There are a number of issues that we should discuss in this House in the immediate future, one of which is the home retrofitting plan. There are a number of aspects of that plan that need to be teased out. It is all very well to announce that €X billion is available for this plan and that X number of houses are due to be retrofitted, but I am concerned to ensure that the resources involved in this particular area of construction are not diverted away from home building. I would like to see a clear evaluation done on how this new programme, if it is unleashed, is going to affect building costs, labour shortages and skills shortages right across the construction industry. Perhaps we should not be subsidising the retrofitting area massively at a time when we are trying to attract building firms and building contractors to deal with the housing crisis. There is a very substantial question as to whether we should attempt to do both at the one time, especially since subsidies combined with shortages will inevitably lead to price rises.

I would also like the Acting Leader to make time available for a discussion as to precisely how the programme of retrofitting is to be carried out. A sum of €50,000 is a lot to spend on one single home and an awful lot of work is involved in the spending of such a sum, or at least one would hope so. If that is the case, the question as to who is likely to take up the Government's offer and whether they will get an economic return on their expenditure of €25,000, which would justify most people making an investment of that sort, has to be thought through carefully.

What I am really saying is that it is all very well to go public and say that this is a dazzling new programme, but there are consequences. There are consequences for the construction industry. There are consequences for shortages of labour and for skilled craftsmen and the like. There are consequence for prices of materials. There are consequences for home-building prices. There is potentially a significant diversion of resources from home-building construction, which, as I understand it, is the Government’s key priority politically, economically and socially at this stage. We should reflect on how it measures in with the whole question of retrofitting homes. We should have a debate in this House on that subject.

I welcome Senator McDowell’s interest in this green, innovative initiative. I agree with him, as did former Senator and President of Ireland, Mary Robinson, at the launch of the 100th anniversary celebration of the Seanad. We should have much more discussion. If the initiatives are good, which I believe they are, they should be able to withstand scrutiny. We should not be afraid of scrutiny because it will instil more confidence in them. Maybe we can improve them here by playing an advisory role to the Government, as well as scrutinising and reviewing legislation. Perhaps we should have one day every week to discuss this whole new era. It is akin to the Industrial Revolution. It is now a green revolution. It has to be done in a fair and proportionate way which makes sense, is accessible to everyone and is most effective.

In recent weeks, there has been much commentary denouncing people who use the courts for issues of planning. This is not for personal financial gain through seeking damages. One aspect of that debate that has not been given the attention it deserves is the fact that the vast majority of such planning applications take the form of a judicial review in the High Court. The first step in a judicial review is to seek leave. It is a member of the Judiciary who decides whether to grant leave. If the application is vexatious, lacks any merit or is frivolous, the High Court judge will in the first instance eliminate any frivolity or any vexatious, groundless application. I hope people understand that there is already a safeguard there. While it is not the highest threshold, there is a system in place in the High Court. The other party might not even be present. The High Court judge might decide to bring in the other party even at a leave stage in order to hear both sides. Absent from the debate to date has been any reference to the fact that a safeguard is already there to serve justice and, at the same time, to ensure people have access to justice. I would not like to deny that to any citizen of Ireland.