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

To be helpful and move things on, I will also speak to my other amendments, which are part of the group of amendments Nos. 75 to 85, because they are consequent to the discussion.

Deputy McAuliffe and the Minister asked a very important question, which is why would one prevent the LDA from being a residential developer and there are a number of very good reasons. First, because the LDA, as designed by Fine Gael, was to become a residential developer, it could not have significant active land management powers. Earlier the Minister said that the Bill has compulsory purchase order, CPO, powers. It does but they were always going to be in this Bill.

We were told by the former Minister, former Deputy Eoghan Murphy, it was his intention to put them in. Those compulsory purchase order powers are only for small ransom strips to unlock development on public land and therefore one of the crucial functions of an active land management agency is to have strong CPO powers to ensure reluctant participants in better use of public land can be forced to the table.

The reason the Land Development Agency, as currently constituted, cannot do active land management in a serious way is that it would breach state aid rules and it would end up in the European Court of Justice challenged, as the National Asset Management Agency was, by other developers. That crucial function that every body tasked by the Government to look at this question has been calling for over decades cannot happen as a result.

Deputy McAuliffe seems to think an active land management agency would just be some kind of quango or intermediary. The National Economic Social Council, a function of the Department of the Taoiseach, has repeatedly called for and produced detailed documents arguing why an active land management agency would be central to tackling the unfortunately too cyclical nature of our housing market. Likewise, other agencies have indicated that having an active land management agency, which would be powerful and well-resourced, to deal with land issues is crucial in moderating private prices as well as public sector development.

The other problem with having the Land Development Agency is that it splits the cost rental from social properties. Dublin councillors have not agreed to transfer the St. Teresa's Gardens site to the Land Development Agency, LDA, but it is on the LDA website as one of the potential development sites. St. Teresa's Gardens looks like a really good project, at 30% social and 70% affordable rental. The local authority did a good deal with Hines, an adjoining developer, to swap some land in exchange for community facilities, and I commend it on that.

Dublin City Council is discussing bringing in the LDA to deliver that site because it would be faster as the LDA does not have to adhere to the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage's four-stage approval, tendering and procurement process and the public spending code to the same extent. The consequence of bringing in the LDA means there is a split between the social rentals, brought back as turnkey projects by the local authority, which will manage them, and the cost rental projects that will be managed by the LDA. At a certain point, those LDA cost rental units will generate a revenue surplus, and in all other countries with a cost rental model, that revenue surplus goes back to the overall housing provider to help manage and maintain the stock into the future. Separating cost rental and social rental makes no sense.

This would also increase the cost of development. The LDA will bring a certain private sector ethos and, in some cases, private sector or equity finance alongside its capitalisation. That will make units more expensive and push up rents and house prices. It is why the agency cannot tell us what is the sale price of the affordable purchase homes in Shanganagh Castle in Dún Laoghaire.

To correct the Minister's comment, there shall be no homes complete and ready next year at the Shanganagh Castle site. Representatives of the LDA came in front of this committee and told us the first phase will be delivered in 2023 and it will be approximately a third of the scheme at 200 to 300 units. There shall be further phases in 2024 and 2025. The output for the LDA is looking exceptionally poor and that is the problem with it.

There is nothing wrong with Deputy Boyd Barrett being pragmatic and many of us will be pragmatic as we go through this. We will table amendments to shape the legislation the way we would like it to be in an ideal format but we will also table other amendments - sometimes called defensive amendments - to at least improve what we think is a bad scheme. When we get to the next group, we will see quite a number of those from me.

I do not want the LDA to be involved in residential development. It is time we funded our local authorities, approved housing bodies and community housing trusts to do that. If there is to be an LDA, I make no apology for tabling amendments to try to ensure it acts in ways it otherwise would not if left to the devices of the current Government.