rating? This question was not asked, for which reason I tabled this motion. We are doing young people buying houses a disservice in terms of the global environment and our requirements under the Kyoto Protocol. We are making a mistake. Even if the Government votes against my motion, I ask that it take on board the issues raised.