Darragh O'Brien (Dublin Fingal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I genuinely appreciate the detailed, thoughtful submissions. The committee met with the Department for pre-legislative scrutiny, as well as with the Land Development Agency and other stakeholders, at the outset. This continues. I would reiterate a point I made to the Department and the Land Development Agency that we are doing this the wrong way around. The Land Development Agency has been established for more than a year by a ten page statutory instrument which established an agency which received €17.5 million in funding in the budget but it does not have any land and has no legal powers in real terms. We discussed this with Mr. O'Connor. I understand that no land can be transferred to the LDA until the legislation is in place and establishes the agency and its powers. We are doing this the wrong way around because there is an assumption in the Department and by the Minister that this approach will have support. The more I see it, and the more we delve into the heads of the Bill and the contributions by stakeholders, the more concerns I have with this approach. I think most of us are agreed, and know I agree with Deputy Ó Broin, that we need a land management agency. We need a co-ordinating agency that can assist on this. What I do not want to see is a vehicle that effectively privatises and further outsources the development of State-owned land and abrogates responsibility for the delivery of public social and affordable housing. I do not mean to feed into any kind of speculation at the moment but we might consider the legislative and electoral cycle. How can it be that for legislation of this importance we only have heads of Bill?

We have not seen the draft Bill. I have put the officials on notice that we will not accept significant amendments on Committee or Report Stages as happened with the Residential Tenancies (Amendment) Act 2019 and other recent Bills from the Department. I cannot see how in the time remaining in this Oireachtas this legislation will pass. There are too many unanswered questions.

Veering away from the policy areas, which I understand can pose a difficulty for Mr. O'Connor, if we take Ms Hegarty's example in Skerries and Mr. O'Connor's example in Balbriggan, two areas that happen to be in my constituency and that I am familiar with, how much preparation had the LDA and the local authority done on the delivery of those sites? The LDA told the committee a few weeks ago that little, if any, work had been done in the preparation of the eight or nine sites it had for delivery of social and affordable housing. That is contrary to the information on the ground, particularly in regard to Castlelands and Skerries. Is another agency needed or will this complicate the delivery of these lands and further delay the delivery of housing there? I would like Mr. O'Connor to elaborate on the desire of the Housing Agency that land transferred to the LDA be primarily used for public purposes and long-term control be retained. I support that but if the ratio of homes to be delivered on the land is 60:30:10 and, taking Ms Hegarty's point, which I agree with, that the other 30% is at a reduced market rate affordable housing model, it is effectively 90:10. We would relinquish 90% of the lands that we own under that model. How does that sit with the Housing Agency's view that Mr. O'Connor has put before the committee?

In respect of the Lobbying Act 2015 and FOI, Professor Kitchin and Ms Hegarty have mentioned concerns about the exemptions from the Freedom of Information Act and the Lobbying Act, which I have also raised at the committee. Are there reasons the exemptions outlined in the heads of the Bill would apply? Why would the agency seek a clear exemption from FOI? Are there, in some instances, genuine commercial reasons for that? I agree with Professor Kitchin that there is no reason the public register of lands could not be published; perhaps others do not. There was a type of register on the Department's website where we could see lands that are in ownership.

I agree with the notion of affordable rent for public housing. Affordable purchase comes under the 2000 Act. I agree with the witnesses that there cannot just be a discount on market price. We keep chasing the market price. Is it their view that one does not have to dispose of the land to deliver affordable purchase as well as cost rental and affordable rent? Models in other countries deliver a true and equitable stake but it is not necessary to dispose of the land to do so. Perhaps the witnesses can elaborate on how they see that being done.

I commend the ICSH on its work. It is in an invidious position making an input to this because we had a long discussion a couple of weeks ago about the on or off-balance sheet issue. All of us who have spoken publicly on this want the issue addressed and want the AHBs to be off-balance sheet, as in other countries. It appears that the Department wants to keep them on-balance sheet. The Department of Finance has said it is neutral on that. How do the witnesses view the work they do in delivering AHB housing but affordable purchase and affordable rent going?

If the Housing Agency continues to deliver nearly 4,000 units, if it is 6,000 or 8,000 now, when is that going to start impacting on the balance sheet? Does Mr. O'Connor see a risk of restricting the delivery of homes because the Government has not grappled with this issue of working to get the AHBs off-balance sheet? I will have a few more questions for afterwards.