Vol. 243 No. 2
asked the Minister for Local Government why he has been unable to furnish the information requested by a Deputy on 26th November regarding prices paid by Dublin Corporation for areas of land for building houses and regarding a number of other matters.
29.
asked the Minister for Local Government the average price per acre paid by Dublin Corporation for land for building houses in each of the last five years.
I propose with your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, to take Questions Nos. 28 and 29 together.
The information requested by Deputy Timmons related to the price for serviced and unserviced land in each area where land was acquired and would cover land acquired compulsorily or by agreement. This information is not available in my Department in the form requested by the Deputy. Neither is information available as to average prices paid for land in each of the past five years as requested in Question No. 29. The reason is that since 1965 housing authorities have been authorised to acquire individual sites for housing purposes by agreement without my sanction. I also leave the detailed management of local housing programmes to the housing authorities.
The only information available to me relates to land in respect of which returns were furnished to me by the corporation as having been acquired by agreement for housing purposes. The average price per acre for this land as calculated from those returns was £1,482 in 1967, £1,312 in 1968 and £1,359 in 1969, up to 31st October. Figures for the years 1965 and 1966 are not available.
Arising out of the Minister's most inadequate and insufficient reply, would he agree that if his Department were both competently run and conducted solely in the public interest, they would be able to supply information of this kind on a matter of importance to the public generally?
It is a fact that I could require the local authorities to devote a considerably greater amount of their time and the work of their staffs to the compilation of statistics in order to keep Deputy Cruise-O'Brien happy.
What about the public?
I can give the Deputy some more detailed information. In 1968, for instance, land was acquired at Stubbs Lane, Tallaght, at £1,190 per acre.
Can the Minister give me the current price of red herrings?
Further land was acquired at £1,500 per acre at Stonehouse, Tallaght.
These answers are not relevant.
A further acreage of land was acquired for £1,600 per acre at Whitestown, Tallaght, and a further acreage was aquired at £2,000 per acre at Bolbrook, Tallaght, owned by Deputy Justin Keating.
Can the Minister say why he is so interested in supplying the data about this region instead of the data which he was asked to supply and which it is in the public interest to supply?
This data happens to be available.
Would the Minister agree that the congratulations of this House should go to Members who sell to local authorities and the condemnation of the House should go to those who sell to private developers? Would the Minister further agree that as a responsible Minister for Local Government it is inadequate for him to come to this House and say he has not the figures relating to all land purchases made by local authorities around the country?
I do not think the House in general will be inclined to commend the Deputy who got £400 per acre more than the highest price paid for other land in the area and £810 per acre more than the lowest.
What did the Minister for Finance get?
Would the Minister agree that it demeans his high office, his important office, when instead of coming in here and replying to a question put down to him about the whole national problem, he comes in here to make party capital out of a serious question?
Question No. 30.
A question was put down and I replied to it and then I was asked a supplementary question by the Deputy's colleague and I replied to it.
On a point of order, I would suggest, Sir, that you exercise your functions to keep that rabble quiet.
Question No. 30.
Would the Minister undertake to the House that he will now seek to get from the local authorities around the country the current price they are paying for building land?
On a point of order, is the word "rabble" used by Deputy O'Higgins in order in this House when it refers to a large number of Deputies?
It is not in order to describe Deputies as rabble.
Will you ask Deputy O'Higgins to withdraw it?
Yes.
I used the term "rabble" and I have no intention of withdrawing it.
It is not in order.
I will repeat the term. I called that collection over there "rabble" and I will repeat it.
On a point of order. Has Deputy O'Higgins withdrawn the word which you ruled was not in order?
I think the Parliamentary Secretary has asked you a rather impossible question in view of the contributions coming from that side of the House.
The remaining questions will appear on to-morrow's Order Paper.
I would inquire again if Deputy O'Higgins has withdrawn the remark?
I certainly have not.
As Deputy O'Higgins has disobeyed the Chair I must ask him to leave the House.
Deputy O'Higgins withdrew from the Chamber.
On a point of order. Would you like to suggest how one should describe the people over there in view of their behaviour?
Order of Business.
If a Deputy raises a point of order at least you should hear it before you rule him out of order.
I do not see how there can be a point of order on the Order of Business.
When yesterday a Deputy asked me when I would come down out of the trees and I asked was it in order, the Chair ruled that this was simply a political expression and therefore was in order. How is that consistent with your recent ruling?
I do not recall that statement being made.
The expression has been used now and perhaps you would call Deputy Lenehan to order.
I did not hear the remark.
I want to give notice that I wish to raise the subject matter of Question No. 167 on the Order Paper.
