Bríd Smith condemns decades of mouldy flats, demands retrofit funding

Thanks, Chair. Thank you, because I did ask for it to be taken in early so I could leave early, so thanks for that. And thanks to the witnesses for coming along. I'm in my office, by the way, just sticking by the rules. Just the first thing that jumps out at me is the, you know, the fact that it is a no-brainer that energy efficient homes are very important and they're also healthy homes. They're climate friendly as well as been more cost effective. But yet we have an extraordinary situation where in this city and others, local authorities seem to think it's okay to leave people, particularly in flat complexes, in really disgraceful damp mouldy conditions with single glazed windows, not just for two or three years or five years, but for decades upon decades. And this is an issue that I've been raising consistently in the Oireachtas and will continue to do so because it's quite disgraceful to see that this is happening. And what strikes me is, given that there is climate funding and an emphasis on climate measures around the built environment, is it not possible to use this opportunity now at this particular time to ensure that local authorities do take immediate steps to improve these homes for health reasons as well as climate reasons? And is there any way that more funding could be found to reduce the energy needs and make these healthier and safer homes to live in? That's my first question and a few short questions after that. I suppose you're absolutely correct. Ventilation, reducing risk to people's health from mould is key. Energy efficiency works too inherently. If you make the dwelling warmer, you reduce the risk of mould growth. One of the key things though in building regulations and also the SR54, the NSAI SR54 standard, which this department with the Department of Environment, Climate and Communications and SEAI developed, is the need for adequate ventilation in dwellings when they're being retrofished. So there's very clear guidance in the standard for retrofishing that ventilation should be provided, should be assessed and provided as part of the retrofish. It's an essential part of retrofish. It's also provided for in the retrofish of local authority housing. So it's a key element of schemes and then in the standards for private rented properties, there's also provisions for adequate ventilation in dwellings and to make sure that there's adequate ventilation in dwellings. And maybe just to add to that, then the department and the advisors in the building standards section and the communications department in the department of housing developed a guidance document for the layperson on ventilation in dwellings and appropriate ventilation in dwellings, which you know is available on our website. We've circulated widely and we made a video with University of Galway as well, which is available on our website about the importance of ventilation. So it's provided for in standards for retrofish. It's provided in the standards for local authority retrofish. It's funded in local authority retrofish. We've had a communications document and video on it. It's absolutely key and we would see it as being a key part of the energy efficiency retrofit programs that are in place. SEAI would also refer to the NSAI SR54 standard, which also requires ventilation in dwellings when they're being retrofitted. Thanks very much. It's good to know there's a video on the document, but I'm actually talking about hundreds if not thousands of families living in atrocious conditions for decades. And if you say the funding is available, then the will isn't there, either the political will or the active will, because nothing has been done about them. And I will be back onto the department about this in the future, but just to highlight it, because I do think it's quite disgraceful. And as Deputy Whitmore was drilling down into the targets and the figures there for the last few years, this is something I was thinking about myself. We're really off target in terms of reaching what needs to be done. And if you look at the Doyle Committee report on the built environment, and I'm quoting, it is estimated that resulting from proposals envisage in the National Development Planning Housing for All could push emissions from the built environment to three times the national target by 2030, with embodied carbon expected to increase by a factor of five in the same timeframe, accounting for 40% of residential emissions. So I'm sure you're not going to say that that committee is wrong. But what my point here would be, if we rely on private industry to carry out the targets and the plans in the National Development Plan Housing for All, if we just rely on private industry, which has to make a massive profit, then we are going to both miss our targets and do it in a poor way, which will maximise their profits but will actually increase emissions as well. So I would argue that we need to emphasise that buildings should be carried out for the purpose of climate targets, for not-for-profit purposes. They can't be a way of making a load of money for any industry, and I think that that's something that we have to take into account. And just to comment as well, they do say the most climate-friendly building is the one that's already built. And we know we have something like 160,000 empty homes in the state. Is there any plans from the department to take the already built environment that exists and is empty and is derelict, and to fix that up? It will be expensive, we know, but it will be not expensive on the environment. It will be actually a very, very good positive way of approaching these arguments. Yeah, and after that, I have one very short question after that. Thanks. Yeah, so just to say maybe I think with regards to reuse of existing homes, we do have the vacant home strategy. There is 150 million urban regeneration development fund for vacancy-related projects, guidance on compulsory purchase orders by local authorities, rollout of data collection projects across all local authorities and development of the full-time role of the vacant homes officer across local authorities. And we also have the Creek-Corneha fund, which also was discussed earlier, and the Planning and Development Act requirements to reuse homes and encourage the reuse of buildings and compact growth. I think that's all I can say really about the reuse of homes there. Okay, very finally, just to return to the targets. We've fallen well short of them over the last few years, and they would be roughly around 5,500 per year from now to 2030 if you're to reach them. But what I want to ask you directly is, do you honestly see us being able to do that? And are you telling us today, without telling us, that most of these targets will be back-ended to a period after 2025 to 2030? Because the targets we have set ourselves for the next year or so will fall way short of what's required, and they already have. Yeah, I think on nearly zero energy buildings, that's a front loaded target. We have achieved that pretty much already. On the retrofit of social housing, that's ongoing at the moment. As we pointed out, a significant number of local authority homes have already undergone shallow retrofit, and the remaining need to undergo a B2 retrofit. That is at about 2,400 units at the moment, and that will need to be ramped up as we go forward. But not in multiples, ramped up by a certain percentage of what we're already doing. Targets in other areas, I think, would need to be addressed by other departments. The embodied carbon targets, that's something that we're working in line with EU legislation, and we will be introducing the legislation in line with EU legislation, which for buildings greater than 2,000 metres squared is 1 January 2027. So that would be very, if it's not for place to allow the