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

I support this group of amendments. A grouping list has not been circulated. Not that it is essential but if there is one that could be made available to members, it would be of great help.

One of the perplexing things about the Land Development Agency is why, under its Fine Gael proposition and now under the proposal in front of us from Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and the Green Party, it is proposed in the way that it is. There is no doubt we need public agencies to build increasing numbers of social and affordable homes. Nobody in the House disagrees with any of this. The difficulty, of course, is we already have many of these agencies. There are more than 30 local authorities, many of which, for decades, had a sterling track record in delivering large volumes of very good quality homes. The difficulty is that since the 1990s under Fianna Fáil-led Governments, then under Fine Gael and Labour Party Governments, then under Fine Gael and Green Party Governments and now under a Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and Green Party Government, those local authorities have been asset-stripped. They have been stripped of staff and money and, crucially, of the authority to deliver the homes working people need. In fact, when Fine Gael was last considering how to fix the housing crisis, rather than proposing a land development agency, which is a State agency that would take up to five years to build any homes, what it should have done was resourced with finance and staff our local authorities to build the tens of thousands of social and affordable homes for working families. Fine Gael's original proposition was a very bad one. It wanted to have large volumes of new homes but it did not want to pay for them. It had the idea of leveraging, as Deputy Duffy said, up to 60% of the homes delivered on public land to the private sector to ensure 10% social and 30% affordable housing. Of course, this produced a huge backlash and, in fairness to the current Minister, he was very critical, as were those of us in opposition, of that particular usage because at a time when public land is so scarce and the need for social and affordable housing is so great there should of course be 100% affordable housing on public land.

The current version of the Bill has moved some way and I want to acknowledge a number of changes the Minister has made to the original draft of the Bill and during the course of the Bill's passage through the House that have improved it somewhat. However, it still contains the fatal flaw that, notwithstanding the fact the Minister has introduced an amendment that allows him to set up to 80% of a development as social and affordable housing - and I presume the remaining 20% would be covered by Part V - it does not guarantee it. It is not the case, contrary to what Deputy Duffy said, that the Bill guarantees all homes on public land in Dublin and Cork would be affordable. That would be at the discretion of the Minister. Yes, it is better that the Minister can designate up to 100% than up to 50%. However, if he chooses not to do so and decides, for example, that it will not be 100% on the Central Mental Hospital site in Dundrum, there is nothing anybody in the House can do about it. Likewise, for example, because the power of local authorities and elected members to determine what happens on their land is being taken away by the Bill, if the Minister decides, for example, in direct opposition to the democratic will of a majority of councillors on Dublin City Council, to transfer the Oscar Traynor Road site to the LDA, there is no guarantee we will not revert to the Glenveagh deal that would have seen 50% of the homes sold at unaffordable open market prices of more than €400,000.

My fundamental objection to the Bill, and the reason I support this list of amendments, is not that I do not want public homes built on public land. I do. However, I believe the best agency to do this is our local authorities, led by local authority councillors supported by approved housing bodies and community housing trusts.

I will directly respond to Deputy Michael Healy-Rae, because I absolutely agree with one of his central points. Every home built in the State today is built by a private build contractor, whether it is a social home, an affordable home or a private home. Certainly on my side of the House there is nobody objecting to this. In fact, the only way we will get large volumes of homes built is if we release public land, with local authorities or the approved housing bodies being the developers, and employ as many of those building contractors as possible to build as many good quality homes as possible at the fastest possible rate.

What I understand Deputy Boyd Barrett is objecting to, and I share his objection, is not to individual tradespeople being employed in those sites. It is to when land is transferred or the Land Development Agency enters into partnership with private developers, which is a very different thing from a private building contractor, as I am sure the good Deputy from Kerry knows. When a private developer is brought onto the pitch it changes the overall financing of the project and, therefore, the development costs go up. This means the rent and the purchase prices are also higher for working families, whether in Kerry, Dún Laoghaire, Rathdown or my constituency of Dublin Mid-West.

What many of us are essentially saying is that where we have public land it should be developed in the first instance by public authorities, local authorities, approved housing bodies and community housing trusts. They should, of course, employ tradespeople and building contractors to build those homes, although some of us would like to see a return, at least in some local authorities, to direct build by councils. While we are arguing for this, we will have the private building contractors build as many of the homes as possible.

The great tragedy of using the particular model the LDA will use is that the rents will be too high. I fear the house prices will also be too high. Unlike local authorities and approved housing bodies, where the rents that will be charged or the house prices will be on a full cost recovery basis, the LDA will operate like a commercial entity. I accept it is publicly owned but it will be like a commercial entity.

The Minister has made positive amendments to the legislation so the LDA and all of its designated activity company subsidiaries will be fully covered by freedom of information. I presume the Minister will give us an update later on what is happening with the lobby register, and we expect the LDA's officials will become designated officials under the lobby register legislation. However, because it is a designated activity company it will be able to conceal its activities behind the smokescreen of commercial sensitivity and we will not get the same opportunity to scrutinise it as other bodies.

I support the amendments because I want to see the maximum volume of social and affordable homes delivered on public land but at genuinely affordable prices and the Bill does not provide for this.

See this speech in context