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

This is hugely significant legislation, whatever an individual's view of it may be. In some respects, it is on a par with the National Asset Management Agency Act back in 2009, though it is very different legislation and its intention is positive. We are in the process of scrutinising an agency which, if it does what Government policy wants it to do, will hold assets equal to or even greater than the National Asset Management Agency, NAMA, over its life cycle.

As I have been strongly of the view that we need an active land management agency with strong powers and a strong budget, I fully support that part of what is on the table. Having read the heads, however, I am still not convinced that combining active land management with residential development in a single agency is the right approach. This is more a criticism of Government than of the Department or the LDA. It is deeply regrettable that, yet again, the Government is bypassing local authorities, refusing to resource them as the primary deliverers of residential development on public land and choosing, instead, to set up a new agency. This is for a series of reasons which I hope to be able to come to in a couple of rounds of questions.

My big concern relates to the setting the LDA up as a commercial company. I would like the witnesses to tease out the rationale for taking that option. I presume it is because it wants to be off the Government's balance sheet. The problem is that this sets up a series of difficulties for how the entity will work. We already have been told that the bulk of the LDA's activities will not be subject to freedom of information requests, which was one of the big issues related to transparency in NAMA and its dealings with big public assets. While head 8 states that it has to have regard to Government policy, it is an independent commercial company. There will inevitably be conflicts between its commercial requirements and Government policy, as we have see in respect of section 10 of the NAMA Act and the terms of the body itself.

Head 8 also makes no reference to social or affordable housing. In the head in question, there is no statutory obligation on the LDA to deliver social and affordable housing. It may be the intention and it may be Government policy but we are setting up a commercial entity that will have a life of its own. Why is there no clear unequivocal statutory responsibility to provide social and affordable housing in line with Government policy? Why must it only have regard to Government policy, rather than being obliged to comply with it?

There are no compulsory purchase order, CPO, powers in the Bill as it stands. I am a strong fan of active land management but without CPO powers there will be a big difficulty, because the only way of getting land off other public agencies is by engaging in commercial negotiations to purchase it, putting the agency in a very weak position. CPOs cost the market price plus something extra, so they are not cheap. Why are CPO powers not in the Bill? The witnesses cannot comment on the Attorney General's advice but we know from leaks, presumably from somebody in Government, that the Attorney General is concerned that there will be a state aid rule issue. Are there state aid rule concerns? My big concern is that I am hearing we might get amendments on CPO powers on Report Stage or Committee Stage. While it was bad enough to have relatively straightforward amendments to the Residential Tenancies (Amendment) Act on Report Stage, something as constitutionally significant as CPO powers to an independent commercial company is another matter and I urge that this committee be given sufficient time to consider it, if that is the route we are going down. Does any other independent commercial entity have CPO powers? I know local authorities have them but I wonder if this is the first time an independent body would have such powers, if indeed they are to be given to the LDA.

My really big concern is the development model, which involves joint initiatives. The witnesses mentioned Shanganagh but, to some extent, that involves poaching a really good local authority project that is already well developed simply because the Government would prefer it to be developed off-balance sheet. Can they talk us through how the model works? Some of us have a lot of experience of it, while others do not. I will come back on the second round to interrogate their answers.

Mr. Coleman mentioned three sites, namely, Skerries, St. Kevin's and Devoy Barracks. Can he give us a breakdown of the tenure mix in those? What really matters in all of these, including Shanganagh, is the price. What is the target for affordable rents and for affordable purchase? In the one joint venture which we are currently looking at, namely, O'Devaney Gardens, elected members are being asked to vote on Monday on something for which they have not even been told the prices. They have only been given very complicated sets of figures, though some of us have worked out what the prices are and they are nowhere close to affordable. Can the witnesses give us some assurances of what the new agency hopes the price points for rent and affordability will be?