Colm Brophy (Dublin South West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

It is a privilege to welcome the witnesses as I was president of the association before Mr. Crowe until my election to the Dáil. It is great to see the association here and making the case strongly. As the witnesses have outlined, local councillors are really at the coalface with this issue and they probably constitute one of the most informed groups. Some of the questions I wish to follow up on deal with that aspect. In that key position held by councillors as elected local representatives, knowledge in certain areas is critical and should not be overlooked.

The witness alluded to one area in which I am particularly interested so I would like him to elucidate on it. The Minister has made proposals for rebalancing Part VIII and the input from the chief executive of the local authority versus the elected members. A valid point was made in the submission that it is critical that elected members continue to be in control of a Part VIII process. They must continue to maintain a level of control over it that enables them to reflect the people who live in the community and elect local representatives. Their views should remain held, as distinct from, if we are honest, an unelected official in a local authority. I am interested in hearing some more about that area.

I was horrified to hear about the void turnaround levels of more than 30 weeks alluded to as there was much feed into this committee earlier with lower figures. To my mind, there is absolutely no point now in anybody being willing to accept 30 weeks or more to turn around a void. It is beyond comprehension how, in the midst of a crisis, we can have a position where local authorities sit on a void for more than 30 weeks without turning it around. The witness spoke about incentives to do this but should there be a penalty if people fail to deliver a turnaround in line with what is becoming a much lower national average figure?

The point about a design team is quite interesting, particularly that such a team could move on a cross-county level. Certainly within the context of the greater Dublin authorities, there is little or no logical obstacle in having a design team working for the authorities in south Dublin, Dún Laoghaire and Fingal, etc. It is a very well made and positive point in the submission. How do the witnesses envisage technical staff being incorporated into the capital cost of the project?

How would that work?

I echo the point about third-level accommodation, and I would go even further. We are now reaching a point where third-level colleges should not be able to expand their student capacity without providing an increase in accommodation to meet the increase. Every time there is such an increase, it puts an extra strain on the existing supply of housing. I thank the witnesses for a very interesting submission.