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

I thank all the witnesses for their presentations. I am sorry I missed the start of them but I read the opening statements in advance of the meeting. To provide some context, this is the fourth meeting we have had on this legislation. My colleague, Deputy Ó Broin, has covered a number of issues. In saying that members have concerns, I am not being obstructionist in any way.

A common trend across all the presentations is that the witnesses see potentially positive aspects of a land management or land development agency. That is what we want to see. What I do not want is for the agency to become another layer and that is a concern. I have already seen that in some areas where lands have been identified already by the Land Development Agency and significant work has already been done to bring these lands to master plans and so on. Are we waiting for the establishment of this agency to do something with these? My general concern is about all the things we should be doing.

A number of the witnesses addressed the issue of procurement. Is this effectively a mechanism to avoid doing anything or changing anything until the agency is established? I ask that because I believe the agency should not have been established in advance of us seeing the legislation, or at least the heads of the Bill, to find out what it would do.

We have mentioned the need for CPO powers, freedom of information and issues around the lobbying Act, tendering and social value clauses in the procurement process. There is a lot that is not there but the agency is established, which I think is putting the cart before the horse.

It is absolutely necessary to get the smaller players involved, in design as well as construction, as we have an overdependence on a small number of bigger players to deliver commercial and residential projects and State infrastructure projects. How can we get them involved? What makes us think this agency will be any different from any other State agency? Are there any examples in this State of unbundling contracts to allow the smaller players to get a piece of the pie? Ten years ago, there was a report of the Committee of Public Accounts on this issue in public procurement, which found we were the second worst in Europe for utilising our own resources and assisting our own economy through the State. If the Land Development Agency gets a parcel of land, how will it be unbundled? Is there a risk the agency will act like other agencies, such as the HSE, which look for the lowest costs when giving big contracts instead of looking at their social value?

There is a need for affordable housing and for affordability in the market. I agree with Ms Myler that it would be good if we did not need a scheme in the future and if affordability simply permeated through the market. Section 98 of the Planning and Development Act has the proper definition of "affordable" because it is not based on the discount and market rate and it is for local authorities to set eligibility. What does the CIF see as the best way to establish an affordable housing scheme using State lands? We discussed Holland and other European countries and spoke about selling the land but we do not need to sell all the land. This is driven with a view to providing a commercial return to the State but that is not necessarily the way we should do it and by delivering houses and good quality homes for people we will yield a long-term saving to the State. What about long-term leasing of lands and other arrangements such as are available in other countries, where the State retains ownership of the land?

Licensing arrangements are very important and Ms Meghen mentioned a smart guide to public procurement, on which the RIA, the CIF and others have done work. Have we any examples of local authorities or State bodies using licensing arrangements to get smaller players back into the market? Last year, I negotiated a provision whereby the local authorities could carry out their own tenders of up to €6 million, which would involve social housing estates of between 40 and 45 houses. It would speed things up a bit and most local authorities have the expertise to do that. It was not done this year, which was something we revisited in the budget, but it gave them a bit of freedom and the autonomy to do it. It was suggested it would be reckless to allow local authorities to spend €6 million and Deputy Casey referred to this. We are giving this agency €1.25 billion, for which the taxpayer would be on the hook because there is some risk to it. The prospect of releasing equity based on land values was raised, for such projects as the metro, but things could easily go the other way. A lot of good work was done by the DDDA but the crash showed the exposure such agencies had.

I would be grateful if Ms Myler expanded on the CPO piece. Many of the measures the witnesses mentioned are things we should be doing anyway, without waiting for the LDA to be established. There will be a series of meetings and a report will be produced on a Bill that may not even pass in advance of an election. I do not want to have to revisit all of this next year.