Neasa Hourigan (Dublin Central, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

Gabhaim buíochas leis an gCathaoirleach Gníomhach. The Green Party agrees with the principle of active land management, of utilising under-used sites and identifying private lands that could be of benefit to projects for renewal of particular areas or consolidation of public lands with off-cut lands or lands of that type.

The core principle of the Land Development Agency, LDA, should be to operate to support local authorities in providing housing and managing land and be based on the following principles. Public and affordable construction of public homes on State land to be the norm so that all procurement is on an affordable basis and is done directly by the public body, either the approved housing body, AHB, or the local authority without out-sourcing to private developers. All housing constructed on State land should be sustainable, climate resilient and based on the principles of community wealth building with social clauses included. The establishment of the LDA should be used to reverse the bonfire of building regulations and design standards we have witnessed since 2015, including the failed build-to-rent typology that has trapped so many housing assistance payment, HAP, tenants in substandard living. We should see this as an opportunity to require the implementation of the Safe as Houses report, including building control reform and the third party certification of building standards. We should include in the legislation a provision that the State retains control in the long term of any and all lands procured with State funding. The Land Development Agency must never find itself in a position as a permanent or temporary landlord to any tenant.

The LDA should never be in the business of facilitating projects and removing risk in projects for private developers and private equity investors, which is not how public money or public effort should be employed. The LDA should not be entitled to sub-lease or transfer public lands other than in accordance with social housing, affordable purchase and cost-rental models that are mutually agreed. This Bill should provide for leasing from public bodies rather than land transfers, with a power to enter into development agreements with local authorities and State bodies that would be subject to minimum terms that would be scheduled in the Bill.

For this purpose, the primary housing models should be: social housing, that is, housing owned and provided by a local authority or AHBs for which the tenant pays a differential rent in accordance with the Housing Acts, on State lands and provided on the basis of cost plus a maximum of 5% developer profits; and affordable purchase housing which is defined as being provided on public lands with the benefit of a waiver of development levies and serviced site funding and is acquired by the buyer by a long-term lease with controls included for the community trust or the AHB or similar body that retains ownership of the land, financed and built on the basis of costs plus a maximum of 5% developer profits and subject to a right of first refusal to the local authority or AHB landlord of the home, with a clawback to repay the land value and State subsidy

I am outlining a very basic principle here that is absolutely vital to the operation of any body that would seek to undertake the work that is outlined in the LDA Bill and that is that there is no such thing as affordable housing and community affordable housing without first setting out a model for affordable construction and without agreeing or setting out some sort of a ceiling on developer profits. As instigated in other European countries, this Bill would become a gift to the profit margins of private landowners.

I would like to echo Deputy McAuliffe's previous sentiment in that there is much to like in this Bill and I hope that some of these issues can be addressed on Committee Stage.

As a member of the Committee of Public Accounts, I spend a good portion of my week reviewing the audited accounts of taxpayer-funded entities that have fallen short of standards of fiscal performance and-or governance. It is in that context I will say a brief word about the fact that the LDA is already fully operational under an establishment order but with very little oversight as to its proceedings, hiring policies or how it is operating right now. Even before this Bill proceeds through the Dail, the LDA can enter into contracts, acquire lands and negotiate land transfer with Departments, agencies and local authorities. The legislation we are now considering seems to allow the agency to form subsidiaries, acquire public land on the basis of first refusal and enable it to implement compulsory purchase orders.

At the moment the LDA has an interim board. I accept that this board may possibly be reformed on the passing of this Bill. Currently the board consists of 12 members, including five from the banking sector, four from Government Departments or local authorities and one academic in social policy. There are no specialists in community design, in environmental design or on the sustainable development of housing or communities. In fact, considering it is International Women’s Day on Monday it is fair to point out that there are more bankers on the board of the LDA than there are women. The LDA will have far-reaching and considerable powers. It already does and that activity concerns me. I do not look forward to the inevitable appearance of the LDA in front of the Committee of Public Accounts.

In 1963, Seán Lemass, a Fianna Fáil Taoiseach, presided in over the development of the Local Government Act which enshrined many of the housing and planning frameworks we still work with today. It has been a powerful Act in the development of housing in this country. It established our local authorities as the core body responsible for the provision of social and public housing. It is our local authority, local government and local democracy that should be providing housing for us. Under this legislation the legacy of this Government will be the dismantling, in a very real way, of that 1963 legislation. Local authorities will no longer be the foundational providers of public housing in the State. This legislation effectively locks in the failed and hugely discredited strategic housing development framework, bypassing democratic oversight and erasing local voices from planning decisions.

I urge that some of these points be considered on Committee Stage of this Bill.

See this speech in context