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

I will speak to the full group if that is okay. I warmly welcome all of these amendments. From the very outset I had a genuine concern about the extent to which FOI, but also other provisions of this Bill, fully applied to the subsidiary designated activity companies. As some Members will be aware, the original design of the LDA Bill under the previous Government separated its commercial and non-commercial activities. Its non-commercial activities were to be subject to FOI and the commercial activities were to be excluded. When I got the draft of this Bill, I wrote to the Information Commissioner asking in particular for his expert opinion on the extent to which the FOI legislation would apply to subsidiary DACs in the pre-amendment section 78. He confirmed in writing that because there was not a date of establishment for the subsidiary DACs, there would be a window - the Minister referred to the exact same six-month period - where they would not be covered. In the first instance, I am more than happy to withdraw my amendment No. 231 because the Minister's three amendments before that adequately deal with it much more eloquently than I would have done and his previous amendments also capture a series of other loopholes.

This is very important. While it is welcome, there is a big difference between the extent of transparency from a commercially established designated activity company, albeit one that is publicly owned, and a State agency that is non-commercial. For example, I can submit a parliamentary question or a question to a local authority manager on the full costings of live social and affordable housing projects, full costings on land transfers and full costings on the details of residential development and they are obliged under law or practice to provide those. Unfortunately, a designated activity company or a subsidiary DAC does not have the same obligation. The minutes of the LDA have been put on the website and I welcome the fact that the agency put them on the website but they are largely redacted. It is important that members fully understand this. I genuine welcome the Minister's move on this but it does not mean there will be the level of transparency in the operations of the LDA, the principal DAC or subsidiary DACs.

There will be members of this committee - some of them may be in government today, but they could be in opposition in future - who will want by right access to information about public land and public money. We will not get it. The best example is if we look at public private partnerships. All the financial details around the first and second tranche of PPP social housing is withheld from elected members on the grounds of commercial sensitivity. That would be the case with the LDA and with LDA subsidiary DAC activities. Elected members in local authorities and Members of this House will at times be asked whether to support large residential developments without having any visibility of public finance.

This is good news but it is not the same level of transparency or accountability that we would have from a non-commercial state agency. It is important that members understand that. That is the consequence of a commercial DAC and it is one major limitation in the way in which this project is being structured. Anyway, I fully support the Minister's amendments and I am happy to withdraw amendment No. 231.