Mr. Philip Crosby:

I will try to approach the questions in the sequence in which they were asked. I apologise if I miss anything. If I do, the members might raise it again.

I do not believe there was a suggestion in my opening statement that a balance needs to be maintained. We are saying that a balance needs to be struck. In the measures being introduced by us, there is a need to ensure a balance. It is important to clarify that this is what the provision meant.

My next point probably segues into the other question we were asked on the point of controls if students do not have access to accommodation. In referring to striking a balance, I am speaking very much from the perspective of my Department and Minister, and based on our concern for the students. If measures are put in place that disincentivise supply significantly, there will be no supply. If there is no supply and if accommodation is not built in the first place, students will not have access to accommodation, whether it is affordable. From that point of view, our objectives are to maximise supply and achieve rent predictability in a balanced way.

There was a question on legal requirements in this regard. As Mr. Dunne stated, people are well aware that the Residential Tenancies Act is complex. I do not characterise the legal requirements we are referring to as obstacles per se. First, the issue is that the legislation is complex, and sections of it tend to relate to each other. We need to work through the issues together and in consultation with the Attorney General to make sure the law we bring forward is sensible. In doing what we do, we have to have regard to the law as it stands and the Constitution. This is a matter in which my colleagues in the Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government have expertise. We have to make sure that what we do will withstand legal challenge.

I missed out on the point on the RTB submission. I have to admit that I am not familiar with its content. If our understanding is open to challenge, it is open to challenge. Our understanding is that where purpose-built student accommodation is definitively under licence, it is effectively not under tenancy. If it is under tenancy, it has the full range of protections and full access to dispute resolution and so on. Mr. Dunne has touched on this. Our objective is to ensure RPZ protection, rent predictability and access to dispute-resolution mechanisms for students, and to ensure they have access to affordable accommodation in the first place.

On the question of public and private investment, the most recent update we have on the implementation of the national student accommodation strategy and the provision of purpose-built student accommodation shows there is a significant tilt towards private or commercial sector provision in the current development pipeline. Between what is complete on site and plans approved, the figure for the public side, which is effectively the higher education institutions, is of the order of 3,500 or 3,600. The figure for the preplanning work being done by the public side - again the higher education institutes - is approximately double that, amounting to approximately 7,000. As well as trying to make sure there is private and commercial investment, an effort is being made in this area. Issues that arise are the capacity of universities to put measures in place and the capacity of institutes of technology and how they might be assisted. All these issues are also associated with the policy side of what we do. It is, therefore, not just a simple matter of saying we believe there is a balance in place and that this is the only measure. As Mr. Dunne said, this is not a matter one deals with quickly. Equalising supply and demand is a more long-term objective. In the meantime, there are measures to be taken. We would not want it believed that this is the only thing being done.

If I have missed any point, I can pick up on it again. I believe I have covered all the questions.