Pat Casey (Wicklow, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

While I will try not to, it is hard not to bring up the same issues. Everybody is focused on how we can deliver affordable housing. We might have different views on how that is achieved, but that is the ultimate aim of everyone present.

It is disappointing that 60% of State land is to be used for private housing. I have a fundamental problem with that. Is this adding another layer to the bureaucracy? At the moment local authorities and AHBs are delivering social housing. The LDA is now moving into that sphere. There is nothing to stop the local authorities and AHBs sitting down and negotiating with the agency as opposed to the Department to finish out sites.

On oversight, at the moment local authorities and AHBs need to go through the four-stage approval process in the Department. The Minister suggested that they do not have the capability to manage €6 million without going through the four-stage Department approval process. However, it could go to the LDA and there does not seem to be any oversight or processes in place. I am becoming concerned about the complexity of the situation. Who will ultimately be responsible for the delivery of housing? Is it the LDA, the local authorities or the AHBs? Where does the Department fit into this process? Who will continue to fund the agency into the future? As Ms Orla Hegarty said yesterday, the €1.25 billion will deliver 5,000 units, which is only a starting point. Do the witnesses believe there is enough oversight of the LDA?

Has the democratic process been taken out in the establishment of the LDA? What function does it have regarding its sites agreeing with local area plans and county plans? Strategic housing development can go straight to the An Bord Pleanála, which can use national regulations that supersede local area plans or county development plans. We are beginning to see that in our towns at the moment, where much higher density is being achieved where a local area plan would have used a lower density. I have an issue with the democratic process and the input that the public have into that process. They have no say in what the LDA does; they have a key say in their county development plan.

On affordability, the other phrases that keep coming through in the Bill are "commercial viability", "profit", "joint ventures" and the need for "return on investment". When we transfer State land, we talk about market value. Ms Meghen said that we should benefit from the uplift in value. If we keep going on the uplift value, I do not know how we will ever deliver affordability because all we are doing is increasing the cost of housing. Why can we not transfer State land at the cost to the taxpayer?

We could use that saving to invest in the infrastructure that is required. We need to row back a little and engage in detailed master planning for every town in this country, pooling State and private land together. Where State land cannot support 100% social and affordable housing, a percentage of it can be leveraged and the social and affordable housing can be located elsewhere in the town, with the uplift being used to provide the infrastructure. We can use the vacant site levy to penalise developers for not delivering on sites. As mentioned by Ms Hegarty, these master plans could be broken down to benefit small builders, architects and engineers. There has been insufficient emphasis in the housing debate on apprenticeships in engineering, carpentry, plumbing and so on, which are the areas in which there are significant skills shortages.