Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent) | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State said that a CPO will be used only when all other avenues have been exhausted and for this reason the amendments are not necessary. This may be the case but that did not happen in the Reid case and there is no reason to believe it will happen in the future either. The amendment says to multinationals that if they can afford to buy other land from a willing seller, which is viable for their use, they cannot turn to the IDA to get it cheaper by way of a CPO. This is in line with the Law Reform Commission's recommendations, the Constitution and the European Court of Human Rights. It is not asking too much. I need the amendment accepted if I am to support the Bill.

The IDA has had this power since the 1980s but the only time it used it was in the Thomas Reid case. It is important to point out that in that regard the Supreme Court adjudicated that it had acted ultra viresof the 1986 legislation and also that it was objectively biased in its quest to CPO Thomas Reid's home, the objective bias being that the chairman of the IDA at the time of the CPO was also a non-executive director of the consultancy group that targeted the site. The judge in this case found that a reasonable observer would say that he could not have been objective. Giving powers to a State agency which is not democratically accountable - An Bord Pleanála has limited oversight provisions - leaves the door open to massive potential abuses. There is no guarantee that the same will not happen again. The Minister of State said that the IDA can only exercise a CPO when all other avenues have been exhausted. The amendment seeks to copperfasten that. It is even better for Fine Gael supporters in that the farmers will benefit because the people buying the land will have to go to a willing seller and maybe pay a bit more rather than relying on the IDA.

See this speech in context