Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 6 May 1965

Vol. 215 No. 7

Adjournment Debate. - Kilbarrack (Dublin) Land Acquisition.

Mr. Cluskey

I should like to thank you, Sir, for affording me an opportunity of further discussing this matter. It is of considerable importance that the facts surrounding the exclusion of 101 acres from a Compulsory Purchase Order made by the Dublin Corporation in respect of land in Kilbarrack out of a total of 329 acres should be brought to light because a great deal needs to be explained. Some years ago Dublin Corporation made the Minister aware of their intention at some future date to build municipal houses on this particular land. I am informed that over a period of years—on one occasion in 1946 and on a further occasion in 1955—private builders sought to have some of this land excluded. Both these appeals to the Minister were refused by the Department.

On 28th October, 1964, however, the Minister confirmed an appeal by two builders, Messrs. McInerney and Gallagher, to exclude these 101 acres from the total Compulsory Purchase Order for the purpose of building private speculative houses. This land, which the Corporation intended to use for municipal housing, was taken out of their hands by the Minister at a time when the capital city was at the height of a serious housing crisis. Because of the situation in relation to dangerous buildings, the Corporation were under considerable pressure to acquire land and build as many municipal houses as possible as speedily as possible. At that time—and it was known to the Minister—there was no possibility of building any considerable number of houses on the south side because sewerage and drainage facilities were not available. However, the Minister saw fit to allow these two builders to build on these 101 acres.

This Order was made by the Minister after a local public inquiry, at which both the gentlemen I mentioned were represented by senior and junior counsel. Both counsel representing the builders subjected officials of the Corporation to a third degree, lasting, in at least one instance, two and a half days in the witness box. These dedicated officials were subjected to considerable abuse and their integrity was questioned. As a result of this inquiry, the Minister claims he is justified in the action he took. I do not believe he was justified. Further, I do not believe the Minister will satisfy this House as to the action he took in respect of this land.

This question of the Minister solely deciding on Orders of this type is one that could be usefully re-examined. It is unfortunate that the efforts of the local authority to provide housing, particularly during the time this incident took place, should be hampered by a responsible Minister. There is no question that by excluding this land for municipal housing, the Minister was responsible for at least 800 families being on the waiting list of Dublin Corporation, and they will be on it indefinitely if this Order stands. There were at the time this Order was made no fewer than 8,000 families on the waiting list. There was a crisis with regard to dangerous buildings. Houses were being declared dangerous at the rate of some 12 to 15 per day. The people affected by this crisis were not people who could afford to avail of any house Mr. McInerney or Mr. Gallagher might make available to them at a profit. In view of that, the Minister did not do credit to his Party or to himself by excluding the 101 acres.

There is of course speculation, both inside and outside this House, as to what motivated the Minister in excluding this land. I think it is not unreasonable that people have suggested that the political beliefs of both Mr. McInerney and Mr. Gallagher have had considerable influence with the Minister in making his decision. I do not know whether this is true, but it has been suggested. I suggest to the Minister now that, in order to allay any such speculations, he hold a public sworn inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the exclusion of this land from the Compulsory Purchase Order.

It is most undesirable that the political head of any Department should have the power to grant an appeal of this nature. It would be in the interests of everyone, including the Minister, if some other form of tribunal were set up to decide appeals in respect of Compulsory Purchase Orders made by local authorities. This is still a serious matter so far as the people on the waiting list are concerned. It is not too late for the Minister to rectify the very serious situation he has been instrumental in creating.

Minister for Local Government (Mr. Blaney)

I should like the House to be quite clear that this matter of dealing with Compulsory Purchase Orders, despite what the Deputy has just said, is not sought by me. It is not a very pleasant position to have to decide as between a local authority and the appellants in these cases.

I should like now to repeat what I said earlier today. A very brief history of the situation is that the matter first came to my notice as a result of a planning appeal arising out of a decision by the Corporation in 1962. I gave a decision in favour of the appellants, the owners of the property at that time, and the same owners mentioned by Deputy Cluskey this evening. I gave a decision in favour of the appellants in so far as their planning permission was concerned, to get on with the building of the particular area of land, approximating 95 acres. Subsequently the compulsory order procedure embraced this land together with adjoining land—a further 228 acres. At that time the situation obtained in Dublin city as outlined by Deputy Cluskey. Houses were falling down and a serious position, almost an emergency position, existed at the time.

I put on foot certain suggestions through the Corporation, inviting private builders to make offers to the Corporation for houses they were building or were about to build, and the Corporation would buy them and install their tenants in them. This is relevant in this case because those same people were prepared to build on that site houses that would be suitable for Corporation tenants who were mentioned as having been on the waiting list. The Corporation did not follow through, and they did not follow through in other cases where offers were made by private builders of a speculative type that their houses should be used to meet the difficult conditions of that time. They would also meet some of the difficult conditions obtaining today in regard to the shortage of houses in Dublin.

The projected housing programme of Dublin Corporation envisaged, among other developments, the use of this land at Kilbarrack and The Swan, as I think it is called, for their building programme in the years 1969 and 1970. All those considerations were in my mind in regard to the Compulsory Purchase Order. There was a difficult situation calling for the greatest expedition in the housing programme we could possibly bring about by a direct building programme or by getting speculative builders to offer to the Corporation their services or houses which were already in course of erection.

All those things were very much in my mind at that time. There was also the fact that houses built for the middle-income group would also have a beneficial effect on the housing situation for the lower income group in that if people occupying flats or less attractive houses could get houses on the speculative market they would vacate that accommodation and it would be made available for the lower income groups. Where building by speculative builders could be carried out that would be of direct or an indirect relief to the housing situation in Dublin and whichever means would appear to offer the quickest solution was attractive to me at the time. That also had quite a bearing on this Compulsory Purchase Order.

I should also add that the appellants indicated not only in relation to the town planning appeal but later in regard to the compulsory purchase procedure that they would conform to whatever plan was designated by the Corporation for the area as a whole. That is, in fact, the position now, and they are conforming and will conform to the general development of the area from a planning point of view. Those are the reasons and the circumstances I had to consider. In all the circumstances, I thought it was the best thing to do from the point of view of housing for the people of Dublin.

So far as my recollection goes—and at this short notice I have not been able to get all the facts, but my recollection is pretty clear—all these lands were designated for development by the Corporation in 1969 and 1970. That is some years ahead. The suggestion or the idea that may be abroad that the withholding of confirmation in respect of these 95 acres of land is directly responsible for anyone being without a house today is not borne out by the facts of the situation.

I should also like to say that if performance on this site by the people concerned is not up to that indicated at the time of the confirmation of the Order, it is quite possible that a further Compulsory Purchase Order might meet with success. If work is not gone ahead with on this site in a reasonable time, and provided no obstacles are placed in the way by some outside agency such as the development of the services by the Corporation——

Mr. Norton

What would the Minister regard as a reasonable time?

Mr. Blaney

A reasonable time would be the time necessary to process the plans and designs, to get under way all the matters required for the development of an estate of this size, and subject to there being available to them the full and wholehearted support of the local authority and my own Department in so far as we will come into these services in respect of clearance proposed plans and acceptance of the design from the architect and all the other things. There is no fixed time for any one site but looking through it and keeping an eye on what is happening, I would, with my advisers, be able to assess as time went on whether or not a reasonable time has elapsed at any given point of time. But it would not be possible, as the Deputy may well see, to accept for any site that a year or two or three years would be a reasonable or an unreasonable time. We do not know the difficulties that might arise outside the control of the people concerned.

Mr. Norton

If two or three years were a reasonable time, the Corporation themselves would have been building by that time in any event.

Mr. Blaney

I did not say two or three years' notice in given cases would be a reasonable time. I am trying to point out the difficulty of stating in advance in respect of any site of this size what a reasonable time would be. I would say as well that the reasonable time would be qualified by the condition as to whether or not the time taken was utilised or used up by somebody outside the people concerned; in other words, it was within their competence to do it and, within a reasonable time, they did not. If they were prevented, through other cause, from doing it within a reasonable time, then in fairness, there would have to be a longer time given.

Over and above that, I should say that far from there being any question that I, as Minister for Local Government, prevented people in the city being housed, I have made what I think are efforts further than those of any previous Minister for Local Government in trying to provide houses in Dublin, and these efforts are known to the degree that nobody will be led to believe that I have, in fact, deliberately for any reason whatsoever stood in the way of the provision of houses much needed by the citizens of Dublin.

Mr. Cluskey

You have deprived Dublin Corporation of 101 acres when there is no other available land in this city.

Mr. Blaney

I have not deprived Dublin Corporation of 101 acres. Dublin Corporation have failed to get by compulsory acquisition 95 acres in the circumstances I have outlined. Through my efforts, 450 acres have been made available to Dublin Corporation and within ten months of getting the OK, I have already embarked on the provision of 4,000 additional houses over and above the number which the Corporation have themselves declared capable of being built by traditional means. Had they all the land of Counties Dublin, Kildare, Meath and Wicklow now, they could not provide one further house than they are providing under their normal programme.

Mr. Cluskey

That is debatable.

Mr. Blaney

I am convinced of this.

Mr. Cluskey

The Corporation resisted the Minister's decision, and to imply that it was in agreement with the Corporation is less than accurate.

Mr. Blaney

I am afraid the Deputy is jumping the gun. They agreed with me when I met them on two occasions that they were doing, under the programme outlined, all they possibly could do by normal traditional methods. This was agreed by the Corporation and me.

Mr. Cluskey

I was present at these deputations——

Mr. Blaney

And what has the Deputy to say about them?

Mr. Cluskey

The thing that was keeping the Corporation from building and providing houses was the absence of available land.

Mr. Blaney

That is not so, and the Deputy knows it.

Mr. Cluskey

It is so, and the best way to find out——

An Ceann Comhairle

Order. The Minister must be allowed to make his statement.

Mr. Blaney

The Corporation have on the particular site 229 acres of land. If these lands which they have got were necessary to them immediately, and they were able to build on them, why have they not started to build? It is because of the fact that this is part of the overall programme for house building. They would not have reached it, under their normal programme, before 1968, 1969 or 1970. It is entirely wrong to say that there is one house less being provided to-day than last year because they did not get all the land they put the CPO on in this particular district. The Deputy has been asserting this and it is not the case. The overall evidence will show that no fewer houses are being provided today as a result of the CPO than would have been provided, had they got all the land they sought.

Mr. Cluskey

Would the Minister agree to have a public sworn inquiry into the matter?

Mr. Blaney

If I thought a sworn inquiry would provide more houses quickly, I would agree to the setting up of a thousand such inquiries.

Mr. Cluskey

In relation to this?

Mr. Blaney

I am not satisfied that any such inquiry would provide one more house by the Dublin Corporation during this year or in the next five years under their own projected programme.

There is little further I can add to what I have said, which is my firm belief in this matter. The reasons I have briefly outlined are my reasons in regard to this particular case. I still reiterate that, far from inhibiting in any way or reducing the out-turn of houses in Dublin for the people of Dublin who so badly need them, I have gone beyond what is the normal role of any Minister for Local Government. I have gone beyond anything that has been done at any time by anybody else in my position in that I have helped the Dublin Corporation personally and through my Department and the National Building Agency to try to get out of a very difficult situation.

The Dáil adjourned at 5.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 11th May, 1965.