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

Before I speak to that last list of amendments in this grouping, the Minister said something important and in his response I would like him to confirm this. He said that in no instance the LDA would be involved in the delivery of unaffordable, open market price homes. Does he mean that there will not be a single home on any LDA site that would be sold at the full open market value?

For example, in the scheme he cited, he said there would be some homes for the private market. In fact, 60% of the homes, almost 800, will be private. Fingal County Council did a market analysis of that area which it shared with its elected members. It showed the market price was between €350,000 and €450,000. This is eminently unaffordable for two- or three-bed family homes in that area. Likewise, for example, cost rental does not work if one is buying the property at full market value, which is what Glenveagh has proposed in that area. Of course, it will sell half of the apartments in the unaffordable private section at full market value.

Why would it not? It is a blocked sale. The financing of this would mean the rents on those properties would be €1,600 to €1,800. It is not cost-rental. Cost-rental removes the profit element from the development and charges rent at cost. This is essentially the worry I aim to address with amendments Nos. 80, 213 and 236. All of these say that not one single home on any of these sites should be sold at a price of €350,000 to €450,000. Will the Minister clarify whether he means that that will not happen when he says there will be no such instances? If so, why will he not accept the amendments?

I will move on to the final group of amendments in this grouping, Nos. 236 to 259, inclusive, some of which are mine and some of which were tabled by others. I will pick out a number of key ones. Obviously, these relate to rewriting the Long Title of the Bill. The Long Title is really crucial because it outlines what this Bill is going to do. I have also tabled more specific technical amendments which aim to change the relevant sections of the Bill. With specific regard to amendment No. 242, I have yet to hear the Minister make the case for the agency being a commercial semi-State body as opposed to a non-commercial semi-State body. A non-commercial semi-State body would be much more accountable to the Oireachtas and to the Minister. Its decisions and details of its financing would be fully available rather than being available in the redacted form the Land Development Agency, LDA, would be allowed to provide if it was a commercial semi-State body.

Likewise, in respect of amendment No. 247, why would the LDA be allowed to engage with a private developer to do the type of deal we saw agreed by Government parties and some Opposition parties in Donabate today? Surely, it should all be not for profit and surely it should be about ensuring the lowest possible delivery cost at the development stage so that we can have the lowest possible cost for first-time buyers and others.

With regard to amendment No. 251, one of the things I do not understand is why the Minister has retained in the Bill the Fine Gael proposition that subsidiary designated activity companies be created. This is a very controversial practice that is widespread in the commercial development sector. A company decides to set up individual designated activity companies for each individual development. It is one of the primary mechanisms by which that small but significant number of rogue builders and developers have been able to build and sell developments that are defective before walking away from any responsibility, having dissolved the designated activity company. I do not see the rationale for subsidiaries, even if the Minister favours a commercial semi-State model.

Finally, I will address one of my big concerns, on which I have tabled substantial amendments which we will discuss when we get to these sections. We have more than 31 planning authorities. They are very competent and have planners, architects and an enormous level of skill. We do not need a centralised State agency to get involved in gazumping the really good work of our local authorities. We just need Government to properly resource those local authorities. How would a State agency based in Dublin be better placed to develop a master plan for a site in Galway, Limerick or Cork than the democratically accountable planning departments of the local authorities in those areas? I would have no difficulty whatsoever with this provision if it were in the context of a an active land management agency, which is not a quango but something the State desperately needs which the Government is not providing, which also provided additional shared services to local authorities to assist them in their primary function. If the LDA, however, is given development agency status and is involved in, for example, developing a master plan for the Colbert lands in Limerick, which I suspect is intended here, this would dramatically reduce the key role of elected members of a local authority in that strategic development zone, SDZ, master planning process.

It would also allow the agency, under the provisions of the Act, to bypass the council in making decisions and to go straight to the board, which again dramatically undermines the democratic process and the involvement of elected members. That is not just my view but the view of many councillors in the Minister's own party which was expressed by members of the Association of Irish Local Government when they met us with regard to this Bill some time ago.

All of these amendments are about a different vision for this agency that would allow it to do the things that are needed. We have local authorities. It is about time that Government properly resourced and properly funded them to deliver the 20,000 public homes the Minister himself promised in the general election campaign last year.