Pat Casey (Wicklow, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank representatives from both bodies for their presentations. We keep coming back to how we achieve affordability. Land cost has been identified as a critical part of that. While Project Ireland 2040 is concentrating on stronger urban growth with higher densities and brownfield sites, the LDA can form part of the solution. When we talk about land, even when talking about the agency, we keep referring to the market value of land. As was explained in last week's presentation, it is not necessarily market value but what the site can ultimately deliver. Dr. O'Connell mentioned that a site has a different value if it has 100% affordability. Why is all State land not considered 100% affordable? When we are dealing with State land and local authority land, why is it not just the cost of the land and not what it can deliver or its market value?

Even if some State land has no debt on it, why are we not taking advantage of that and leveraging that advantage to deliver affordability? The more we rely on the private sector, the more bottlenecks we will generate. Dr. O'Toole said the bottleneck is not at the high end but in the low- to middle-income bracket. This is because there is more profit for builders to deliver at the high end of the market. There is less profit in the middle sector. That is why the State increasingly has a critical role in controlling the solutions to the housing crisis.

My other concern is that we have lost an incredible number of small building firms and we are relying increasingly on the large construction firms. A factor we are beginning to note that has a critical impact on affordability is the profit margin the builders are now demanding in delivering projects. There is an escalation of the margin.

CPO powers are critical. There is a combination of factors, as all the delegates have said. There is no doubt but that the threat of having good CPO powers is vital. Whether they are ever used is not the point because, as long as they exist, they can be used as leverage in finding solutions. I will be interested in seeing examples as the Bill goes through the House.

How is the vacant site levy working? Is there any indication as to whether it is beginning to deliver solutions? It would be great if the Land Development Agency were in a position to buy greenfield sites that are not zoned but, regrettably, we are in a cycle of development plans that have probably zoned private land holdings for up to nine years. We are dealing with market values because the lands are privately owned. Mr. Cahill gave a couple of examples. I have seen a couple of examples across Europe. I refer to going a bit further in our development plans and planning to a much greater degree. The State would control the development by providing the infrastructure.

The other question is on our development plans. Should they now be going to the next stage, not in respect of zoning but in planning to the point of delivery?