Joint Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 3 May 2022

Carbon and Energy within the Construction Industry: Discussion (Resumed)

Chairman

I welcome the delegations. Today is the second in a series of meetings we are having on carbon and energy in construction. At our previous meeting we heard from the Department and the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland. Just last week we also had a meeting on the energy performance of buildings directive that strayed into embodied carbon and carbon in construction as well, so it is quite timely for us to have the meeting today to follow up on some of the issues arising at that meeting.

Today we are joined by Mr. Mark Christal and Ms Rowena Dwyer from Enterprise Ireland. We are also joined by Mr. Pat Barry of the Irish Green Energy Council and Mr. Ciarán O'Connor and Mr. Gerard Harvey from the Office of Public Works. We are joined remotely by Mr. Neil Kerrigan, Mr. Ross O'Colmain and Mr. Kevin Flynn from Enterprise Ireland. We are also joined remotely by Ms Mairéad Phelan of the National Building Control Office. They are all very welcome. The opening statements have been circulated to members and will be available on the website after the meeting.

I remind members of the constitutional requirement that members must be physically present within the confines of the place where Parliament has chosen to sit, namely, Leinster House, to participate in public meetings. Those attending remotely from within the Leinster House complex are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their contributions to today's meeting. This means they have an absolute defence against any defamatory action at the meeting. There are some limitations on parliamentary privilege for witnesses who are attending remotely from outside Leinster House and, as such, they may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as a person physically present within the Leinster House complex. Members and witnesses are expected not to abuse the privilege they enjoy. It is my duty as Chairman to ensure this privilege is not abused. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in respect of an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks and it is imperative that they comply with such direction.

Members and witnesses are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I will invite witnesses to make their opening statements and perhaps they might limit those statements to approximately five minutes, as there are quite a few witnesses here today, which is good. We will hear from Enterprise Ireland, the Office of Public Works, the Irish Green Energy Council and the building control office, in that order.

Mr. Mark Christal

I welcome the opportunity to present to the committee on the topic of carbon and energy within the construction industry and outline the actions and initiatives that Enterprise Ireland is engaged with to support companies in this area.

I am the divisional manager for food and sustainability with Enterprise Ireland. I would like to introduce my colleagues who are accompanying me, Ms Rowena Dwyer, the department manager for sustainability and climate change, and online, Mr. Neil Kerrigan, Mr. Ross O’Colmain and Mr. Kevin Flynn.

With the support of the Department Enterprise, Trade and Innovation, Enterprise Ireland’s purpose is helping Irish companies to start, grow, innovate and win export sales. We work with internationally-focused Irish enterprises across all sectors of the economy, including the construction and cement sector, supporting them to strengthen their competitiveness and productivity, increase innovation and realise their growth potential, thereby contributing to employment and economic growth across all regions.

The transition to a low carbon and circular economy and achievement of a 51% reduction in emissions by 2030 across all sectors of the economy represents a whole-of-society challenge. Enterprise, along with all other sectors, must fundamentally change to adapt to this challenge and realise the many opportunities this transformation represents.

Our recently published strategy, Leading in a Changing World, sets out a vision for 2030 of Irish enterprises creating solutions for global challenges and delivering sustainable prosperity throughout Ireland. Transforming the sustainability performance of Irish enterprise and supporting companies to capitalise on the growth opportunities presented by the low carbon transition are key areas of focus of our strategy and of our work with companies over the coming decade and beyond.

The Government’s Climate Action Plan 2021 sets out a target for the enterprise sector of reducing emissions by between 29% and 41% by 2030. Enterprise Ireland is working with companies to meet this target and to embed sustainability as a strategic business priority, to meet changing customer demand and to remain competitive into the future.

During 2022, specific initiatives we will be undertaking to achieve this objective include delivering the climate enterprise action fund, which provides opportunities for companies with training and capability supports to accelerate awareness of abatement opportunities and to develop plans for lower-carbon products, processes and business models; and delivering the forthcoming carbon reduction fund, which will support enterprise investment in CO2 reducing technologies in manufacturing combustion processes. We have a particular focus on identifying and engaging with client companies in high impact sectors such as food, cement and construction to support their development of strategic, long-term decarbonisation roadmaps.

Enterprise Ireland works with internationally focused construction products and services companies. These companies make an important contribution to economic activity in Ireland, with exports of €2.5 billion recorded in 2020 and providing employment across all regions of more than 40,000 people. In common with other sectors of the economy, the construction sector is facing immediate challenges in the form of increased costs, including energy and through supply chain disruption, while addressing the longer-term strategic challenges of adapting to the digital and low carbon transition. Through our funding, advisory and capability building supports and our overseas office network, Enterprise Ireland works directly with construction companies to respond to these immediate challenges and to support their long-term development and growth. Our key areas of focus for the development of the sector include digitalisation, lean training to increase productivity, modern methods of manufacturing and product and process innovation.

In the area of sustainability, construction and cement companies are seeing growing customer demand, including through public procurement requirements for products and services that support lower levels of carbon embodiment. In addition, they are facing up to the challenge of reducing their own carbon emissions in line with the climate action plan targets for enterprise. Enterprise Ireland is engaging with companies in these sectors to identify their needs and to support the development and implementation of sustainability roadmaps to address these challenges.

Building upon our work with exporting companies, under the Government’s Housing for All plan, Enterprise Ireland is delivering productivity, innovation and research supports to the domestic residential construction sector. This is to achieve the objective of increasing productivity in this sector and reducing the cost of homebuilding. After a period of industry consultation, the Built To Innovate campaign was launched by an Tánaiste in March 2022. The objective of this campaign, which will run over the next 36 months, is to work with homebuilders, general contractors and off-site manufacturing companies to enhance their capabilities and deliver innovation to the sector through new products or processes.

As the Government embarks on a major building and infrastructure investment programme, set out in the National Development Plan 2021-2030 and in Housing for All from 2021 to 2030, the delivery of productivity, research and innovation supports to the domestic-focused construction industry, as well as exporting companies, is being prioritised. In partnership with the Government’s construction sector group, Enterprise Ireland is leading the establishment of the construction technology centre. The technology centre programme is a joint initiative between Enterprise Ireland and IDA Ireland, allowing Irish companies and multinationals to work together on specific research projects, in collaboration with research institutions, often providing solutions to sector wide challenges. The construction technology centre will join with the build digital project and the modern methods of construction initiative as the Government’s technology infrastructure response to enabling a more integrated competitive, sustainable and digitally enhanced domestic construction sector.

Following a competitive process, in April of this year, the Enterprise Ireland board approved a proposal from a consortium of regionally balanced construction and built environment focused research groups across four third level institutions, namely, National University of Ireland, Galway, NUIG, Trinity College Dublin, TCD, University College Cork, UCC, and University College Dublin, UCD, working with the Irish Green Building Council. The construction technology centre will be established in June this year and will be hosted by NUIG, which will provide the personnel, administration and institutional supports to the consortia.

The construction technology centre will focus on urgent construction and housing research challenges, defined by Government and industry but delivered in an accelerated manner. The research focus will start in the urgent areas relating to productivity, affordability and cost; quality and safety; sustainability; skills and training; and collaboration. With regard to sustainability, a significant part of the centre’s work will be research to support companies involved in the retrofitting of existing structures and those involved in developing more sustainable processes for new construction.

The consortia will have access to and will work closely with the Irish Green Building Council on the identification of urgent and important issues and will work with industry stakeholders on the dissemination of results to inform changes and improve practices, processes and influence policy changes for the benefit on the sector.

Strengthening productivity and improving sustainability are key areas of focus for the construction sector and Enterprise Ireland, in the activities set out above, will continue to work with companies to deliver on these objectives. I thank members for their attention and I and my colleagues are available to answer any questions.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Christal for that opening statement. I propose to go next to Mr. Ciarán O'Connor from the Office of Public Works, OPW. As Mr. O'Connor has a slide presentation that possibly can be shared on the screen, I will go to next to Mr. Barry of the Irish Green Building Council next and then we can work on those slides and I will come back to Mr. O'Connor.

Mr. Pat Barry

I thank the committee for the invitation to present at the committee today. I am here with my colleague, Ms Marion Jammet.

The Irish Green Building Council is currently working in close collaboration with the industry and key stakeholders to develop a roadmap to decarbonise Ireland's built environment. The draft version of this roadmap will be published this week and open to consultation. It includes a comprehensive set of recommendations to halve emissions by 2030 from the construction sector and to get to zero by 2050. In order to baseline the current impact of the built environment, we commissioned UCD to model emissions associated with construction and the built environment for the 2018 baseline year. These add up to 37% of our national CO2 emissions. This is made up by 23% operational emissions associated with the energy we use to heat, cool and light our buildings. A further 14% of the emissions are embodied carbon emissions from the production of construction materials, transport of materials, construction process, maintenance, repair and disposal of buildings and infrastructure. The researchers also modelled the projected emissions from the built environment and construction to 2030 based on the national development plan. This showed there would be a very significant increase in construction-related embodied carbon emissions if no action is taken.

To halve our emissions by 2030, we have to combine a number of strategies. We will need to focus on energy renovation, maximise reuse of existing buildings, minimise demolition, maximise efficiency of the built area from our construction programmes and perhaps even cut back on some projects. It will require us to eliminate the concept of waste and we will need a transformative shift in industry practices.

Twenty years ago we did not measure energy in a scientific way but the introduction of the building energy rating, BER, and the compliance software gave us a pathway to measure and revise regulations and we cut energy consumption in new homes by 70% in ten years. We can now take the next step and eliminate all operational carbon emissions from new buildings, implementing a net zero carbon standard, and some businesses have already started on this path.

For existing building it means scaling up deep energy renovation. Tools such as building renovation passports could support phased retrofits and project aggregation. Developing new digital technologies can help accelerate deep energy renovation, for example, prefabrication such as the Dutch Energiesprong programme.

Unlike operational carbon emissions, embodied carbon is not regulated in Ireland. With 400,000 homes to be built by 2030, addressing this blind spot is urgent to reach our climate targets. To tackle these emissions we can use the same approach as with operational carbon, namely, measure and reduce. Tools to measure embodied carbon already exist. The European Commission’s framework for sustainable buildings known as Level(s) gives us a detailed methodology. We are developing good quality national data on construction products through EPD Ireland. Easy-to-use calculation tools are available. Already, hundreds of Irish building professionals have been trained in measuring embodied carbon.

Government should provide a timeline on the introduction of regulations on embodied carbon, starting with immediate mandatory measurement of every publicly procured building, with all other new buildings to measure and disclose before 2025. Carbon limits should be introduced from 2027 onward. Through measurement, building professionals will realise potential for materials efficiency and carbon savings, leading to a reduction in the cost of construction. By stimulating action for carbon reduction, it will spark a whole wave of innovation in products, supply chains and services.

To reduce embodied carbon emissions we must use less materials and ensure the materials we use are low impact. This means using more reused and recycled materials or bio-based materials which usually have a lower embodied carbon. Public procurement is a strategic instrument which can be used to support innovation and drive the market for more sustainable solutions, allowing for scale-up in the industry and development of the entire supply chain. This is needed to transition to low carbon methods of construction and circular use of materials.

Consistent and clear guidance on the safe use of timber structures must be provided. Timber frame accounts for 75% of newly constructed homes in Scotland but only 24% in Ireland, despite our world-class timber frame manufacturers. New local forestry and agriculture related industries to supply the construction sector must also be supported. Other barriers to entry for new innovative materials to the market must be addressed without compromising safety. A Government programme of capital and design support for projects that use innovative low carbon construction techniques could encourage private developers to quickly create exemplar projects and build towards commercial viability. We need to reform Ireland’s application of the waste framework directive to make it easier to reuse perfectly good materials coming off sites. We need co-operation between Government and industry on risk sharing, particularly where there is market failure around insurance of non-traditional construction.

We have very limited time to significantly reduce our emissions. Open collaboration between Departments and industry is critical for rapid development of new regulations and standards, and to share risk to scale new low carbon technologies. However, an urgent first step is to measure and disclose embodied carbon. Several European countries have already regulated embodied carbon. The European Commission is moving us in that direction. Given the growth in construction in Ireland, we cannot wait another five years to address this issue.

Mr. Ciarán O'Connor

I will use slides as they allow some of the issues to be explained better. We have written materials providing some detail. To stir things up a little, I mentioned threats and opportunities. Some issues are threats while others are opportunities and I have listed these. We have woolly thinking versus real research and development; citation versus synthesis; and eco-bling versus real sustainable solutions. The key to that is an imaginative and critical capacity, without which all the talk will not add up to much.

The approach we have taken in the OPW is to tie in with the EU approach. In 1996, when I had just joined the OPW, Green Design was developed to equip the European Union. This led to a whole approach. Since then, especially in the past ten years, we have been using a green audit in every project we do. Our green design roadmap, which will be ready this year, will be a huge positive. It will bring together all the information and knowledge we have learned with colleagues elsewhere, including in the Irish Green Building Council and other private elements, to identify where this might lead us. The roadmap describes the nine different areas we will cover. These are the legal element; the procurement element; the role the State should play; what our targets should be; methods; stepping stones towards targets because there must be measurable and clear stepping stones; costs because everything should be open and clear like an open book; best practice in each case, which encompasses issues such as site and ecology, design and deep retrofit; and a glossary of items to provide clarity. The map will also show how the stage guidance - the key steps as the EU calls it - will work. We are tying it in to match the EU's system. Areas to be covered extend from site selection through design, operation and restoration, in which the OPW has significant experience, to end of life and potential reuse. The team players are also described.

We all know the legal context. As Mr. Barry mentioned, operational carbon accounts for 23% of emissions, while materials comprise 14% of emissions. How will we achieve our goals? Fairness in competition has always been part of procurement in the EU. Environment has now been added to that. Life-cycle analysis and life-cycle costings will be important in that respect. That approach needs scientific-based data. The environmental impact must measured in terms of carbon emissions and embodied carbon. This means a circular economy. How do we manage that? The different European standards and elements are very important for the steps shown on the blue slide. Optimising power at work will also be important and the OPW has been doing for this for the past 12 years or so. We have also started doing it with the HSE for hospitals. In one of the key hospitals on the south-west side of Dublin, savings of 18% were achieved in one year just by bringing in certain methodologies of approach.

Embodied carbon has been mentioned. What we need for that is a common language and a rating system in order that we can have comparable data, without which it is no use. An open source is also necessary in order that everyone can see from where it is coming. It will cover such issues as carbon, materials, water, health, comfort and climate aspects. It will help build the economy. An inventory of impacts and what their total impacts is a simple way to work out these issues. I have given the examples of steel and glass in order that their significant impacts can be seen. We changed our specifications in 2010 to bring in what is called green cement whereby waste from steel is mixed in. This reduces carbon by one tonne for every tonne of cement used.

Forestry is a key element. Over the years, I have done many projects in timber and we will do more. To sustain forestry I suggest we follow the Scottish example which is by far the best example of all the European samples I have looked at. Securing a licence covers all the other steps that need to be taken. In Ireland we have different steps for different stages. We also need to examine how much clear fell we do. The right tree in the right place is a key element. The tree is a transformative element in that it is a recycling factory for water and carbon and gives us oxygen and timber.

This is therefore a no-brainer. Only 11% of our land is in timber and we should quickly get up to 20%. The European average is much higher than that.

I will give some detail on carbon capture. We did research with colleagues elsewhere in other countries. We can see on the right-hand side of the screen that different trees have different rates of carbon absorption. Yet, some trees grow more quickly than others. In the example of oak, it takes a full lifetime of an oak tree to absorb 123 tonnes of CO2, whereas a fast-growing alder, lime or horse chestnut does the same in approximately half the time. Those little details are important from that point of view.

On the issue of deep retrofit, we managed to get funding from the European Commission. We have just started our work on it. We are doing Tom Johnson House in Beggar's Bush as an exemplar retrofit. It is a 1960s building and we are upgrading it to have an 85% reduction in its annual energy use. It also will demonstrate an example of how you go about doing one of these things and how you make it significant.

The last few slides show an example of a project we started 20 years ago in the Backweston campus, which is near Celbridge. We made the rule then that no soil would leave the site or would go to a landfill. That was at a time when that was still quite common. We avoided landfill and we reduced the carbon footprint. The committee members will be able to see the figures on the screen. The amount of tonnage of CO2 that was saved by not moving the soil off-site was important. More importantly, it was able to be reused and recycled in a way that was of benefit. It is not a single-issue item, therefore but it achieves many things. We had flooding near the area and we used the soil to act as contours but it does not look like a dam was built. There is a built-in recreational area for people who are coming out of laboratories in a white outfit and into a landscape that gives relief to that. There was also a significant cost. The cost of moving the soil was significant. It was over €4 million. We used approximately €500,000 for planting the trees that we put on site. The trees are a significant element in the reduction of the carbon footprint of that site.

In summary, when you are faced with an issue, you must not just consider the issue in itself but what you can make of it and what that can be in the future. From a sustainability and green-design perspective, many things must be considered at one time. As for how that can be done, I suggest that looking at the site, the building and the running of the building, as well as the reuse of the building afterwards, are all key to this. It is not simple, in that while the result can be simple, getting there takes a bit of effort and complexity. However, that is there to be won. I will finish by noting it is not for what it is but what else it can be.

Chairman

I thank Mr. O’Connor. I note that the Select Committee on Environment and Climate Action today completed its consideration of Committee Stage of the Circular Economy, Waste Management (Amendment) and Minerals Development (Amendment) Bill 2022, which feeds into much of what we are discussing. I know that Deputy Darren O’Rourke was present for that long session today. That work is ongoing in other areas also.

Finally, I call on Ms Mairéad Phelan of the National Building Control Office, to make her opening statement.

Ms Mairéad Phelan

I thank the Chair for inviting us here today. I am joined by Mr. Richard Butler, from the National Building Control and Market Surveillance Office.

I will set the scene by giving an outline of what we do. We are quite a new office. We were set up in 2019, which saw the function in Dublin City Council becoming a shared service with the National Building Control Office. Then, in 2020, we were asked to take on the lead role for the national market surveillance office. Effectively, the office is a shared service that operates as independent unit within Dublin City Council’s planning, development and property department. It is a paperless and fully remote office. It provides for standardisation in the development and delivery of building control and market surveillance in the 31 local authorities. It is fully funded by the local authorities. Mr. Richard Shakespeare, the assistant chief executive of Dublin City Council, chairs an advisory committee to manage the unit on behalf of the 31 chief executives of the local authorities.

I will give members a brief overview of the work we do in building control in Ireland. There are 31 building control and market surveillance authorities, usually known as building control authorities, and we operate under the legislative framework of the Building Control Acts 1990 to 2014, which regulate the design and construction of buildings and works in Ireland. They provide for the health, safety and welfare of people in or about buildings. That is the important part. It is about the health, safety and welfare of people who are in or about buildings, as well as access for all, conservation of fuel and energy and the promotion of good building practice.

Building control officers monitor the implementation of the construction products regulations, where they carry out market surveillance for compliance. That is under EU Regulation No. 305/2011, which prescribes the basic requirements for construction works. It states that construction works as a whole, and in their separate parts, must be fit for their intended use. That is the important part there. In construction, in particular, consideration must be given to the health and safety of persons involved throughout the life cycle of the works. Subject to normal maintenance, these basic requirements should be satisfied for a reasonable working life of a building, which is 50 to 60 years, before any major remediation should take place. Building control authorities also have functions under the EU energy performance of building regulations, SI 243 of 2012. That promotes improvement of the energy performance of buildings with the adoption of the methodology for calculating building energy ratings, BERs. Building control authorities monitor and ensure and enforce that every building, before it is opened, occupied and the building is put up for sale or rent, must have a BER certificate.

In summary, the 31 designated building control authorities monitor compliance with building control, the European energy performance and building regulations and they carry out market surveillance for construction products regulations. They have good powers of inspections. Last year, they carried out 38,000 inspections on buildings in Ireland. The year before, the figure was 17,852. We must remember that the responsibility for compliance rests with the owners of the buildings and works, as well as with the designers and the builders, not with the building control authorities. They have their functions under the Building Control Acts, the market surveillance of construction products and the building energy rating legislation. They therefore operate under quite an extensive legislative framework. I have provided the legislative framework surrounding building control and construction products in our submission to the committee.

For the purpose of this committee meeting, which is on carbon and energy in the construction industry, the fundamental requirement of building control authorities is that all buildings are designed and constructed in accordance with the appropriate requirements of the building regulations in such a manner as to avoid breaching any other requirement. No works can be carried out that would cause a new or a greater contravention in the building of any requirement. There are 12 requirements under the Building Control Acts, namely, part A on structure; part B on fire safety; part C on site preparation and resistance to moisture; part D on materials and workmanship; part E on sound; part F on ventilation; part G on hygiene; part H on drainage and wastewater disposal; part J on heat producing appliances; part K on stairways, ladders, ramps and guards; part L on conservation of fuel and energy; and part M on access and use. All of those must be complied with. All buildings, subject to normal maintenance and wear and tear, should have a lifespan of 50 to 60 years, before any major remediation works are carried out. It is all set out and must be complied with.

As energy efficiency standards, that is, the requirement to reduce the carbon emissions and heat loss from buildings, rise, we have to remember that insulation, improvement and structure cannot be separated. Consequently, to just go and retrofit these buildings without looking at parts A to M of the building regulations would be a no-no. Risk assessment must be carried out for the impact on all the other parts of the regulations when a retrofit is considered. I have included in our submission to the committee an example of what a risk assessment would look like.

Every product in building must be assessed as a whole and in its separate parts to ensure fitness for its intended use, considering in particular health, safety and welfare people. This is because people are going to be living in these. The Building Control Acts are for the health, safety and welfare of people in or about buildings. In other words, when we improve part L, which pertains to conservation of fuel and energy, we must ensure that we are not causing a new or greater contravention to the other parts of the regulations, especially to part A on structure; part B on fire safety; and part C on site preparation and resistance to moisture.

This is because in the context of the relationship between air tightness and insulation, the level of radon may increase and that must be tested after upgrading the part L requirement. The severity of exposure to wind and rain also must be considered when retrofitting. For example, Donegal is a high exposure area, as opposed to Carlow, which is a lower exposure area. Then you will be impacting on part F, pertaining to ventilation. It is important not to look at upgrading without looking at the other parts of the regulations. Parts F and L come as a set and the National Building Control Office will hold a continuous professional development, CPD, day on parts F and L on 5 May. Members are welcome to join in person or online and the Eventbrite link is in our written submission. Much insulation may be combustible. Part D, on materials and workmanship, is probably the most important requirement of the buildings requirements and is not given the importance is requires. That part states:

All works to which these Regulations apply shall be carried out with proper materials and in a workmanlike manner. [...] To ensure a proper standard of workmanship, it is essential that persons are competent, possessing sufficient training, experience and knowledge appropriate to the nature of the work he or she is required to perform and having particular regard to the size and complexity of such works.

That is a big compliance challenge for building control officers. Building control authorities in Ireland have consistently noted that Part D compliance challenges are the biggest impediment to compliance. You can have lovely modular buildings and lovely factory production control and then they arrive on site and the competent people are not there to direct them. That is a big issue. The biggest impediments to compliance with building regulations are the serious lack of trained and competent builders and tradespeople in construction and lack of CPD for trained builders.

Chairman

I thank Ms Phelan. I should have mentioned she is joined by Mr. Richard Butler. I did not welcome him at the start. Ms Marion Jammet, of the Irish Green Building Council, is also welcome.

Senator Mary Fitzpatrick

I thank our witnesses for their presentations and detailed opening statements. I will come back to Mr. Christal's presentation. The big issues in terms of housing and the housing crisis are supply and affordability. They are two real pressures but the other imperative concerns our climate action initiatives. Many people are asking about the construction technology centre and how it will help address both climate action and affordability issues. Will Mr. Christal speak to that and specifically on how it will operate, engage with the sector and deliver for people looking to have more environmentally sustainable and more affordable homes?

Mr. Mark Christal

My colleague, Mr. Kerrigan, will respond to the Senator's question.

Mr. Neil Kerrigan

I thank the Senator for the question. The technology centre is a unique piece of infrastructure. It involves industry working with the State on agreed problems. It is collaboration around agreed problems. We have worked with a number of sectors and construction is one of the sectors that has not had a technology centre. It allows industry, Government and academia to come into one space and look at a prioritised list of challenges. It is a collaborative research challenge for industry and Government, because a large number of Departments work with the sector, and this will facilitate a professional approach to understanding the challenge, getting the best projects set up and the best researchers working on them. For the first time, the construction sector will have that platform.

We use a hosting model. We do not build anything. We have eight technology centres and the construction one will be the ninth such centre. We follow a format where we put out a request to the research providers to say this is an opportunity, that the industry has defined the issues and that we want them, on behalf of the research community, to gather the best people available and bring a proposal back to Enterprise Ireland on behalf of the industry.

That is what happened this year. We put an expression of interest, EOI, out in December to inform the research community that this was coming. We spent a year working with industry and integrating the Housing for All challenges that came out last September into five challenge areas. They are noted in the statement. The research community came together and we received three proposals in February. We internationally reviewed those proposals and were able to bring a decision to the Enterprise Ireland board in April. Because of the urgency of housing, we have taken a year out of the normal procurement process. When I started on this there were three terms, namely, "Very Urgent, "Urgent" and "Short Term". Our chief executive, Leo Clancy, said if we were to do this we needed to do it fast.

We were able to fast-track a procurement process, internationally peer-review it and bring it to our board in April this year. The winner of the competition was announced last week. It is a combination of NUIG, as the host, working with University College Cork, Trinity College Dublin, University College Dublin and our colleagues on this call, the Irish Green Building Council. The collaborators will work with Galway, Enterprise Ireland and the construction sector group to define the important areas under the five topics that were mentioned and will bring together the best brains, albeit with an industry drive. That is the difference with the technology centre. It is the delivery. The problem is defined as an industrial problem, work is done by the best brains in industry and academia and the result will be delivered faster.

We hope the technology centre will be able to influence the industry and allow policymakers to see how best knowledge is taken. Our colleagues have fantastic information on activities in this space and we hope the technology centre will bring the input of Mr. Barry and the Irish Green Building Council, among others, into play on those five areas. Industry and Government will define what are the most important areas. Housing has taken up a huge input. When we sit down with NUI Galway, as the host, and its collaborators, we will look at the five areas and how to accelerate excellent collaborative, industrial-led research in those areas. Hopefully, we will have outputs in the first six months

Senator Mary Fitzpatrick

That is great. I thank Mr. Kerrigan and we look forward to those outputs, all of which are urgent.

Deputy Flaherty will take the remainder of the Fianna Fáil speaking slots at this session.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I thank the witnesses for their presentations. In yesterday's edition of The Guardian, there was a wonderful article about an apartment scheme in Barcelona called La Borda that has just won the Mies van der Rohe award for emerging architecture. I mention it because it will put the questions I have for the witnesses in context. It is a passive build powered with solar and fully timber, so it is not just a timber frame but the vast majority of materials in it are timber. Therefore, it is virtually zero carbon. The cost of living there is 35% below the market.

For those of us who have made it our business to go out and search for these kind of models over the last while, right across Europe we are seeing high-quality residential developments, including houses, duplexes and apartments, that are built to the highest possible energy efficiency standards with the lowest levels of embodied carbon, and they are significantly cheaper than what we are seeing in traditional builds here. At other committees meetings I have spoken about some projects I have seen in London local authorities where they are building timber frame and fully timber apartment developments and it is costing them about €1,000 less per square metre than a traditional build would. These are at the passive house plus standard with low, and in some cases no, embodied carbon. The reason I am mentioning all of that is that if all of this stuff is happening elsewhere, why are we not seeing more of it here? The reason we invited the organisations today is that many of us on the committee are aware of the good work they are doing. We are aware they have taken that work to a certain level but it seems to me that if we want to bring it to the next phase, whether it is some Irish architectural practice in a co-operative somewhere in Finglas, Ballymun or Clondalkin in my constituency, winning the next architectural prize, there needs to be a level of political acceleration of the advice the witnesses are here to give us. I ask the witnesses to be a little less diplomatic in their responses to the following questions on how we move this to the next level.

I refer to Enterprise Ireland. There are lots of companies already doing this technology in Ireland and when we talk to them they say they are frustrated about not being able to expand to the level of scale that is required to supply the Irish market. What needs to be done to assist these companies - in addition to the technology centre, which is vital - already producing the good quality material, to allow them to scale up and start supplying the Irish market at a level they currently cannot?

I will turn to Ms Phelan and the National Building Control Office. One of the big issues for building control is when we are using timber products there is that 10 m height restriction on residential developments. If we were to start to look at taller buildings and mid-rise, high-density apartment developments using a lot of this high-grade timber, what changes would we need to make to our building control and fire safety regulations to ensure we were not just building more environmentally sustainable buildings but that they also met the highest possible standards of fire safety and building control? We have a questionable history in some of these areas, so what would need to be done to ensure that if we are to use those technologies beyond 10 m in height it would be done in the safest possible way?

I will turn to Mr. Barry and Ms Jammet. I am taken by the call from Corinne Sawers and Eric Lonergan for supercharged incentives to get industry moving. When we spoke to the Department the other day it made a comparison with BER, which is great but it was slow and, as was said, we do not have that time. How do we supercharge industry? What kind of positive incentives can Government put into the marketplace to make sure people choose the lower carbon products over the dirtier ones? Do we need to also start thinking about timelines for phasing out high-carbon cement, concrete and other things?

I will put the difficult question to Mr. O'Connor because the State has to lead. If we are saying all this needs to be done, then every public building project should be at the cutting edge of this. How do we ensure that on State building projects, particularly public housing, because housing is the primary interest of this committee, including community centres and public libraries, the State is doing its best? The State must be leading the way and showing how high-quality, low-embodied carbon and cheaper to produce buildings can be built as we roll out the Government’s housing programme.

I will come back to some of those questions in the second round.

Chairman

We will start with Enterprise Ireland and we can come back to some of the questions if we do not have time.

Mr. Mark Christal

I will ask my colleague, Mr. O'Colmain, to comment but the Deputy picks up a really important point which is at the heart of our strategy, namely, the ability of Irish companies to scale and grow at a rate that enables them to respond to the market challenges, domestically and internationally, which is a key focus of Enterprise Ireland. It is a big cornerstone of our strategy to try to encourage companies to go on that scaling journey, including through research and development and through making them more competitive through their funding models. I will ask Mr. O'Colmain to come in. He works directly with the construction companies in Ireland on that agenda so he might be able to give some examples to answer the Deputy’s question.

Mr. Ross O'Colmain

I would answer that question in two short parts. First, to allude to what Mr. Christal said, we promote international diversification as a way of achieving scale. We are a small island economy at the end of the day and one of the lessons we learned from our previous construction boom is that those companies that had well-diversified businesses across western Europe, in particular, were the ones that survived better. Our message continues to be the same today. Whether it is a services company or a materials or product company, they should look to further markets where there is greater scale for them to produce. That will give them the assurance they need to make the necessary capital or research investment to produce those products and we support them with that.

Second, the action under Housing for All calls on us to help companies with productivity, research and innovation. That productivity aspect is about doing more with less. We are looking to support companies in this industry with lean, digital and innovation supports which will make them more productive and more able to meet the demand in the market quicker and cheaper.

Chairman

We might have time for the guests from the National Building Control Office to briefly address the question of the 10 m height restriction.

Ms Mairéad Phelan

I will make a comment first. There is no impediment to using any materials, including sustainable materials, in the requirements of the building regulations. Sometimes there is controversy or confusion over the use of the technical guidance documents. The technical guidance documents come as part of the building regulations and they demonstrate how to comply with the requirements. For example, under technical guidance document A, buildings must stand up and they must stand up for 50 years. Technical guidance documents also give guidance for a non-complex dwelling. An innovative designer should not have a problem with a ten-storey high timber frame building. I will pass over to Mr. Butler for further comment.

Mr. Richard Butler

The requirements in the technical guidance documents are for non-complex buildings. When other buildings are being built compliance can be demonstrated by meeting the requirements in parts B1 to B5 in technical guidance document B. In other words, people must be able to get out of the building safely, there must be separation of fire between buildings, access for the fire brigade, surface lining and so on. They can comply so a competent designer would be needed. They may have to use passive systems like a higher grade of fire detection and sprinklers in the building.

Chairman

We will come back to the other questions for Mr. Barry and Mr. O'Connor. Are we all reading Supercharge Me at the moment? It seems that way. I will move to Deputy Higgins.

Deputy Emer Higgins

I thank all of our expert witnesses for coming in to share their expertise and perspectives with us. Mr. O'Connor and Mr. Barry mentioned Scotland. They both came at it from different perspectives but they really shone a light on where it is really working from a timber frame perspective. I would be keen to know if there are any learnings they think we, as legislators, should be introducing, either as legislation or as best practice guidelines, to try to push that agenda in Ireland from an environmental perspective and, as Deputy Ó Broin mentioned, from an affordability perspective?

On affordability and savings, it was good to hear Mr. Barry talk about the 70% energy saving. I want to check that I interpreted it correctly that there is a 70% energy saving in new homes as a result of the BER in the past decade. While that is not surprising it is quite striking when you think of it. I ask Mr. Barry to clarify that is correct. The Celbridge project Mr. O'Connor spoke about was interesting from a savings and an environmental perspective. Avoiding landfill to reduce carbon footprint is something that is happening in my constituency. For example, there is a project in Saggart where they are trying their hardest to do that.

I am also struck by the level of deep and meaningful work that is being carried out by both the OPW and Enterprise Ireland on this issue. I am interested to hear what level of collaboration there can be between the public and private sectors on this best practice sharing. The guidelines that are being drawn up seem so far-reaching. Is that the kind of information, from a procurement and design perspective, that could be utilised by private industry?

To go a little off topic, it is great to hear, in respect of the building control reforms, about the number of site inspections being carried out. The establishment of the National Building Control Office has been a key part of the building control reform agenda that the Government has had. It is really great to see the amount of work that Ms Phelan and her team are carrying out.

Could I get the perspectives on Scotland and clarification on savings? Could I have a little information on collaboration between the public and private sectors, particularly between Enterprise Ireland and the OPW?

Mr. Ciarán O'Connor

With regard to timber, Scotland has a very similar but wetter climate than ours, yet it is using a higher quantum of timber frames. As Mr. Barry mentioned, we are at about 23% in housing while Scotland is at approximately 75%. Part of the problem we have is that we are importing timber from Scotland. For instance, Glennon Brothers in the midlands, in Longford, are importing about 400 cu. m of timber every year to keep their mill going. There is an imbalance when that has to be done. Part of the reason is that we have stalled. We did very well for some time. When Ireland became independent, it had forest cover of 1%. It now has cover of 12%. Members of all Governments played a role in that. To move from 11% or 12% to between 18% and 20%, we need to get farmers to plant. That depends on the land. The land we have had to date suits certain types of trees. Better land allows for more diversity in what is grown. Sometimes people say it is a question of either conifers or broadleafs. It is not really a question of either-or but of and - both have a role to play in forestry, including in embodying carbon and reducing the carbon footprint.

Our system is set up such that separate licences have to be got for planting, putting in the road, extracting and clear-felling. To me, that does not make sense. The Scots have just one licence. Why can we not do that? What has happened is that we have made the process too academic and overly structured. We need to simplify it. We must ask what terrible thing has happened in Scotland that would have us not take the same approach here. No such thing has happened. We can learn from that.

We could also learn from the Austrians and the French in that they do not clear-fell at the same scale as us. We do a much bigger clear-fell as a percentage of the woodland. That has to do with how trees are planted, the species planted and the mix. The Austrians and French have a zero-bare-canopy approach. That is achievable, but there must be different forestry methodologies. Coillte is interested in this. We have had meetings with Coillte.

There was a related question on levels of co-operation. We are co-operating with Coillte on the third iteration of a publication - Wood Specification - we first produced with it 12 years ago. We have a masonry culture in Ireland and must ask how we can introduce a timber culture. When I worked in Scandinavia and Canada for many years, those regions had timber cultures because that is the way they have grown up. We have grown up with a masonry culture but now need timber-based technology at an equal level. People have to treat timber with respect. If they do not, it rots and things happen to it. There has to be a knowledge base. This is why the technology element, which was spoken about earlier, is very important. Wood Specification will give people the knowledge base. We are now turning it into something that can be downloaded. The content will be much easier to interact with rather than that in a book. We will have it ready for the end of the year. These are small steps but they are important. In the process, we co-operated with many individuals, including representatives from Coillte. The Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine is part-funding the book. These are important elements.

It is easy to say we can get a pile of timber but it is a matter of what you do with it and how you put it through a process. We must ask what side industries can be had. The Finns, for example, have a furniture industry based on timber, in addition to paper, manufacturing and construction industries. We need to get that mix. Our economy is a bit too small in some regards, and we are a bit more remote. The Finns, by contrast, can go right into the rest of Europe from the south of their country. These are things we have to recognise.

Another topic to be considered is cross-laminated timber. This is what is being used for the high-rise buildings. This is achievable if you have a market of a certain size. At the moment, we do not, but we could, depending on how we treat our next number of steps with our growing population. These are all possibilities but, as with everything that is possible, we must ask what can really be made happen and those things that are a bit further away.

Mr. Pat Barry

We require a 70% reduction through the building regulations. We took 2002 as the baseline. In 2006, we introduced the DEEP methodology. In 2008, we required a 40% reduction, and in 2010 we required a 60% reduction. Finally, in 2019 we required a 70% reduction.

Mr. Mark Christal

The Deputy asked about collaboration. Regarding our experience in Enterprise Ireland, the speed at which we are trying to achieve the targets for decarbonisation is forcing collaboration across the public and private sectors in a way that probably does not obtain with any other agenda item. It is essential that this continue.

Chairman

I am going to take the next slot, the Green Party slot. We had an interesting discussion at the end of our last meeting about the planning system and where it can play a role. A figure of 14% was given in respect of embodied carbon in construction. Where somebody wishes to build, is it too easy to demolish what is in place and construct a new building? Is there work we need to do in this area to make those concerned accountable in their design for carbon that is already embodied? Should this be brought into the planning system? That question is for the Irish Green Building Council.

Mr. Pat Barry

Those about to engage in major demolition should be required to account for why they are doing so. They should be able to account for the embodied carbon of the new building. If there is an environmental or social benefit to building a new building, one should be able to account for it. Planners should require a report before a building is demolished. They should also require a pre-demolition order setting out exactly how all the materials in the existing building will be recovered to make sure no resources that could be reused go to landfill. It is a question of a combination of measures that make a developer think before proceeding with demolition. We should not be offering a carte blanche to demolish buildings without an appropriate analysis of why they should be demolished and the mitigation measures that could be taken if they are to be demolished.

Chairman

I agree that we should be doing that but we do not at the moment. It is not a requirement. It is very easy to submit a planning application without doing so. All applicants are supposed to demonstrate how transport, infrastructure and services issues will be dealt with, but we still do not seem to have included a requirement on the carbon associated with the construction method and the carbon that could be saved by retaining an existing building. There is a particular emphasis on derelict and vacant buildings at present. Where do the delegates see what I am talking about coming into the planning system? Are there any moves to introduce it into the system? Bearing in mind what Deputy Higgins asked about in respect of legislation, maybe we should be seeking, as another component of the planning application, a demonstration of the carbon cost of the construction and the running costs, in addition to the decommissioning cost of the building at a later stage. Would that be too onerous on the planning systems of our local authorities, or is there some other way?

Mr. Ciarán O'Connor

In one of the Länder, or federal states, in Germany, a three-year trial has been introduced requiring builders to state why they are knocking buildings and the carbon implications. They must also state the embodied carbon of the building and its lifespan carbon. The trial is for three years. If it works, it will be rolled out in the federal republic. If it happens in the federal republic, it always rolls its way into Brussels.

It is only a matter of time. In Ireland, we need to prepare ourselves rather than struggling to manage it when it suddenly happens. There are many things on which we have to advance on a broad front and that is one of them. We will see the result of the first year in Germany this summer. We will see how it is working for Germany and how that might translate through European directives. That is probably the way it will come to Ireland.

Chairman

Does Mr. O'Connor see an incentive to do that or to encourage people to account for and put a cost on that carbon for themselves?

Mr. Ciarán O'Connor

I think so because everything has a value. The question is which value is the most important. As there are social values and other values, it would not just be a matter of doing carbon accounting and saying you cannot touch that building. If the need for that building is, say, for another social use, it widens the discussion. It is a matter of layering the discussion but we also have to avoid it being too bureaucratic and not coming to a tick-box situation, where there are ten more tick boxes to go through than last year, because what then happens is people turn off. If the benefit is made simple and clear, then people tend to be co-operative.

Chairman

Okay. I will continue with Mr. O'Connor on the Scottish model he was discussing in respect of timber. He said there may not be a market here. Did he mean there is no market demand for timber housing or that we do not have the throughput of timber product?

Mr. Ciarán O'Connor

It is a good point to pick up on. It is the cross-laminated timber, CLT, which is the timber that allows us to build high, for instance, 11- or 12-storey buildings in London, 18 stories in Sweden and the same in Vienna. Those countries have used CLT, which is very fine bits of timber glued together. It can span up to 20 m and sometimes up to 30 m so it can give huge spans. For us, its problem is twofold: there is nobody making CLT in Ireland and we only need about three plants in Europe to cover the whole European market. The Finns have that fairly well cornered at present. That will spread, but CLT gives rise to being able to do high-rise building.

What holds that back are the fire issues, such as those in Grenfell Tower and others, and how we protect against them. Very recently, the Australians have decided they want that type of building to happen under two conditions. One is that a sprinkler system is brought into the building, which adds significant cost, or the building is clad with a fireproof material in front of that timber. In Sweden and Norway that was not required, rather, a painted finish was required to be put on to achieve that. In Ireland, however, there tends not to be enthusiasm for what people see as temporary application of a fire retardant because after about eight to ten years, it is supposed to be reapplied.

Chairman

I am just out time on that. On the fire issue, and this is probably for the National Building Control and Market Surveillance Office, as we start to remove fossil fuels as forms of heating and cooking in houses and buildings, that is likely to reduce fire risk. Does that make timber-frame material less of a fire issue?

Mr. Ciarán O'Connor

There are two issues relating to fire. One is that the building does not fall down and the other is to get people out in a very short time. Timber will always stay in place because it burns at a set rate no matter how hot the fire. Its downside is the gases it gives off. The question is whether those gases are going to get people before they can get out the door. That is where the new European standard test is testing that. The tests will scientifically show things to be one way or the other. We are not far off those tests being done.

Senator Victor Boyhan

I thank all the witnesses for coming today. I will focus on three of the submissions, given the time constraint. I understand the National Building Control and Market Surveillance Office is an independent unit within Dublin City Council funded by the 31 local authorities. Will its representatives touch very briefly on that structure, independence and how they operate there? There is an interesting point in the office's submission to the committee:

Building Control Authorities in Ireland have consistently noted that Part D compliance challenges is the biggest impediment to compliance [with] the requirements of the Building Regulations [and a] serious lack of trained/competent builders, trades people in construction, and [a] lack of CPD for trained builders.

I am concerned about that. The witnesses have identified issues but I would like to hear about solutions and the way they might address that matter. Those are the two questions to the National Building Control and Market Surveillance Office.

The OPW representatives touched on carbon capture and sustainable forestry. This is a recurring theme in the Irish Green Building Council's submission today. Its representatives talked about the need for support streamlining of new forestry licences and procedures. I am on the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine. Forestry is part of that committee's remit and we have looked at this in great detail. The OPW has come in and said more or less the same thing, which is a concern we all know about. Will the OPW witnesses talk to us about their engagement with Coillte and how that has gone? That is important.

I will turn briefly to the Irish Green Building Council. We know its role is to advocate and educate in addition to developing tools to facilitate the transition to a sustainable built environment. Its submission mentioned enabling innovation and reducing carbon emissions, etc. The issue I want to raise relates to the fact that in its submission, it identifies that new local forestry and agriculture related industries and the supply of the construction sector must be supported. More specifically, the current system for licensing of forestry planting and felling must be reformed to ensure a supply of timber. Again, it is that recurring theme of timber. Is the council referring to the all-inclusive licensing that does all the various stages? Is that part of the solution it is talking about? The council also states that construction and demolition account for 48% of all waste produced in Ireland, which is alarming. Its submission further states, "Ireland’s application of the Waste Framework Directive makes reuse of perfectly good materials difficult for all but the largest sites and contractors, so reform is urgent." Will the council elaborate on what it envisages regarding that?

These are just some points and questions. I ask the National Building Control and Market Surveillance Office to kick off in response to some of the questions I have asked.

Ms Mairéad Phelan

The Senator's first question related to the independent business unit within Dublin City Council. We are what is called a shared service. The shared services initiative was one of the Government reform programmes for local government. The County and City Management Association, CCMA, realised we had a severe difficulty in implementing building control in Ireland. The CCMA provided for one unit to do a standardised implementation of building control across the 31 local authorities, and one IT system for submission of fire safety certificate commencement notices, so that we would have one standardised system throughout the country. We in the office can then look at every single submission and commencement in the whole country, risk-assess it, look at who is doing what, look at who is building what and where, consider how they are showing compliance with the requirements of the building regulations, and look at the standard of drawings and compliance documentation that is submitted. It is paid for out of the purses of every single local authority based on size. Dublin City Council, being the largest local authority, obviously pays the most to support the office.

On part D of the building regulations and competent builders, the big problem in Ireland is we have this attitude that anybody can build and that is not so. Building is a science that people need to learn. We had the master craftsman, the master builder and the City And Guilds years ago, and a guy or girl served their time for a number of years with a small or large master builder. We now have a situation where anybody can call himself or herself a builder and anybody can submit a commencement notice. That is a major issue. The training of craftspeople apprentices is not that visible. If we look at the apprenticeships online for people, there are very few positions. As an industry, we need to provide a situation where crafts, such as plasterers, block layers, builders and carpenters, are a first-line opportunity for leaving certificate students as opposed to a fallback position.

It is a big problem for us. We spend quite a lot of our time on sites explaining to builders how to build and read the instructions on the products and asking them whether the product they are using is fit for purpose, whether they checked the rain and exposure conditions, what they are going to use it for and if it will work with the other products they are using. That is the biggest problem we face. I am not sure how to rectify it but we need a training system, competent builders and a register of proper builders.

Senator Victor Boyhan

I am conscious of the questions but I think what Ms Phelan told us today regarding builders and construction is alarming. Alarm bells must now be ringing for the committee. Ms Phelan is an expert in this area. She is at the coalface of all this. She has raised a very serious concern with us and it is certainly something we need to revisit. I thank her for her very honest assessment.

I will touch on forestry with the Irish Green Energy Council and the Office of Public Works. Where do they see the need for reform in the forestry sector?

Mr. Ciarán O'Connor

We need to plant more trees, and that can work two ways. The farming industry will say it does not want to lose land. We must get a balance where people see it is economically viable to do so. It works very well in the United States, funnily enough, where most of the forests they harvest are naturally grown. The farmer cuts down his or her woodland every 20 years to pay for whenever his or her children go to college or whatever. It is within a system but they have it very well-balanced because since 1908, the Americans knew the quantum of timber that was in their country and what they did about building with it. They have had those building blocks for many years. We could learn a lot from looking at how the Americans went about it.

We need to get more land under timber and ask what the methodologies of positives are. On the positives, when I came back from working in Canada and worked on a project for Irish timber many years ago, we found that the industry did not have the right mix, almost like the building industry. We did not have people who could dry wood or stress grade it. All of that is now in place in Ireland. What we need is the quantum to put through so that a company like Glennon Brothers does not have to bring that quantum in from Scotland to keep its factory going. If we want to do that, that is what we need. Glennon Brothers developed markets abroad in Japan, England and elsewhere. Therefore, the capacity is there now. The calibre of people operating - certainly in the top five mills - is second to none. The quantum is what we need. We need to maybe leave outside the door our view that a conifer equals a bad tree and a broadleaf equals good. There is room for both and both need to be accommodated. The land quality decides the variability of what one can plant. If one does not have decent enough land, one cannot grow oak whereas spruce and others will grow on that land. It is trying to get that balance. At the moment, there are parts of the country in which people feel too many trees are being planted, like County Leitrim. People feel there are too many trees and they do not want that. We must, therefore, get a balance. We also have to do it with the farming community, however, in order that the it can see why it should transition from what it is doing at the moment to a different area. It must be economically viable for farmers to do so, however. The Government needs to take that seriously.

Chairman

I thank Mr. O'Connor. I am sorry; we are out of time on that slot. I thank Senator Boyhan. I will go now to the Social Democrats and Deputy Cian O'Callaghan.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

I thank everyone who came in for their contributions. I echo the concerns expressed by Senator Boyhan. Those alarm bells around people who do not know what they are doing in construction, and that being a certain section, have been ringing for years and decades. We have seen billions in taxpayers' money being spent to try to rectify some of those defects as well as the huge human cost. That then creates a situation where there can be a lack of confidence in using new and more environmentally sustainable technologies where there are added risks in terms of fire safety because we have that history of not having confidence in them.

I want to ask Mr. O'Connor about cross-laminated timber, which is key to taller buildings. He said that for the foreseeable future, he does not envisage there will not be the market or demand in Ireland for enough quantity for us to be able to produce cross-laminated timber ourselves. What is his view on that? Does it have implications in terms of cost and sustainability?

Mr. Ciarán O'Connor

We need to develop it in the future. We are actually working with Coillte and the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine on doing an exemplar building. We put forward a building last week for Coillte to consider, which would be a public building. People could see the results and we would publish how we went about it. That will hopefully get approval in the next two months or so. Ireland as part of the European Union is a very small quantum of the use of that, even if we get to a much higher use than we do at the moment. Therefore, we are always going to have to import it.

For instance, the way the Finns have done it, they can produce nearly half the quantity of what Europe needs in one plant in the south of Finland. They took the view eight years ago that they were going to invest in that and now they are getting the benefit. Eight years ago, people were not sure whether that technology would translate across but now with these pioneer buildings, it has been proven that it does work. The next step is to ask whether we need to have that as part of our kit, as it were, to build for density. It brings in the argument of what level of height we build to. Even to build to reasonable heights without going too high, however, having the advantage of cross-laminated timber is possible. Research has been done on that in National University of Ireland, NUI, Galway. We know from examples Coillte had made in Austria that Irish timber would be suitable. The question is how we now partner to go forward as a country. We must also then have the right quantum of timber to do that. We cannot set something up and not be able to feed it. That is where we need the extra quantum of tree plantation to happen.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

I want to ask Ms Phelan or Mr. Butler about taller buildings and the use of timber frames. They said there needs to be a competent designer and something like a sprinkler system or other measures to address fire safety issues. Could they expand on what other measures they have looked at? As Mr. O'Connor said, sprinkler systems are quite expensive and would, therefore, create affordability issues. Have the witnesses looked at whether they would always be necessary? Has this not really arisen yet because we have not had these sorts of taller timber-framed buildings going through the planning process? That question is for Ms Phelan or Mr. Butler.

Mr. Richard Butler

I will take that question. The buildings we have here are mainly three or four-storeys maximum in timber frame. We have an Irish standard that is unique to Ireland, that is, IS 440, which deals with timber-frame dwellings and buildings other than dwellings. That is currently under review. The last edition was 2014. It is supposed to be out for public consultation this year.

Every building is assessed on its own merits when it comes to building regulations. If builders have to make a fire certificate application, they must outline how it complies with Part B. If they apply for a disability access certificate, DAC, it must comply with Part M. Then, when they submit their notice, they have to show compliance with all the building regulations A to M.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

I thank Mr. Butler for that answer. I know there are many concerns from people who have experience in fire safety around that because many defects have occurred in higher-density fire safety-----

Mr. Richard Butler

Can I come back in on that? We are performing to the European test methods now for construction. Therefore, the fire tests and all of that would have to be carried out to EN test standards, which can be very expensive at up to €40,000 per element for floors and walls and stuff like that. The UK still uses the British standard, which is the British fire performance test. That is just to clarify that.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

I thank Mr. Butler for that. I know questions have arisen in some of the jurisdictions around some of those standard tests and how credible they are.

My final question is for the Irish Green Building Council. In terms of priorities, what are the top three things Mr. Barry thinks we need to do to move all this on?

Mr. Pat Barry

The first is that we must start to measure, which we do not do. If we do not measure, we have no way of reducing. Get the public sector to be the first to start to measure then introduce a timeline to introduce regulations on embodied carbon.

This will set out what exactly is going to happen. In this way, we will develop the industry's capacity to measure. We did this quickly through the BER. We can take a similar approach to embodied carbon.

We would start removing some of the barriers around the waste directive and get more reused materials into the system so that they could be taken off site and reused.

Does Ms Jammet wish to speak about her top priority?

Ms Marion Jammet

Measuring is critical. We are working with the Green Building Council in other countries, where we can see that, as soon as you start measuring, there is innovation in the industry. We have seen this from talking to our French colleagues. If people start measuring, it starts to have an impact on innovation, construction materials and reducing emissions.

We must push for more reusing. Otherwise, it will be very difficult to reach our targets if we are to build 400,000 homes by 2030. There must be a focus on reusing the existing stock.

Deputy Cian O'Callaghan

Will the witnesses clarify what barriers around the waste directive need to be addressed?

Mr. Pat Barry

Similar to how we have applied licensing for planting, we have taken a European directive. In that case, it was the habitats directive. In this case, we have taken the European waste framework directive and applied it in a clunky manner. We are allowed to set certain types and classes of waste for which people do not have to apply for licences. Currently, though, they need to ask for approval from the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, for a waste stream on site to be used as a by-product. We need to clarify that there are certain waste materials that can be reused without having to ask for permission.

Chairman

We now move on to the next round of questioning.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I will ask a follow-up question to the reply that the witnesses gave me. Some companies are providing good-quality products. Those products might not be CLT, but they are comparable to CLT in terms of what they do. These companies need capital investment, which Enterprise Ireland can provide. They also need to be able to secure orders so that they can build factories and scale up. However, accessing the public procurement system is difficult because they are new and innovative companies with a new product that does not necessarily have a history. How do we kick-start this? Should we be making a case for using the Ireland Strategic Investment Fund, ISIF? Should we consider changing the procurement methodologies so as to score additional points to companies with lower carbon building products and so on?

I asked about buildings taller than 10 m. If we sought to move to fully timber buildings above 10 m – these would not be high-rise buildings, but mid-rise ones of six to eight storeys – what kinds of issue would we need to be considering from a fire safety point of view? Would we have to use double stairwells or mix concrete stairwells with CLT building frames? Is there a discussion around how we can ensure that such buildings are fully fire safety compliant?

I know what Mr. Barry and Ms Jammet want the Government and industry to do, but what are their proposals and ideas and what have they learned from other jurisdictions about how we can get them to do it? What positive incentives can be put into the system? When the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage appeared before us, the Chair shared my nervousness about how all of its focus was on working with the EU to agree the accounting methodology under the frameworks. However, it was less clear on how we would make the shift once all of those frameworks were in place, the products had certifications and we knew and agreed the volume of embodied carbon. Many vested interests in our building industry are wedded to the old dirty technologies. How do we move them on?

I will change my question to Mr. O'Connor because he gave some good answers to my previous one. Do we really need to import timber from Finland? It we want the lowest possible embodied carbon, we should be importing as little as possible. If there is an Irish company with comparable technology and working with the innovation centre, surely we should be encouraging it. The issue would then be one of how to scale that up and provide the construction industry security of supply over a ten-year period. Is that a conversation that is happening and to which the OPW is party? Is it something that could work?

Mr. Mark Christal

I will ask my colleague, Mr. O'Colmain, to speak about CLT. It relates to Deputy O'Callaghan's questions on innovation within Irish companies. Ms Dwyer might comment on the public procurement process and what we would like to see to maximise opportunities for our companies in that respect.

Mr. Ross O'Colmain

Under the Housing for All plan, we have been asked to provide support for research and innovation in the domestic residential sector. When we consulted the industry, one of the strong responses we received was that there was a greater opportunity for companies to adopt modern methods of construction and increase the pre-manufactured value of construction projects. One of the key areas in this respect was the progression of the timber frame sector and how it had delivered strongly to date.

We are looking for projects. We are working with companies in the timber frame and off-site sectors on finding projects that can generate more productive builds. Using and developing innovative materials and increasing the pre-manufactured value of what can be done inside the factory are attractive projects. We are already working on a project with a group of timber frame manufacturers around design specification guidelines for timber frame buildings. Those are low-rise buildings, but we are keen to work with companies that are looking to expand their use of materials and build medium-rise developments using same.

Ms Rowena Dwyer

We view green public procurement in certain sectors, in particular the construction sector, as important for driving behaviour and creating opportunities. That is a positive. We support our companies across a range of areas, but as Ireland sets its new green procurement standards, it is important that the needs of SMEs are identified by stakeholders like ourselves and that we work with companies. The Deputy spoke about scoring and opportunities for innovative companies so that, where some of the barriers in public procurement around size, history and so on are concerned, a balance is found between what innovations the companies can bring and the more standardised procurement pieces. We have a great deal of knowledge in this regard from working with companies and identifying SMEs' needs and challenges in public procurement contracts.

The UK is very far ahead in terms of its green public procurement rules. Our companies have been in a position to respond to those and realise opportunities. We have made inputs into consultations on, and the development of, those public procurement rules through our UK office. That is a key link for us in knowing what our SMEs are capable of and what the challenges are in public procurement. As green public procurement becomes a driver of change, we can pass this message through to our companies so that they are in a position to compete for contracts.

Mr. Richard Butler

I will address the question about buildings taller than 10 m. Part A of the building regulations requires disproportional collapse designs in the event of explosions in purpose group load risk residential buildings of up to four storeys. Purpose group 2(a) comprises buildings of above four storeys. These can be onerous calculations. Another issue is the competence of the designers and builders involved in these multistorey timber frame buildings.

We do not have that many people in Ireland who have designed skyscrapers and would be competent to actually undertake even a concrete one, and we are going to that high-rise. They have to be mindful of their limitations on the design and state that they are competent to do all of this work. In addition, they have to be trained and have the knowledge of the construction materials. That is in all aspects of building regulations from A to M.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I might come in in the third round.

Chairman

I have Deputy Ó Broin down for third round-----

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I will finally get the answer to one of my questions.

Chairman

-----I do not want to be rushing the answers. They are important.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

Absolutely. We will come back to it in the third round.

Chairman

There will be time. I call Deputy Flaherty, who will be followed by Deputy Duffy. After them, we will be into the third round.

Deputy Joe Flaherty

I thank all the witnesses for coming in, all of whom have been hugely informative. I have a couple of, hopefully, short questions and they can come back to me at the end with the answers.

On the zero-carbon initiative, obviously we were aspiring to it at every level in construction. This question is probably for Ms Phelan. On the deep retrofit that is being done across the local authority housing stock at the moment, is she satisfied that it is up to sufficient standard and compliant to bring us to zero carbon?

On Enterprise Ireland, I have seen first-hand the excellent work it is doing on modular building. We are very fortunate to have Framespace Solutions in Longford town. In terms of the number of players we have across the country at the minute, has the agency identified what our capacity is for modular home building at the minute? How many units can be produced? How quickly can those companies scale up? Where can we get to in respect of future build?

The Green Building Council raised a point, but it is probably something that Ms Phelan might be able to answer better. The Chair referenced this as well. On the pre-demolition audits, which are not a statutory requirement of the planning process, is there a tabulated form where we can see how many local authorities have ever requested those and how many are being requested? Is the number increasing or is it something that is not being used, except in exceptional circumstances?

Some of my colleagues on the committee who are also on the agriculture committee will have been delighted to hear Mr. O’Connor speak so passionately and eloquently about forestry. If we are to go for zero carbon, we need an awful lot more timber. It is very frustrating. While we have been in this meeting, the latest forestry report, which we get on a weekly basis, came through to us. We see that the number of afforestation licences issued in the month of April was down almost 50% on the previous year.

I suppose Mr. O’Connor is engaging at different levels. However, I ask about his engagement with the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, and specifically in regard to forestry, because it is an issue that has dominated the agriculture committee in terms of our dismay with the issuing of licences. It was great to hear Mr. O’Connor speaking about Glennon Brothers. I live not too far way and I pass by its excellent facility in Longford. I know it and so many other players in forestry and timber production are aghast at the delays in this sector at the moment. In a nub, how engaged is Mr. O’Connor with the Department, specifically on licensing? He has given us great feedback on what needs to change there. Has that been fed through to the Department? Is it a two-way process? Does he feel it is taking heed of the issues that it has with licensing? Does he see a situation where that will change?

Ms Mairéad Phelan

On the local authority retrofit scheme, they would be quite well designed within the local authority framework. I will let Mr. Butler talk a little more on that. On the pre-demolition audits, I am actually not aware and have not been involved in any of them myself, but it is something I can check out. Does Mr. Butler have anything to add on the retrofit?

Mr. Richard Butler

For the retrofitting and all that, you are changing the performance and type of the house and making it more energy-efficient and have more ventilation, for example. The way people have used the houses in the past may have to change as part of that in respect of, for example, cooking, boiling potatoes, rice, pasta and the steam, and getting that condensation out of the house and making sure the ventilation systems that have been put in are properly used for that. It is key to the performance of the building and the people’s welfare in it, as well as health and safety.

Deputy Joe Flaherty

Before we move on, perhaps the Green Building Council can give an insight into the pre-demolition audits, whether anybody collates those figures and how many have been requested.

Mr. Pat Barry

No, we do not have any information on that.

Deputy Joe Flaherty

Does anybody? Ms Phelan is probably not able to answer this. Does any agency or Department collate those figures on how many have been requested?

Ms Mairéad Phelan

I suppose the planning departments could collate it. We could check with the city and county-----

Deputy Joe Flaherty

There is no central point. The Department would have to write out to each local authority planning department and ask them how many of these have been requested.

Ms Mairéad Phelan

As far as I am aware, yes.

Mr. Mark Christal

I will ask my colleague, Mr. O’Colmain, to comment on the overall capability that exists across the sector. One thing I would point out though is, again, in the construction sector, one of the pillars they are focused on is what we call the product affordability and cost pillar, which is looking at next generation easy-assembled materials for rapid builds. That is a key area of focus for us. Does Mr. O’Colmain want to comment just on that and the capability he has experienced from working within the sector?

Mr. Ross O'Colmain

We are still only approximately six weeks fully into the implementation of our Built to Innovate initiative, so we are still gathering evidence. It is a very good question. It is apparent to us that it is highly dynamic area with massive expansions under way. The Deputy mentioned Framespace Solutions, and I attended that expansion announcement a couple of weeks ago. The three systems that we are seeing prevailing most commonly are timber-frame, light gauge steel and insulated or some sort of concrete formwork. We have figures on the timber-frame capacity. I do not want to mislead the Deputy, but I believe it is around 6,000. I can follow up with the more exact figure. On the other side, we are still getting to know many of the light gauge steel companies that would not have previously exported and would not have previously been on our agenda for that reason. To give the Deputy an idea, while he was asking his questions, I thought of how there were four companies I spoke to over two weeks that had plans to invest in capacity that would create up to 4,000 units. This is an area we are seeing companies pivoting to. Entrepreneurs get involved as well because they see the industry megatrend that is modern methods of construction and see the business opportunity of it.

Deputy Joe Flaherty

In summary, at the minute we could produce 6,000 modular units per annum and Mr. O’Colmain is seeing indications that can scale up to 10,000. Is that correct?

Mr. Ross O'Colmain

Not quite. I was referring to just timber-frame. I believe we have a number for the timber-frame capacity and it somewhere in the region of 6,000. However, there are light gauge steel and concrete systems beyond that as well. There is much interest in this area in the moment. We are looking to support companies like that that want to a new system. They might need to do research or factory lean improvements. We can help them with grant aid support to get on that road.

Chairman

Deputy Flaherty hit on a very good point about the volume of demolition that is going on. If there is any architecture or planning student seeking a thesis, they could have a look at that information that is out there. I will go now to-----

Deputy Joe Flaherty

I apologise for interrupting. If there is any time, could we come back to Mr. O'Connor and the forestry question?

Chairman

Yes. The forestry question for Mr. O'Connor was on the engagement with the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. Is that correct?

Deputy Joe Flaherty

Yes, the OPW's level of engagement with the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine specifically in the area of forestry licensing. Has Mr. O'Connor given the Department the very coherent feedback he has given us on how the process could be streamlined? Is it a one-way or two-way engagement?

Mr. Ciarán O'Connor

That is a tricky question to answer, whether it is one-way or two-way.

We have expressed our views, the Department is conscious of that and it asked Coillte to discuss it with us. Last Thursday I met Coillte to see how those elements could be looked at properly and in a wider context. It falls into different contexts. Licensing is one but the quantum of the timber is the other. Licences for licences' sake are no use unless they have a product at the end of them. That is where we need to be. It has to be made viable for farming to put aside land for forestry because it takes time for that to repay.

People's view is that they are guessing at the future and they do not know what the future is, yet if we were to elaborate what we need in Ireland, it would be clear that we have to have more timber. Every other country does. The average European country's timber makes up more than 40% of its land. We are the only country in which it is this low. It is a no-brainer but the question is of building momentum and people buying into it. Buying into it will be the biggest issue because it is not immediate. People do not see an immediate cash crop the following year. They will have to wait a bit.

With regard to what Deputy Ó Broin was asking, if one does not have the raw material, all the rest is supposition. It does not amount to anything. One has to have the raw material. The raw material is ecologically sound. Why can we not do that? We could make it an objective to achieve because it supports the reduction of carbon. When one does a comparison with reduction of carbon is when timber gains its strength. Until one has to account for one's carbon, why would one bother changing? I am being very crude.

If one brings in the system where one has to measure, which we have done in our own projects, it will be patently obvious that one has to move to a different material. One cannot use certain types of concretes. Concrete has a role to play but it is not the only role to play. Getting that balance is the key and then putting that within the context of what the nation needs. The nation needs it. The question is at what level of priority is Government told to execute it. Those are the balances. If one does not have those balances right, the forestry element will always be the second or third league, whereas it needs to move up to the first.

Deputy Joe Flaherty

Mr. O'Connor has talked himself into an appearance at the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine.

Mr. Ciarán O'Connor

I might not be let out of it.

Chairman

Mr. O'Connor can take that as an invite.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

Or a threat.

Deputy Francis Noel Duffy

I thank the witnesses for their time and briefings which are most welcome. I also thank them for their wisdom, this discourse and the energy all of them bring to the subject of embodied carbon. I have been inspired in my career by the work of Mr. Ciarán O'Connor and Mr. Pat Barry in their respective professional exemplary projects in policy agendas that are truly sustainable and evolving. I should also note Mr. Kerrigan in Enterprise Ireland and his work in the timber sector and the third level space, in particular, and how it is preparing Irish graduates for our future production of Irish roundwood. From what I understand it will double in the next 20 years. There is a lot of timber coming.

As Mr. Barry noted, 14% of embodied carbon emissions come from the construction sector and this has risen in recent times. Other EU jurisdictions are moving forward faster than the EU to put in place embodied carbon targets. However, from briefings to date that I have had from Departments and other stakeholders, we are waiting for EU protocols. We are waiting until 2025 when the EU has its position that we can work from.

This is in contrast to how we embraced energy reduction in buildings with Partel. I am aware the area is complex. However, does Mr. O'Connor believe we should be moving faster in setting targets for the sector and architects to work from and towards? If so, can he project when we might see them coming into place? I am aware Mr. O'Connor has led in this area for many decades. Therefore, I would be grateful for his opinion on how we move forward in putting in place embodied carbon targets. Does he have a timeline in his head for implementation?

Mr. Ciarán O'Connor

That is a tough question. It is quite tricky to be accurate about it but I will try. I am aware of what other countries are doing. On a personal level I think we should set the targets and start doing it sooner. It is like many things. In Ireland we are very good at talking in generalities but when we come down to the hard graft or master planning our future we can be a little hit and miss. We are very good on our feet in a crisis but planning before the crisis could sometimes be better.

In that regard for any country to hit its targets for 2030, it has to move earlier, because there is always a time lag between industry catching up and all those ducks one has to line up in a row. I favour it. I am not sure whether the system can manage to do it significantly earlier but it could probably manage it two years earlier. It should be achievable by 2023 but other people might take a different view. I know other people who would have a diametrically-opposed view to that and say that the other systems are not ready.

However, we have to start doing it. I would have no problem if the Legislature was to say that the public area is to now give that priority. Then one starts finding out what the practicalities are and what the problems are in achieving them. One will not get that by talking in the abstract. It is not until one commits and sees what does not work out as well as one would have thought. Things I thought were self evident 20 years ago in my career were not quite as self evident when they were trialled. Until one trials one does not get it.

We are watching what other countries are doing. I am very aware of what the Danes are doing and they are quite ahead. The Dutch are quite ahead of us as well. However, many other countries, especially in southern Europe, are miles behind us. There is that dichotomy between north and south Europe. The Danes, Finns and Norwegians are better examples for us. They are closer to us in size. Their economy size is better and that is easier. I know they are on the mainland of Europe which helps but we have to start. I would favour starting sooner rather than later.

Deputy Francis Noel Duffy

I have another question which is for Mr. Kerrigan. It is in respect of the establishment of an Irish cross-laminated timber, CLT, plant considering the research being undertaken by Professor Annette Harte in NUIG. My understanding is we are getting towards the supply-capacity space and that it adds value to our natural home-grown product. Will Mr. Kerrigan speak to that?

Mr. Neil Kerrigan

I will follow on from what Mr. O'Colmain said about the importance of CLT as an opportunity or a system for industry. NUIG and Professor Harte have done some fantastic work over the years. The industry, like anything else, is looking for certainty. If it is specified and can get through building control, designers and owners will trial it and then the public will see it. The full chain of custody is required to support CLT. Mr. O'Connor spoke about the scale of it. There are three plants in Finland that can supply the output for Europe. We are working very closely with Coillte and the Land Development Agency. We are trying to build platforms of collaboration to share information and experience. We do have some of the inputs. It is a question of working out the full supply chain. At the end of the day, it has to be seen that industry can profit from it and therefore it needs certainty in the marketplace.

Deputy Francis Noel Duffy

I have a question for Mr. Barry. Mr. O'Connor has already answered about when we start. I know from the architectural space that we work off standards and regulations. If it is there, we have to work to and are stuck to it.

On the basis of what Mr. O'Connor said, would Mr. Barry agree that 2023 would be a good place to start to have such measurement, which is the main element? Is that possible?

Mr. Pat Barry

It is 100%. We will have a generic database up and running. We will have all the components. We have the methodology. All we have to do is take the level of methodology, and we heard it from the horse's mouth last week at an Oireachtas committees, when Josefina Lindblom from the European Commission said we should get started and should not wait for the EU. There is no need to wait for any databases. We have one and can work with it, and when we get a better database we will just swap it out. In the first quarter of 2023 we can have the methodology all ready to go if we want to do that.

Deputy Francis Noel Duffy

Excellent. I thank Mr. Barry for that.

Chairman

I think Mr. Barry would have support for that from the members around the table. We discussed that issue which arose at the end of last week's meeting.

Senator Boyhan will take the Independent timeslot. That will bring us into the third round of questions. Then we will hear from Deputies Ó Broin and Duffy. Will Deputy Duffy take the Chair for five minutes?

Deputy Francis Noel Duffy

Yes.

Deputy Francis Noel Duffy took the Chair.

Senator Victor Boyhan

I want to revisit what Ms Phelan said about the biggest impediment to compliance, the issues about building regulations requirements and the serious lack of trained competent builders and tradespeople in the construction sector. I had run out of time on this point and I am returning to it now that I have another seven minutes. Ms Phelan might touch on more of those issues. She might share with the committee some of her experiences on foot of what she said. She touched on training, apprenticeships and on encouraging and directing more people into the sector, which I would support. It involves science and expertise. She might share some of her experiences regarding the lack of competent builders and tradespeople in the sector. What would she like us as a committee to recommend or do to address those shortcomings? Other witnesses might also like to comment on this area. I note Ms Jammet is nodding her head in agreement. Ms Phelan might respond first on where she finished up on this issue and then Ms Jammet might respond.

Ms Mairéad Phelan

The biggest issue we saw was the commencement notice with an opt-out declaration where they opted out from having a professional involved in the building control process, which means an owner has to sign a declaration to say: "I am going to build my house, I am going to make sure I know everything about the building regulations, I understand completely all the requirements and I am going to build in compliance with the requirements of the building regulations." That is an onerous declaration for somebody to sign who is not trained in construction, building or anything else. That person is quite dependent on subcontractors and people who sell the individual components of the house and may end up with a house that is lacking in compliance. Richard might elaborate more on that. He was on a site yesterday where they had no expansion joints and were missing damp-proof courses, DPCs. They had not got their very high exposure area where a designed render would be required over the block to make sure water does not get in. These are the issues we encounter on a daily basis. The fact that anybody can put a label "builder" on the side of their truck is quite depressing. People need to be trained and need to comply with Part 8M of the building regulations. The competency element was probably lacking in many of the defects picked up by the defects committee.

We find modular construction excellent. There are great forms of construction and of innovative design but when it arrives on-site we do not have trained personnel, trained fabricators, on site. We have insulated concrete formwork, timber frame and all sorts of other types of construction. It arrives on site and the guys on site have never seen it before and they stick it together. We come to the site and have to stop construction and explain to them what to do. That is an issue. All those modular buildings come with instructions and the majority of them have an agrément certificate, which states only a competent designer or competent builder should be in charge of it. They should probably be accompanied by trained fabricators. Many good producers of modular buildings will not sell their products to an ordinary builder. They will do it themselves. We are finding that to be the case. I am not sure if that answers the Senator’s question.

Deputy Steven Matthews resumed the Chair.

Senator Victor Boyhan

I thank Ms Phelan for those comments. I have one follow-on question. Is Ms Phelan suggesting the self-build declaration she referred to earlier should be scrapped? When one lodges a commencement notice one is required to submit a self-build declaration. Is Ms Phelan saying that should be reformed or scraped?

Ms Mairéad Phelan

It was a backward step.

Senator Victor Boyhan

It is a backward step and Ms Phelan would recommend that it be scrapped.

Ms Mairéad Phelan

I would. Yes.

Senator Victor Boyhan

That is very good to hear. Ms Jammet might comment also, as I know she is interested in engaging.

Ms Marion Jammet

On the skills issue, we agree with the comments on apprenticeships and the need for more of them. Also, with respect to people already working in the industry, especially when it comes to retrofitting, we need to ensure we have quality renovation. We have the grant process. In the past five years there have been increasingly more training courses for construction workers such as courses run by the education and training boards, ETBs, for nearly zero energy building, NZEB, and retrofit but not enough people are taking up this course. The main problem is people are not incentivised to go on this training course because they will be competing with someone who has not upskilled for the same job. We would like there to be a way to incentivise people to go on this training course. That could be done possibly through public procurement. Another option would be to consider something similar to the Safe Pass course but also covering sustainability. That is what we need to think about.

Senator Victor Boyhan

I thank Ms Jammet for that. I am happy to leave it at that.

Chairman

We will move on to the third round of questions. Deputy Ó Broin indicated he wanted to come back in. Does Duffy wish to come back in?

Deputy Francis Noel Duffy

No. I am good.

Chairman

Deputy Ó Broin can proceed and we have plenty of time.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I thank the witnesses for their answers to all the questions. It is helpful for us in the committee to get our heads around this. It is important we are clear that we are talking about different types of technologies. It took me a fair amount of time to understand the difference between a timber frame versus a modular versus a cross-laminated timber, CLT, and some of the variants. Once we have those measurements in place it allows us to see which are the best in terms of the lowest levels of embodied carbon. A timber frame is good but it is not good enough in terms of where we ultimately want to be. The Irish Green Building Council might respond to my original question, as the witnesses have not had a chance to do so. I am interested to hear more from Ms Mark Christal and his team on where the industry is at in the really high quality lowest possible carbon product. We already have companies in Ireland which are producing a product not unlike CLT. It is not the same, the technology is different but as far as I can see it produces the same output in terms of the low levels of embodied carbon. I would be interested to hear where that sector is at. However, first, Mr. Barry or Ms Jammet might revisit the question of the type of positive incentives that could be introduced. Let us imagine that they are in charge of the world and we have our measurements in place by 2023. That is all very well but we must have the incentives in place to ensure the industry and the public sector make that transition as quickly as possible afterwards to the lower carbon technology. What is their shopping list of the incentives they would like to see from the Government that we might recommend to it in whatever output we have from these sessions?

Mr. Pat Barry

I will not return to the barriers but even if we take the introduction of new innovative materials, one has all the costs of certification. We will have to support people who develop new products and the costs of certification and agrément certification are quite considerable. We will have to help them with those. Enterprise Ireland has been doing very good work in helping indigenous companies develop environmental product declarations. Once we have an environmental product declaration, we have the numbers for that product. Then we can say one has an environmental production declaration for this product and it has a global warming potential of so many kilos, and someone else has the same product and it has a much lower value.

The SEAI has what is called the accelerated capital allowance scheme for the most energy-efficient products. We could do something around an accelerated allowance for the most carbon-efficient products. That works at the product level, but if we are looking at systems then we must measure, for example, CLT in the overall building and not just as a product. That is where we have to do the measurement and that is where we are looking at the potential within public procurement to introduce a shadow price for the carbon onto the cost of the building. When one gets a tender, one also applies a shadow price to the tender, and it is the total cost of the shadow price plus the economic price.

We could also look at measures like VAT on products. We could consider reducing VAT from 13.5% to 9% on lower carbon products, if it is performing at 50% below a similar product in a category. There are a number of ways we can approach it, but there is no silver bullet, because it will be a combination of removing barriers and giving slight incentives to improve.

The U taxonomy will help there as well because that will require initially measurement of embodied carbon in buildings. If a company wants to call its building green or if a bank wants to issue a green bond and to give a green loan, then it has to have done the embodied carbon measurement and the next step will be to introduce carbon limits. If one is below a certain limit level, then one will get a green loan. There is a whole combination of incentives like that which could be combined.

Mr. Mark Christal

I will call on my colleagues, Mr. O'Colmain and Mr. Kerrigan, in a moment. Two points struck me as the Deputy asked the first question. We are spending a lot of time with all of our clients, including in this sector, looking at the decarbonisation agenda those companies are going to go on and how best we can support them around that, which includes new energy sources, etc. We will definitely spend more time on this area. We are having constructive engagement with companies in the construction sector on that.

In terms of high-end technology and innovation, we need to spend more time on developing funds like the disruptive technology innovation fund and seeing how we can apply them to encourage collaboration between companies in the third-level sector and across clusters to be really innovative in terms of technology are areas That is something we have contributed a lot to already but we will focus more on it. I will ask my colleagues to add to my opening remarks to see if there is any further detail in respect to Deputy Ó Broin's question.

Mr. Ross O'Colmain

The angle that we look at this from, which is one of the core pieces of Enterprise Ireland, is that we support our clients to respond to evolving market demands. Decarbonising construction, whether it is through materials or services, is a major area of growth. We have been promoting that as a business opportunity to our clients. Our UK office in particular has run a series around net zero in the UK. What that means for us is that companies will then invest in developing capabilities to meet the market demand and we are there to support them when they are doing it.

If I may, I will give one example to illustrate the point. A precast concrete panel manufacturer came to us who is exporting into the UK market. It is seeing that the demands for public and private procurement is quite exacting around the carbon content of the panels. We were happy to provide the company with the support it sought to develop an innovative panel by incorporating different fibres that would reduce the thickness of the cement panel ultimately from 150 mm to 20 mm. This would be cladding on the exterior of buildings, perhaps even timber-framed buildings. Apart from the carbon content of the cement, there were significant reductions in the transportation costs. For the company, it was about enhancing its value proposition to the market and that is a core issue that Enterprise Ireland has worked on with its clients for many years.

Mr. Neil Kerrigan

I will speak about removing barriers. There was an earlier question about collaboration. Enterprise Ireland has been and is working with the construction and digital innovation group that has been set up by the construction sector group. It is chaired by P.J. Rudden. The group is working on seven actions. Action 7 was a build digital project, which just started in February of this year, led by Robert Moore. Action 4 is the technology centre, which Enterprise Ireland was asked to lead on. As I mentioned earlier, the competition for that was run and we have made the announcement about NUIG hosting a technology centre.

The third action that the group is working on relates to modern methods of construction and what that means. After many years - members have heard various dislocations and fragmentation - while this is a challenging industry, one can say that under Project 2040 we are starting to organise and collaborate at a stakeholder level. Collaboration is not easy. In response to the question about barriers, for the first time in the sector that group has the opportunity to bring everyone to the table, the likes of the Irish Green Building Council and others, to take the information but move on it. It is not unusual to see that two of those actions are already delivered by P. J. Rudden's group and that is only about 18 months into existence. To be positive on the collaboration and integration of the industry working together, that initiative was set up under Project 2040, led by the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform.

Chairman

I thank the witnesses. I can bring Deputy Ó Broin back in again, but I will now ask some questions. At the outset, Senator Fitzpatrick asked about the cost of construction and if there are different methods of construction that would bring down the overall costs. There is more to costs than just the finance, as we are talking about carbon cost. Can we compare timber-framed construction to the traditional, conventional concrete-block construction we see most of the time? I am talking about house construction and off-site prefabrication. Is it possible to compare the three costs and to say that one is substantially cheaper to do than the other? I will direct the question to the Irish Green Building Council but I do not mind whoever responds if they have an answer to the question.

Mr. Pat Barry

It is a very hard question. Timber prices have increased in recent years, partially due to the pandemic, but there have also been issues with felling licences. I probably would not comment any further on the different types. Timber is still at a slight disadvantage for a number of interlocking reasons like that.

Chairman

Can the industry not say what the cost would be to build a standard 1,300 sq. ft. house in conventional concrete, timber frame or through off-site prefabrication? Is there no way to quantify those costs?

Mr. Ciarán O'Connor

In cost terms?

Chairman

Yes, in terms of how many euro.

Mr. Ciarán O'Connor

It varies. For instance, in Scandinavia more than 90% of houses are built with timber because that is the most economic way to build, but also it works from an insulation point of view and in other ways. What is trickier here is that we tend to just use timber for the inside of the building, but the outer finish is conventional. When we do that, we have given away half the gain, because we are adding a finish to the structure that is much higher in carbon. That is where there is a wider context in terms of trying to put it into perspective. As a nation, we need to understand that it is not just a case of saying that is for somebody else to do because I do not like houses that look like that and I want this.

We need to address that and I believe carbon considerations will help in that regard.

Chairman

I was going to come onto that question. I do not know if it just something in our psyche that we want houses built of concrete blocks. It is probably well thought-out. Do we use timber inside and concrete leaf outside for marketing reasons or is it a good construction method?

Mr. Ciarán O'Connor

In parts of the country where the climate is very severe, there may be a reason to have a different finish outside. However, in the city and so on, there is not the same problem. People have a specific view of their buildings and Irish people tend to think that solid blockwork is solid construction and that lightweight stuff is not. People have to learn a little from the problems with timber-frame construction that have arisen in the past. Some 20 or 30 years ago, timber-frame construction made up 25% of the market in England but, almost overnight, that fell to 3% because of a programme. That was because there no timber culture there. As has been said previously, those on the planning side did not have contractors who knew how to do it properly so they were just making a complete mess of it. A broad front made up of all those things is needed to tackle the different issues.

Chairman

I was just trying to compare the methods in financial terms. To move on, is there a standout leader among them with regard to embedded carbon? Is it timber-frame construction?

Mr. Ciarán O'Connor

The timber will always win out, yes.

Chairman

It will always win out. It will come out ahead of the timber panels prefabricated off-site, which is what I am thinking of rather than concrete panels.

Mr. Ciarán O'Connor

It depends on how they are made off-site. The steel one is different but if it is all timber then it would be comparable.

Chairman

Is anybody of the view that there is massive potential for off-site construction and for building these panels in factories in this country? Is this what people refer to as modular building?

Mr. Ciarán O'Connor

It is very confusing because the term "modular" covers two areas. One is what is called "volumetric". In this case, the whole thing is finished in the factory and brought to site on the back of a truck. The other is where panels are made. The panels are more flexible because they can be placed in any configuration. It is a bit like a Lego kit. A wall of a given dimension can be ordered, which is then made in the factory and delivered. There is more flexibility in that. That system is used a lot in Scandinavia. In Britain, the factory method is being pushed because a greater output can be achieved in a shorter time. That is what is driving that. The skills base for that is different from the skills base needed on-site. In Scandinavia, the people who put the modular houses together in the factories are mainly women whereas those on the sites are predominantly men.

Chairman

That leads me to the area of skills. With regard to apprenticeships, I do not know if we are but, if we are moving more towards modular or prefabricated construction - and I am not referring to the volumetric method here - different skill sets are required. Different carpentry skills are required. Are the apprenticeships moving at the required rate? Are they set in that direction at the moment? Is anybody aware of that?

Mr. Ciarán O'Connor

There is a general shortage of apprenticeships.

Chairman

I know we have a shortage of apprentices but-----

Mr. Mark Christal

The Chairman might be interested in comments from my colleagues on skills and apprenticeships with regard to the construction technology centre. It is an area they have identified. Perhaps Mr. Flynn may wish to comment.

Mr. Kevin Flynn

As the technology centre starts to mature, as capability is built around it and as it harnesses more capabilities, we will try to get it behind the mission of reaching out and engaging with industry on issues such as training, as we do with all our technology centres. There was a question earlier regarding key performance indicators and what we will be asking the centre to do. That is certainly one thing. It could train the staff of a number of companies in new modern methods of construction, addressing many of the issues discussed today. That will be a core part of the centre's mandate.

Chairman

Does Enterprise Ireland see a sort of amalgamation of skills there and workers who are technically proficient in putting together prefabricated housing on-site being developed? I refer to workers who may not necessarily be carpenters, plasterer or blocklayers but to a role that could be developed to ensure the panels are put together properly, that there are not big gaps and that the homes are draught-proof. Is that a job that needs to be created or do we just need general construction workers?

Mr. Mark Christal

There is no doubt but that we will need to develop new skills within people in the sector, as the Chairman referred to. In our advance manufacturing facilities, we have seen the need for training in new equipment, new design processes and new technology. As the sector evolves, pressures will arise. As we have seen in other sectors, the skill sets will need to evolve.

Chairman

With regard to marketing, if I drive by a newly developed housing estate in Wicklow or elsewhere, I will see them described as A2 or A-rated housing. If that marketing sign also had to state the construction method was E-rated, would it be helpful in driving the market? Are people aware of the embodied carbon or the materials going into the house, even when the house is A-rated with low running costs and highly energy-efficient? Should we look at rating the construction method? Does anybody have any thoughts on that?

Mr. Pat Barry

We need to take a more holistic approach. That is one of the reasons we developed the home performance index, which does not just look at embodied and operational carbon because we also need to look at land use, biodiversity and transport. That is why we need to get to the stage of rating every home according to its overall environmental impact, rather than on just one thing, such as energy efficiency or embodied carbon. Construction has many impacts and we need to start measuring all of them. It is a matter of weighting. Some homes are very low-carbon to run but will have a large volume of embodied carbon. They may also be using land inefficiently, which also has a carbon impact, or may be displacing biodiversity or having impacts on water. We have to measure all of these things.

Chairman

I asked a question on this earlier on and I believe the planning system is the place to address these issues, that is, in the earlier part of the development process. That is my view on the matter anyway.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

I have a general comment and then a final question on concrete. I am saying this more for the benefit of the record and the work we will do after this, but we have a particular problem in our urban centres. Building apartments, of which we need lots, is slow, expensive, dirty for the people who are working on-site, inefficient because of disruptions caused by rain and the natural environment, and involves a lot of embedded carbon. One of the reasons a number of us on the committee, including the Chair, Deputy Duffy and others, are so keen to have this conversation is that we are seeing some of the new technologies we are talking about here fix a bunch of other problems in other jurisdictions. For example, one of the great benefits of volumetric methods of construction is that much of the work is carried out in a factory, which means much better conditions for the workers. Why are we finding it so difficult to get young apprentices? It is not just that the work is insecure but that it is heavy, dirty and messy. That is what young people tell us when we ask them why they will not take up these trades. There is also less disruption from the elements and so on. For me, the ideal end point, in some senses, is combining many of the benefits of volumetric construction with some of the flexibility of the panel systems.

We should also be a little bit innovative regarding exteriors. I have seen some really wonderful mid-rise mixed-use apartment developments in London, England. It is all cross laminated timber, CLT, construction but the homes have a traditional outer leaf of brick. It is really thin, more of a brick facade, so the embodied-carbon footprint is very light. For those who want to live in a brick building, it provides that kind of aesthetic security. These are being built for €2,000 to €2,200 per square metre. The Society of Chartered Surveyors Ireland tells us that the cost of building apartments in Dublin is €3,000 or €3,500 per square metre at the minute. One of the things that is really exciting about this conversation is that not only could the green buildings of the future be produced - I take Mr. Barry's point that is not just about embodied or operational carbon but all those other issues as well but let us fight each battle as it comes to us - but labour conditions could be improved. The speed at which apartment buildings are constructed could also be improved.

How long does it take to do an apartment development now? It takes maybe two to three years from start to completion, whereas much of this can be done much more quickly. If we are able to convince people, particularly those in senior decision-making levels of government, that there are multiple benefits from going down this route, without being simplistic about it, there will be so many different wins. That is as well as the jobs in the timber industry and all of that. It would be good if, at the end of these meetings, we could make a series of recommendations to the Government to promote that because there are so many wins. We have had a series of battles in the past couple of weeks - I will not mention the turf war - over that element of the agenda. Agriculture, when we start to see the sectoral targets, will be another big battle ground, yet in this area there seem to be so many obvious tangible wins.

To return to Ms Dwyer's point, the tools for the State to positively incentivise the good stuff are pretty uncontroversial. That may not be the case for Cement Roadstone Holdings but it is for other actors. It is one area where there are lots of positives.

Since we have not talked about the bad stuff, my final question is on cement. Much of this conversation has been on how we incentivise the good stuff, measure and get the industry and public sector to use more. Huge amounts of concrete and cement are used in construction, including in houses and apartments, yet we know from industry that it is no more expensive to produce lower carbon cement and concrete. We are told the technology is available in the country. I would like to ask each of the witnesses a final question. While we are positively incentivising the good stuff, how do we get the bad stuff out of the system and how quickly can we do that? Deputy Duffy and I have discussed this. How difficult would it be to transition to 100% lower carbon cement? Could it be done and how long would it take? Is there a role for the Government to use incentives for the good stuff but also to set phase-out dates? We have set a date for phasing out gas boilers in houses. Even though we will not 100% phase out concrete completely as there will always be a role for it, particularly in fire safety, where is the conversation on that? How do we make sure that as we get the good stuff, we phase out the dirtier stuff? What is the timeline? That is a question for everyone in the audience before we finish.

Mr. Mark Christal

I will start and Mr. O’Colmain may add to my response as he works with the Irish cement companies on a day-to-day basis. The positive news is that we are seeing a willingness from these companies to really engage on the environmental and sustainability agenda. They are taking the decarbonisation targets very seriously, although there are big challenges. Mr. O'Colmain has regular and ongoing contact with the key players in the Irish sector.

Mr. Ross O'Colmain

This goes back to market demand. If there is strong market demand for products that have low carbon in them, whether it is cement or alternative materials, it will drive innovation into low carbon products. That is something that we are seeing and we are supporting our companies to evolve to meet that market demand. It is beyond me to comment on how that demand is created but companies will respond to market opportunities and we are happy to support them doing that.

Mr. Ciarán O'Connor

Over 12 years ago, we brought in green cement into OPW specifications and a dogfight went on for two years with the industry. Eventually, a peace was arrived at after the intervention of the Minister for Finance at the time. We came up with a methodology where we used a set of stepping stones. For instance, in all our specifications in the OPW, we have a minimum of 50% reduction. What should happen is that all State organisations should be obliged to do that. That should be made a rule. I know people will say that is interfering with the market or whatever but if we are serious about it, this has to happen.

We have to recognise that in winter that type of cement takes a day or two longer to go off, which can have a cost or impact on scaffolding and so on. However, once people get used to those things, they factor them in. That issue should not be used as the first line of the block, where people argue that this material cannot be used in cold weather. It can be used but it has to be propped for a day longer. They should get over that and get on with their propping. These are easy straight wins.

Another advantage that Ireland has is that we can get the GGBS substitute from France, Belgium or Holland on a boat to Ireland cheaper than it would take to get it from the north of France to Paris. It is of huge benefit to us to bring it into one of the ports and use it. We are doing that. It is an easy win and we should make use of it. We happen to be close to one of the biggest producers of that substitute that can be added, whereas other countries are not. The argument that will often be made by the industry is that it cannot be achieved worldwide. We know that maybe 20% could be substituted worldwide but Ireland happens to be in a good spot to substitute a lot more.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

In that context, why is it not the case that all public bodies involved in construction are using lower carbon cement but also that public policy determines that we get to a point where, say, 80% of all cement used in the State is low carbon? That is a figure off the top of my head. If it we are in the good location and it is already doable, as the OPW has shown it is, should we not make the case that, just like gas boilers and we are trying to do with solid fuels, we have a phase-out date for the dirty stuff.

Mr. Ciarán O'Connor

I would personally support that. In America, the people who do all the federal roads have insisted that its use must be at 75% or 80%. It could be argued that it this presents a conundrum because more roads are being built but when the roads are being built, a high percentage of low carbon cement is being used. That is in a country that would often see this sort of thing as state intervention, yet it is seen as a positive. Other countries are doing it. It is an easy win for Ireland. We should do it and be unanimous about it. The Government formal contract has certain problems but it also has a certain strength in that if something is specified, it has to be done. It is not left to the contractor to decide whether to do it. We just need to make some very simple ground rule changes that would get that benefit.

Mr. Mark Christal

We should be mindful of the market size in Ireland and the opportunity that exists but also the international market in which we want our construction companies to play and compete. Mr. O’Colmain mentioned responding to the market. Clearly, there is what we need to do in the domestic market to decarbonise and achieve our targets but we need to ensure we have a set of construction companies that are fit to compete in global markets as well.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

If, as Mr. O’Connor has said he would favour, we set a higher standard for the product that is sold into and used in the Irish market, there is nothing stopping a company located in Ireland from meeting that standard. If it then also opts to export to meet the standards in another jurisdiction, that is its business. Is that not right?

Mr. Mark Christal

Yes, that is correct.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

We can only set laws for ourselves. Does the Irish Green Building Council have thoughts on these issues?

Mr. Pat Barry

It is relatively easy to set a carbon intensity limit on concrete. To take Norwegian infrastructure, Norway requires a declared verified impact for every concrete mix received for every project. For every road, it looks for a limit value on the concrete and a verified EPD for it. That is very doable. One just have to set the limits

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

If it is very doable, is there a conversation to be had about it, beyond organisations such as the Irish Green Building Council?

Ms Marion Jammet

When we were working on the roadmap to decarbonise the built environment we had a lot of conversation around that. We asked whether, for example, introducing a limit on one-life carbon would not achieve the same thing anyway. That probably would be achieved but because cement is such a big part of our emissions, there is benefit in addressing the cement industry specifically. That is the kind of conversation we are having.

Chairman

Mr. Kerrigan has indicated, as has Deputy Flaherty who I will call after Mr. Kerrigan.

Mr. Neil Kerrigan

To return to a matter mentioned by Mr. Christal, the disruptive technology innovation fund is a Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment fund that has been up and running for three or four years. Until the establishment of the construction sector group, the construction industry was not aware of it. Under that group, initial conversations to build awareness were undertaken with the industry. A number of companies, academics and stakeholders have come together since December 2020.

In fact, there are two interesting projects still within the disruptive technologies innovation fund. The fund allows for a major challenge to be set and for a group of industrialists and academics to come together to set a project whereby the solutions can be identified. It is disruptive. Some of the areas that Deputy Ó Broin is looking at require a disruption and this is a very conservative industry. The first rule in the industry is that safe construction is provided and health and welfare are protected. The use of certain techniques and the funds that Enterprise Ireland and other agencies have can accelerate some of these changes. Until the establishment of the construction sector group, the industry was not aware of the existence of some of these funds. By having an integrated and collaborative platform, the industry can get organised and can see the benefits involved. We want the triple helix of Government, academia and industry working together.

Deputy Joe Flaherty

I will tease out matters a little further with the representatives of Enterprise Ireland. There is a considerable opportunity when it comes to off-site construction. We are traditionally held as a nation of builders, particularly in rural Ireland. Longford is a case in point. Mr. O'Colmain said he visited Framespace Solutions. Porteus and Procon are also based in Longford. There are number of leading off-site companies in the county. Procon is working on the manufacture of four or five schools on-site at the moment. Some 90% of the business of Porteus is in the UK at the moment. It is dealing with a number of very big sites.

Deputy Ó Broin mentioned apprenticeships and the need for upskilling. We are seeing in off-site construction that there is an opportunity, particularly for young people, to upskill. I have seen people who came into the industry as entry level labourers and quickly developed a whole new skill set. They can be trained up. It is an area of opportunity and I commend Enterprise Ireland on the work it has done in this area. It is a space we need to get into in places such as the midlands. Longford can become an epicentre for off-site construction.

We visited the Porteus facility recently with the Minister of State, Deputy English, and that was an informative day. The dynamic of construction has changed. Porteus makes pod bathrooms. It is working on a site in south London at the moment. Porteus has four hours to get 80 bathrooms onto site and get out again because time is money in the building trade. People say that off-site construction is going to bring down construction costs. It is not going to do that. The saving relates to time.

The point is to ask what we need to be doing, particularly at local authority level. In fairness to Longford County Council, it is making overtures in this regard. Is this something that Enterprise Ireland and, indeed, the Government needs to be doing? Do they need to tell local authorities they must engage with the off-site sector? We have a high demand for social housing. We need a large number of social houses to comply with the Housing for All plan. Do we need to start prioritising off-site construction?

Mr. Mark Christal

The Deputy touched on an important point about the regional spread and regionalisation of the sector. We are focused on the development of company capability, not just in construction companies in the main urban centres but around the country. We work closely with the local authorities in a wide range of areas, from microenterprise to our wider enterprise and economic development agenda that we share with them. We need to continue that.

Mr. O'Colmain might comment on the Deputy's point about the capability we see across our clients in terms of modular construction and responding to the global market needs.

Mr. Ross O'Colmain

I echo the Deputy's comments and the comments made by others about the opportunity for the off-site industry to create new roles. There is a lack of availability of skills, particularly in the wet trades, to support the growth of Housing for All. The off-site industry is going to help address that issue from two sides.

The Housing for All plan is strong on the promotion of modern methods of construction. It was after consultation with the industry that we took the tack we have, that is, the promotion of our initiative under the banner of Built to Innovate, which is about how we can promote modern methods of construction in communities. There is probably a strong message in the Housing for All plan and from us that this is something we are trying to get behind and support.

Deputy Flaherty referenced Longford. There is a cluster of companies there and there may be learnings from how that cluster developed. From our conversations in the region, the availability of labour appears to have been a key part of why those companies located in that area.

Deputy Francis Noel Duffy

I want to make a few notes for the record because we are putting a report together. I have done research in recent years and I have been involved with Mr. O'Connor in that regard. The Forest Statistics Ireland 2018 report from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine shows that Ireland imported approximately 250,000 cubic metres of sawn timber per year between 2010 and 2017. In 2017, we exported 875,000 cubic metres, up from 658,000 cubic metres in 2010. We are set to double that figure. We export a hell of a lot more sawn timber than we import - three times the amount, in fact.

I travelled the country and talked to people in sawmills as part of an academic project intended to upskill students and encourage them into this sector. We can continue to ship our timber to the UK. That is where it is going The British are building timber-frame houses with it. One of the companies told me that Brexit will not effect that. The British have a hunger for our timber and will continue to use it. I do not know for how much that timber is being sold to the UK but we are exporting a lot more than we are importing and it is structural grade C16 timber, which is great for us.

In the context of embodied carbon, it is not just about the new building materials. This is something I learned from Mr. Barry and the Green Building Council. The London energy transformation initiative, LETI, refers to recycled materials which are brick skin. I have worked on projects where there is an internal timber skin and the external skin is brick. Going forward, the way LETI looks at it is that 80% of our materials need to be recycled. That means the industry will be using recycled brick and lime water that can be reused. That is a heavy embodied carbon material the first time around but that will not be the case if recycled brick is used the next time around. There might be some issues with using lime water.

There are companies using timber frames and constructing them off-site. Such frames are built to a higher level of precision in a factory and there are faster site times, which reduces costs. It is a very different method of construction. We are a wet trade country that uses blocks and mortar. The timber space means that builders get onto site quicker, which reduces costs. There are fewer people on-site and the number of accidents reduces. The research shows that using timber is better for the construction industry but the problem is trying to educate all of us to know how to use it, as Mr. O'Connor could tell us.

Mr. Ciarán O'Connor

We need a timber culture. We have a masonry culture and must develop a timber culture to counter it. It is not a matter of either-or because we need both. We have an opportunity that we should grab with both hands.

Chairman

The big question is, how do we encourage it? What do we do?

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

We make the homes affordable. If they are affordable, people will buy them. I am sorry to cut across but the single biggest determinant in people choosing to purchase a home is the cost. If the home is affordable, they are more likely to buy it. I know it sounds like a facile thing to say but it is a fact. We often have these discussions in Ireland about home ownership versus renting and one hears that we are culturally predisposed to owning our own homes but we are not; that was just the best way to get a secure and affordable home. If we want to promote different building technologies, they have to be secure, affordable and in the right place. It will take people some time to get used to them but affordability is the key.

In the context of the current housing crisis, we are talking here about constructing a two-storey volumetric building in 11 weeks, and not just the structure but the electrics, plasterboard and so on. How long would it take to build that on site? It could take nine to 12 months. It is quicker and if it is done in the right way, per square metre it can also be cheaper in terms of the all-in costs. If it is more affordable, is attractive and people like living in it then people will take to it. It is a bit like cost-rental. Everybody said that Irish people would never get accustomed to the cost-rental model but if we can offer people a really good apartment at €900 per month in Dublin city, they will get used to it.

Chairman

I do not want to open up an entirely new conversation because we only have five minutes left but what is the life expectancy of the building Mr. O'Connor has just described versus the conventional block build? Are we talking about exactly like for like there?

Mr. Ciarán O'Connor

We should be, yes.

Deputy Eoin Ó Broin

If it is done correctly.

Mr. Ciarán O'Connor

As Mr. Barry said, it is important that we have data that is comparable. The methods of construction have to give it a long life and that is where we fall down a little bit in timber construction, or at least we did in the past. We did not follow the proper way of building with timber and then people wondered why there was trouble. That is what I mean when I talk about the timber culture. We have to have people who actually know what they are doing. What struck me when I worked in Scandinavia was that it was second nature to them. One did not have to say things to them on site about watching out for this or that whereas in Ireland, up to very recently, one would have to be sitting on top of people to make sure they were doing the timber construction properly. There is a higher level of supervision needed but as we develop and get the skill levels up, it will happen more automatically. We are in a gear-change period and hopefully we can transition and have both types of construction at a similar level.

Chairman

I have one last question for Mr. O'Connor. He provided a slide on carbon capture in practice, which lists different trees. Is the spruce that is referred to in the list of moderate-growing trees the Sitka spruce with which we are familiar?

Mr. Ciarán O'Connor

Yes.

Chairman

Deputy Duffy referred earlier to exported timber. Has Sitka spruce got a role in construction? Can it be used in timber frame construction?

Mr. Ciarán O'Connor

Yes.

Chairman

Is that what we use?

Mr. Ciarán O'Connor

Norwegian spruce and Sitka spruce are very alike. Norwegian spruce comes from Norway and that is what they use for their timber industry. Spruce has a very long, thin trunk which makes for a very good log to timber conversion ratio whereas with broadleaf trees like oak, the sections are shorter. That is why the forms of construction using oak are different to those using pine, for example. I would emphasise the need to use both. On the better land, we have the opportunity of growing more diverse trees but on certain other sites, the spruce is the right man for the job because he is a tough divil and he can do what is asked of him. It is important in an industry where we need to supply, so we are not taking out virgin forest. That is what I mean when I talk about sophistication. It is not that the old 1984 rule applies, with two legs good and four legs bad. Every tree in the right place has a job to do. It is not a question of either-or but of both. Then the question is how we select and what is the right selection process that supports an area environmentally. We need a level of sophistication in the way we do it but not as a box ticking exercise.

Chairman

Thank you Mr. O'Connor. I thank all of our witnesses. Today's meeting was very informative. Some members, particularly Deputies Duffy and Ó Broin, have a level of expertise in this area but I found our discussion very informative and helpful. This is the second in a series of meetings and we will be putting together a report in due course which will include some of the recommendations that we have heard today. We will send a copy of that report to the witnesses. If anything occurs to anybody afterwards, including answers to questions that they did not get around to, we would be happy to take written submissions. Thank you very much for your time.

The joint committee adjourned at 5.55 p.m. until 11 a.m. on Tuesday, 10 May 2022.