John Cummins (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome Councillors Sheahan, Hoade, Fennelly, Anglim and Colgan to the meeting. I have been listening to their contributions intently over the past hour or so. The key words in this are partnership and collaboration. They will certainly receive that from this committee. We are more than happy to engage. Several pieces of legislation have been referenced, including the electoral reform Bill, legislation to provide for the directly elected mayor for Limerick, this LDA Bill and the Affordable Housing Bill, which intertwine with one another. There will be many other issues. We are more than happy to engage with the witnesses on them.

I come from a local authority background. I served for 11 years on Waterford City and County Council. I know the issues there. I also know how seriously local authority members take their role. While the media and others may try to denigrate the role of local authority members, members of this committee understand the value local government brings. Events of the past 12 months in particular have shown the importance of being able to respond to matters on the ground locally.

I have three questions, some of which cross over with the Affordable Housing Bill and the LDA Bill, because as Deputy McAuliffe said, they are two sides of the same coin. Will the witnesses agree there should be a rolling open call for the serviced sites fund for the delivery of affordable purchased homes on local authority-owned land? That is one of the recommendations from the committee. Should local authorities be able to submit proposals as they become available at a local level rather than it just going out call by call?

How would the witnesses feel if section 66 relating to section 183 were just limited to high-population centres? How would they feel if it were only used as a last resort where local authorities were not using a parcel of land for an agreed purpose? Regarding the building of affordable homes on local authority land, what is their opinion on the 30% latitude to be given to local authorities under the general scheme for priority cases under the scheme, allowing local authorities to decide to prioritise those sections as a result of marital breakdown or families losing their home? Do they agree with that 30% latitude, with 70% being done under the general parameters, or do they feel it should be amended?