Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I have a couple of supplementary questions. Ms Neary mentioned three pieces of information: the building inspector's rapid build presentation; the SI 9 review from some years ago; and the survey building control activity. If some or all of that information - or a summary of it - was available to the committee, that would be really helpful.

I will return to the issue of the percentage of inspections. Notwithstanding the fact that there are now obviously staffing increases, given the scale of increased construction activity that we all want to see in the private and social sector, I imagine it would be difficult to see the staffing increases at local authorities keeping pace with the level of increased construction and restoration of vacant units. Is there a plan for or has the Department been discussing how to keep building control in line with the increased output that is desired?

Ms Neary spoke very briefly about the Dutch system and how the Dutch came here and looked at our model. She said that their system is unworkable. I would be interested to hear about countries in which there is 100% independent State inspector certification with which the Department has had engagement and the identified problems with that system. If there is anything pertinent from that engagement that the witness could share, I think it would be of interest to the committee.

I have a worry about local authorities inspecting and certifying their own properties. Again, this is not to cast aspersions on the quality of any local authority staff. We do have developments such as Balgaddy, however, so we have to keep that in mind. Who is the watchdog for the local authority social housing building control? If the building control officers are the watchdogs, as the witness described, for the private sector, who fulfils that role when the local authorities are constructing buildings and, at the same time, inspecting and certifying them?

The final issue may involve a question the witnesses cannot answer. We already have local authorities employing assigned certifiers for social housing projects. There would be nothing to prevent the local authorities doing that for private developments. Clearly, if the private developer was still footing the bill, it would be cost-neutral. The value of doing it that way would be that is would not be too disruptive to the current system, but it would tackle the difficulty that Deputy Casey raised, which I share. Again, this is not in any way to cast aspersions on people's professional integrity, but when I am employing somebody to do something, I have a particular relationship with that person. When an independent third party appoints the person, that changes the relationship. It is just a matter of fact. Has or could the Department look at the idea of removing that last bit of self-certification, albeit a more robust system under SI 9 than was there before it, and could the assigned assessor not be appointed by the local authority and the costs still rest with the developer, albeit paid to the local authority?