Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 20 Apr 1971

Vol. 253 No. 1

Private Members' Business. - Price of Building Land: Motion.

I move.

That Dáil Éireann records its grave concern at the continuing increase in the price of building land and the consequent cost of houses to private house purchasers and local authority tenants and calls on the Government, if necessary by taking steps to amend the Constitution, to designate now the land required for house building and bring it under community control at prices determined by its previous use.

We in the Labour Party have been urging the Government to put an end to land speculation. It has gone on, unheeded by the present Government, for far too long and I do not think this anti-social behaviour of land speculation is in the interests of the country or the community. The Constitution never intended that one section of the people should be permitted to exploit another section but speculators are permitted to exploit young married couples and other people with families.

Recently, I heard the Minister for Local Government speak about the wonderful progress in house construction throughout the country. He quoted figures to support that claim. However, I am aware that there are literally thousands of people in Dublin alone who are living in subnormal, substandard accommodation, that families are separated and that as many as 15 people are living in two-bedroomed houses. Deputies on all sides know that thousands of people cannot find accommodation. They are people who would make every effort to provide their own home if houses could be bought at realistic prices. They are responsible people anxious to provide homes for their families but they are being deprived of that opportunity by this society, because land speculators are exploiting them by raising the price of building land to such an extent that it is impossible for people who need houses to provide the deposits required.

If anybody cares to look at the property sections of the national newspapers he will see that for new houses in County Dublin and extending as far as County Kildare a person is required to have a minimum deposit of £1,500. I am not exaggerating when I say that. How could a young married man with a wife and one or two children be expected to provide a minimum deposit of £1,500 when he is being taxed to the present extent by the Government? It is utterly impossible. If it were possible I would be able to advise the many constituents who come to me each week seeking any way in which they could provide deposits for houses. They ask me if I can tell them of any way in which they can raise these deposits and I have to confess that I cannot.

Those people are unable to provide these high deposits. No man with a young family could do it on present income levels. If the Minister for Local Government thinks he has a remedy I shall be glad to direct all those constituents of mine to the Department. When the previous Minister, Deputy Blaney, was in charge of the Department I badgered him every day in the Dáil about this problem and I told the people who came to me to write directly to the Minister, but it did not make any difference.

Those people who exploit so many young families are not paying taxes. They are parasites and I do not think any Deputy would disagree with me when I say that such parasites should be penalised at all costs. Article 43 of the Constitution states:

1. The State acknowledges that man, in virtue of his rational being, has the natural right, antecedent to positive law, to the private ownership of external goods.

2. The State accordingly guarantees to pass no law attempting to abolish the right of private ownership or the general right to transfer, bequeath, and inherit property.

2.1 The State recognises, however, that the exercise of the rights mentioned in the foregoing provisions of this Article ought, in civil society, to be regarded by the principles of social justice.

2.2. The State, accordingly, may as occasion requires delimit by law the exercise of the said rights with a view to reconciling their exercise with the exigencies of the common good.

The Minister for Local Government has said that the Government have been trying over many years to consider how they could acquire land or make it simple for authorities to acquire land without conflicting in any way with the Constitution. I understand that the Minister has set up a commission to inquire into this. I think it is called the Kenny Commission. The main thing is that the Government feel that it would not be possible for them to do this. They feel that any attempt by the State to take over land for building purposes would be unconstitutional. What I say and what we in the Labour Party say is that the use of land for social purposes should be subject to community control. The present system of dealing in building land leads to speculation and exorbitant profits. We say that society is frequently held up to ransom by being forced to pay greatly inflated prices for building land and the cost of securing such land has seriously limited the ability of local authorities to secure adequate pools of land to meet their requirements.

Local authorities service land fully and speculators take advantage of this fact by raising the price of land and making it impossible for houses to be built at economic prices. The Minister has said that the site accounts for roughly 20 per cent of the total cost of a house. The Minister has said he is anxious to bring about a situation in which builders and persons seeking building land will go to the local authorities for sites. The Minister admits that there is land speculation and he says he is anxious to call a halt to it. He says it has been going on in recent years. We in the Labour Party know it has gone on unhindered despite our protests, despite the fact that we brought it to the attention of the Government over the years. Each and every Minister for Local Government has allowed it to continue and I am saying in the House that friends of the Government, members of the party, have been involved in this land speculation. They have cashed in on it, these parasites that attach themselves to the Fianna Fáil Party. Knowing the inside information, they have acquired this land and are now the millionaires of our country. These are the people we have now in our midst. These are the upper classes, the nouveau riche, who have availed of this and have exploited to the fullest the people who are most in need.

I want to ask the Minister for Local Government how soon will this Kenny Committee report on this and how can we acquire land within the framework of the Constitution so that land can be made available to people and to builders at economic prices. It is wrong that land speculators should be provided with facilities by the local authority, have fully serviced land available to them and sell this at exorbitant prices.

The Minister in his speech on the Supplementary Estimate for Local Government said that there are other factors involved, but the main factor involved is the cost of the site. The Minister said that local authorities have been given permission to acquire land but they are acquiring land at competitive prices, land which has been serviced by them, and they are acquiring it at full market value. It is wrong and it is morally unjust that they must acquire land which has been serviced by them from these speculators.

We hear again and again the boasts of the present Government that they are building more houses than ever before. They say that 14,000 houses were built last year. I do not doubt that, but 20,000 houses and more were needed last year and if we take into account the number of substandard dwellings in Dublin city alone we would need at least 80,000 houses. This is a phenomenal figure but it is the exact situation.

My colleague, Deputy Dr. O'Donovan, mentioned to me Hollyfield Buildings. I do not know whether the Minister for Local Government or his secretary were ever in Hollyfield Buildings. It would be a revelation for anyone to go into Hollyfield Buildings and see people existing in 1971 in such circumstances. They have no toilets except communal toilets. People are living in hovels, in substandard dwellings that should have been demolished 20 years ago. I have visited every single flat in Hollyfield Buildings and I can tell you what the conditions are like there. These flats have no proper locks on the doors. They are owned by Dublin Corporation. One particular flat has no electricity supply. A man and his mother live there. There never was electricity connected to this place. They are living in primitive conditions. I brought this to the attention of the Minister for Local Government and pleaded with him quite recently in a letter to make representations to Dublin Corporation to have electricity connected to this flat.

This does not arise on the motion before the House. The motion deals with the price of building land.

It certainly does. These are people in need of housing and we are talking about housing.

We are not talking about housing per se; we are talking about the cost of building land.

With due respect, we are talking about the cost of houses to private house purchasers and local authority tenants. Because of this, these houses that are being built are outside the range of people who normally require housing, people who are living in deplorable conditions. These are the people who need the housing. These are the people who cannot hope to buy houses due to the present high cost of the houses.

The motion, Deputy, does not open up a debate on housing per se. Would the Deputy relate his remarks to the motion before the House which deals with the cost of building land?

And the consequent cost of houses.

The consequent cost of houses.

I am talking about the cost of houses due to this.

It does not arise. The Deputy will have to relate his remarks to the Labour Party motion.

I agree with you but I cannot discuss the cost of land or the availability of building land without talking about its consequences.

The Deputy has been discussing the question of electricity in these houses which has nothing to do with the motion.

You cannot have houses without sites.

I am only referring to the fact that there are so many houses and flats in Dublin which are substandard. Despite the fact that the Government say they have built so many houses last year, I say that the record is far from being up to standard in so far as 80,000 houses would have to be provided to cater for people who are living in substandard dwellings. At the rate you are permitting houses to increase in price there is no hope of accommodating these people. The rents for these Corporation tenants are exorbitant due to the fact that the houses are costing so much. The Minister for Local Government last session speaking on a motion tabled by us, when we said that the rents charged for local authority houses were exorbitant, said it was due to the fact that houses were costing so much. I say the houses are costing so much because the land is costing so much and the only answer to it is that, if the Constitution makes it difficult or impossible for land to be brought under public control, we should change the Constitution.

Will the Deputy suggest the changes he would like to see?

I will read the Article.

I know Article 43. What is the Deputy's alternative suggestion?

It is possible without changing the Constitution to make land available. Article 43 2º states:

The State, accordingly, may as occasion requires delimit by law the exercise of the said rights with a view to reconciling their exercise with the exigencies of the common good.

It is possible to take over land where it is in the public interest to do so and to prevent exploitation by speculators. I do not think anyone has the right to demand colossal prices for land simply because it is required for buildings to accommodate people. It is wrong that speculators should cash in on this need. If a Constitution permits exploitation of the people by any section that Constitution is wrong. If it is necessary to amend the Constitution so that land may be acquired for the provision of houses at reasonable cost the necessary amendments should be made to the Constitution.

The Minister for Local Government referred to the Kenny Committee and he said that the Government are concerned about the increasing prices. I am wondering when this committee will make its recommendations. It should be possible to acquire land without violating the Constitution and, at the same time, ensure that the common good is served. The Minister mentioned that so many sites are available but he did not state in his reply on the Supplementary Estimate the prices at which the sites were supplied. We should have been given this information. The price of the site accounts for 20 per cent to 30 per cent of the cost of the house and in many cases the cost of the site is at least £2,000. If a site costs £2,000 we are paying £12,000 or more per acre.

The Deputy has moved from 20 per cent to 30 per cent.

The Minister mentioned 20 per cent to 30 per cent. We are finding that sites are costing £2,000; they are being offered in the newspapers, as I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary is aware.

Of course, it depends on where the sites are offered.

They are around Dublin and as far as Leixlip in Kildare. When one considers that there are from six to eight houses per acre one realises what a colossal price is being paid for land when it is designated for building purposes. The Minister is aware that exploitation is taking place and I do not think he has any alternative but to accept our motion which calls for the acquisition of land for building purposes.

Is the motion being seconded?

I second the motion and reserve the right to speak later.

The motion we are discussing states:

That Dáil Éireann records its grave concern at the continuing increase in the price of building land and the consequent cost of houses to private house purchasers and local authority tenants and calls on the Government, if necessary by taking steps to amend the Constitution, to designate now the land required for house building and bring it under community control at prices determined by its previous use.

I agree with the sentiments of this motion and the necessity for it. I do not know what the proposers of the motion had in mind when they referred to "community control". I would be 100 per cent in agreement with this motion if it stated "Government control" rather than "community control". I consider the Government would be in a position to bring the land required for house building under control at prices determined by its previous use.

In any form of business transaction a fair and reasonable profit must be allowed. Without allowing a certain amount of profit, initiative would be stifled and people would not be prepared to accelerate their efforts in particular directions. It is essential that builders be prepared to take over building sites and erect houses. It is essential that, with proper control, these people should be allowed to purchase land and erect buildings and they should be allowed a fair and reasonable profit. However, speculators have, through prior knowledge and information, been in a position to purchase land which they develop and eventually obtain enormous profit in the sale of sites. People have been able to make vast profits without any effort on their part. This practice is wrong for the people who engage in it and it is wrong for the Government which tolerates it. The speculators are able to prevent married couples from purchasing sites on which they could build their homes. They are in a position to withhold land so that local authorities are unable to acquire it and develop housing schemes.

This practice is occurring daily in this country. Speculators are buying up land on all sides of this city and in the larger centres throughout the country. They sell the land at enormous prices to local authorities and to individuals throughout the country. Deputy O'Connell mentioned figures in the region of £2,000. It is a very common occurrence to see sites offered for sale at figures ranging from £1,000 to £2,000. It is often around £1,500 that couples must pay for sites on which to build their own houses. Anybody will realise how difficult it is for young married couples to obtain such an amount of money to purchase a site. Unless they can do that they must coop themselves up in small flats at exorbitant rents in Dublin and some towns throughout the country. Their life is one of misery and dreariness in which love and the proper relationship that should exist between young couples are stifled. This is all due to the fact that building land is being held by small groups of people throughout the country. This is wrong and should not be allowed to continue. Local authorities should purchase pools of land for building. They are moving in this direction but far too slowly. They should have this land available not only for local authority development but also so that they can sell it to private individuals who wish to purchase it.

They are being encouraged to do this.

I have said that.

Ten per cent interest encourages people to build houses all right.

I am coming to that, too. This is a move in the right direction but the pace could be accelerated. A circular was sent out recently by the Minister for Local Government in regard to ribbon development. It has been difficult to get planning permission and this is a further restriction on people who wish to build their own houses.

Has it anything to do with the motion?

Certainly, and if you will bear with me while I develop my point you will recognise its relevance. The Government are curtailing ribbon development at the present time. It had been difficult enough to obtain planning permission but I know a number of people who purchased sites that were available on main roads and who were refused planning permission. Because of this there are fewer building sites available. People in the larger towns, and certainly in Dublin, who had obtained planning permission are able to sell those sites at a much greater profit now than heretofore. This decision will increase the price of sites because it will reduce the number of sites available.

Only along national primary roads. Surely of all the land available only a very small percentage of it is along national primary roads?

If I did not know Deputy Cunningham lived in the country I would not have believed it.

There are many thousands of acres of suitable land available along these roads. These sites are now more valuable and builders who got planning permission for such sites can sell them at higher prices than prevailed heretofore. Another problem at the present time is that people who wish to purchase sites and who must obtain an overdraft find they must pay the highest bank rate in Europe. This is a national scandal.

If it is difficult to get loans, that would tend to reduce the price of land. That is the implication of what the Deputy is saying.

What I am saying is that if a married couple are lucky enough to be able to get land they are saddled with a bank interest rate of 9½ per cent. The Parliamentary Secretary and the Government should have serious consultations with the directors of the banks throughout the country in an effort to have this national scandal erased. The bank rate has been reduced in Britain. It has been reduced in Germany and throughout Europe. Our present rate must be the highest in Europe. If this state of affairs is allowed to continue, people will not be able to borrow money from the banks.

This does not arise on a motion which deals with the price of land for building purposes.

Most of those who purchase land on which to build a house find it necessary to borrow money from the commercial banks. Therefore, the rate of interest on such moneys is linked with the cost of land for building purposes. For the past couple of years, the bank directors have had things all their own way and, unless they have the Government in the palms of their hands, the Government should consult with them now so that the interest rate would be reduced.

This question does not arise on the motion before the House.

As the Ceann Comhairle has asked me not to pursue this matter further, I shall not do so except to say that the Government should have consultations——

If the Deputy agrees with the Chair that he is not in order, why does he continue to discuss the matter?

The motion refers also to the subsequent cost of houses to private house purchasers and local authority tenants. Married couples approaching building societies at the present time in an effort to obtain loans find in many cases that they will not be facilitated because the building societies have tightened up considerably on credit facilities.

The Deputy is now arguing against the motion.

I am not. The building societies should be asked to release more money for young couples wishing to purchase their own sites and to build their own houses. During the by-election campaign in the Dublin South West constituency, I visited many houses in that area and I received many requests from people for help in obtaining suitable accommodation. I was appalled to find that in many cases there were two, three or four sets of families living in two or three-roomed houses. In many cases, there were as many as 20 people living in one such house. I was asked in several instances to get in touch with the Dublin Housing Authority to see if accommodation would be provided. In all honesty, I must support this motion tonight. The problem of the cost of building land is not confined to Dublin; it is common throughout the country.

Some weeks ago, when speaking here on another housing motion, I mentioned those people who were living in caravans at Newlands Cross. I saw these caravans on the roadside on a Tuesday as I was coming to town but, by the time I was going home on the Friday, most of them had been removed. At the time, I wondered whether the Minister for Local Government had waved a magic wand and provided houses for all these people but I read in the newspapers the following day that this had not been so but, rather, that the Minister had succeeded in providing them with a new site elsewhere. They are now out of vision of people travelling that road to and from town. Neither is this an isolated incident because there are people living throughout the country in conditions that closely resemble conditions of animals, conditions that might be described as being prehistoric.

There are many married couples who, because they have no families, cannot be provided with housing and, because they are living on an average weekly wage, they are unable to save enough money to provide themselves with a site on which to build their own house. Many such couples are to be found living in hovels and tenements in conditions that are appalling. Each of us passes through this world only once and if there are some who must live under such awful conditions as I have mentioned, those who are in a position to improve the lot of such people but who do not do so fail in their duty. The Department of Local Government must take immediate action to remedy this situation. I might add here that the Forcible Entry Bill is no answer to the problem. So long as the present situation is allowed to continue, there will be people who will make every effort to focus attention on the plight of those who do not have the comfort of a home. Everything possible should be done so as to provide sites for people who wish to build their own homes. Everyone who passes through this Dáil will have failed in his duty as will have everybody in the Department of Local Government who is concerned with land for building houses if he does not do everything in his power to remedy the present situation.

There is reference here to price being determined by the previous use to which the land was put. In this connection, while I would agree with a reasonable profit for those builders who develop the lands, I would suggest that a committee be set up by the Minister for Local Government to ensure that while people who had purchased land and were developing it would be allowed a reasonable profit the making of exorbitant profits must be stamped out because so long as this is allowed to continue the poorer people and those who are unable to defend themselves will not be able to provide themselves with homes. In saying this, I support fully this motion. I believe this motion will not be like any other that is put down, discussed and then forgotten. The Parliamentary Secretary and his advisers are dedicated men who are discharging their duties and I hope that they will consider fully everything that can be done to ensure that cheaper sites will be provided for building throughout the country.

As the two previous speakers have said, this is a very important motion. It is important for many reasons one of the main reasons being that if something is not done in the near future to solve this problem then the building of houses, not alone in Dublin city and in the larger towns but in the country areas, will almost certainly grind to a stop. We have been complaining, and rightly so, about high interest rates and the fact that the cost of building sites in rural Ireland now averages somewhere between £600 and £1,000 for a relatively small site in rural areas, up to and over £1,000 in the villages, and between £1,000 and £1,500 in the sizeable towns, is evidence enough that the matter has become extremely serious.

With the way inflation is developing at present this is only another round of the prices because it would appear that within 12 months time there may be another 12½ per cent increase added on to these prices. I know of sites which were available a few years ago at £400 and which are now fetching £1,000. I am sure everybody in the House will be aware of similar examples in his own area. From time to time we have had complaints about the excessive cost of house building and in my opinion these complaints were right in many cases. Every time there is an increase in the wages of buildings workers we have a song and a dance about how this is going to put up the cost of houses and usually we find that those who employ them take as much extra for themselves as they do for the increase in workers' wages. This seems to have become an accepted thing. Add to that this new racket of charging an excessive amount for sites and we have an almost impossible position.

For a number of years many local authorities decided that they would build houses for people who were eligible for rehousing on condition that those people would have sites made available for them. To show how ridiculous the whole thing is, if the owner or the vested tenant of a council cottage has a site which he wants to give to somebody who requires rehousing, the local authority will give him £25 for it but if his neighbour, a farmer, has a similar site he will not blush at all when he asks £700 or £800 for that site which may not be as good. What is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander. I see no reason why people should get rich at the expense of the poor. Some people may not like to be described as being in the poorer classes but somebody who needs a house and is unable to provide one himself cannot consider himself terribly rich. These are the people we are talking about. Unfortunately local authorities have reached the stage where they can say to somebody who needs rehousing "If you get a site we will build a house for you" and if that person cannot get a site then for two reasons the house will not be built. The first is that they are unable to build it because there is no building land on the market in the area and the second is that the price which people who own the land ask for the site is so much that the local authority will not pay it.

The Parliamentary Secretary was quite correct when he said that some local authorities are making provision for this matter by trying to acquire land for building but if they acquire land in one area in a county then they feel they are doing all that is required and they seem to forget that right over the county a similar situation can exist and no land is being acquired. If we ask why no effort is being made we are told "Oh, the necessary money is not available" and then we come right back to the price of sites. Anybody who thinks that sites are being sold at a reasonable price anywhere in Ireland at present just does not know the facts.

During the last general election much play was made, particularly by the Fianna Fáil Party, about an item in the Labour Party's programme which suggested exactly what this motion is suggesting. I bet that nobody in Fianna Fáil will stand up tonight and say, "Oh, the Labour Party are proposing that the land of the farmers should be taken from them." This is the sort of dishonest thinking, the dishonest approach to sites for houses which has been used by the Government for so long. They must be prepared to face the truth of this because a lot of the responsibility for what has happened lies on their shoulders. They have been long enough in Government to have done something about this. The mere fact that they went around the country accusing their political opponents of attempting to take over farmers' land because they suggested that building land should be taken over where required showed that they had not got an interest or did not understand. The big trouble about it is that having said that, they will find it extremely difficult now to come back and say, "Well, that is our policy also." I would admit that in this matter Fianna Fáil are in a rather difficult position.

There is always compulsory purchase for housing.

The Parliamentary Secretary need not try to cod me about this because I know a little bit too much about compulsory purchase and about this particular aspect of it. If he is talking about the old style compulsory purchase where in fact if a cottage site is required notice can be given and it will take at least two years before that can be done, then he is not going to cod me with that.

I am not talking about taking a cottage site. I am talking about taking land for housing.

The Parliamentary Secretary is not talking about what I am talking about, that each local authority should have the onus on them to acquire the necessary land for the development of houses in their particular area, whether they are an urban council, a county council, town commissioners or what have you. The second point is that when there is land in an area which would be useful and which may be acquired at some future date, then even without taking it over the onus should be on the local authority to earmark that land as building land and to say that they are going to acquire it, just as the Land Commission can do. If the Parliamentary Secretary can tell me that that stage has been reached and can produce concrete evidence that that is being done by the local authorities then there is no merit in this motion.

They have been asked to go out and purchase land and they are doing that.

With what? Would the Parliamentary Secretary not try to cod me? You cannot build houses and you cannot buy land when you do not get the necessary money to do so and the Department of Local Government——

Are doing it.

——must make up their minds that this sort of thing has got to be done. What are they doing around this city? Is it not true that they have allowed speculators to take over land earmarked by the Corporation of Dublin when the members were here, and build on it and have not carried out the regulations which were made in regard to the building of houses? Is it not true that in every town the local spiv builder is going around buying this and that bit of land, something which the local authorities could do but will not do. When the need arises and people want houses, the houses are built at the builder's price and he adds on perhaps five times what he gave for the original sites when he purchased them.

This is too serious to be glossed over by saying that everything is grand and that we are now doing that and therefore there is no need for anybody to suggest a motion. If there was no need why should the Minister for Local Government brag a couple of weeks ago about his Kenny Commission investigating this very matter? What have they done since?

They have met 14 times.

What did they do? The Parliamentary Secretary knows that they did what every other commission has done. In the next ten, 15 or 20 years they will come back and tell us what should have been done in 1971 if somebody had taken the proper action at the time.

The Kenny Commission has met 14 times and the Minister has asked them to report very shortly.

What does "very shortly" mean? I am sorry——

If the Deputy does not want to believe that——

I do not want to believe it because I have listened to people in the front benches of that Government again and again say "shortly". We are told it means "some time soon" and when you ask what that means you are told it means "shortly". The present Minister who is now coming in has, I think, indulged in that sort of play-acting as well as his predecessor. "Shortly" was made a byword here by a former Minister for Local Government. He is not a Minister or a Member now but he makes statements occasionally.

I am glad the Minister is here to listen to it being said that we are reaching a stage when the price of sites will be so high that private house-building will cease completely unless something is done to control site prices. If in the past three or four years the price of sites has increased 200 or 300 per cent we can expect the same thing in the next two or three years unless definite Government action is taken to prevent it. All over Ireland we find that when a water and sewerage scheme is put into an area, land which was agricultural land worth £100 or £200 an acre, overnight becomes worth £2,000, £3,000 and in some cases £4,000 an acre as building land. Only those able to pay fancy prices can purchase such land to build a house. If we must add on the substantial price that must now be paid for a building site to the cost of building a house and the present rate of interest we find it is nearly impossible for the ordinary working man, no matter what his wage is, to cope with repayment of loans he may get to build a house.

I encourage, and I am sure the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary would also encourage, people who reach the stage when they feel they can build their own house, to take the necessary steps but it is very disheartening when some of these people, having looked for a site, come back and say: "We cannot even afford the site." There was a time, not too long ago, when the local government grant would more than pay for a site; it can now scarcely cover the deposit on a site. The Parliamentary Secretary smiles but I am sure he knows that this is exactly the situation and there is no point in trying to gloss over this by saying that people are building houses. People are building houses but I say the situation is being reached in which they will very soon be unable to continue to build houses because they will be unable to pay for them.

Local authorities, as the Parliamentary Secretary pointed out, can acquire land compulsorily but the legislation is far too cumbersome. This legislation was designed for the purpose of getting specific cases dealt with and purchasing land for single or group schemes of local authorities but in very few cases has any consideration been given to acquiring land, as the Minister's predecessor said, in advance of need. That was written into legislation and I should like to know from the Minister, if he speaks in this debate, how many times this legislation has been found workable and how many times have local authorities made provision in advance of need, to acquire a substantial amount of land.

I live in a village where some land was available some years ago. Most of it was bought and houses were built on it. A field which was left was bought at a much higher price later and houses were built on it. We are now at the stage where we have a demand from people who would like to have houses and the local authority would like to house them. We have the necessary services but we cannot get land. If we can persuade somebody locally to sell land to the local authority the price which would be charged is so high that it would be impossible for the tenants to pay the outgoings on the houses when erected. For this reason necessary housing is held up and in an area scheduled to have 400 houses we stopped short at 100 and there is nothing anybody can do about it so long as the legislation stands as it is at present.

I am well aware the problem is a big one but unless it is approached in the proper way and unless steps are taken and followed through by the Minister —not as previously happened with legislation which looked well on paper but did not do what was expected of it when tested—with legislation which will have teeth enough to ensure that it will carry out the intentions of this House, we shall not have the houses we require.

A previous speaker referred to the circular about ribbon building particularly along arterial roads, holding up housing. It holds up housing in this way—and I found this is true of planning generally—that if ten sites are available in an area and five of them are rejected for planning permission as one can understand the other five become twice as valuable. This is one of the biggest snags I find in rural areas. When planning permission is refused for certain sites the remaining sites go up in value and eventually if it comes to the point that only one site is available, everybody wants that site, and therefore the owner can ask a fantastic price for it. I recently saw one-third of an acre in a rural area being sold for £1,500. Water was available but there was no sewerage except a septic tank. If one adds £1,500 for land to the price of building a house one realises the situation an ordinary person wanting to build a house finds himself in. If a local authority want to build a house, particularly an isolated house, the first thing they ask the person wanting the house is to make a site available to them. A site cannot be made available if the land is too dear because the council will not pay a fancy price for it in the first place and, secondly, the house will not be built if, as happens in very many cases, no land is offered. There are still people snobbish enough to think that a county council cottage on their land will lower the tone of the area which will mean they will get a smaller price for the remainder of it when they come to sell it.

During the last general election the Minister's party made big play of the suggestion in the Labour Party policy seeking to do what the motion asks. We suggested that local authorities should have the right to designate and buy building land from landowners. The Minister's party gave the impression that the Labour Party were saying that all land should be taken over from the farmers. I am sure that many of the fellows who were saying this down the country simply did not know they were telling lies but the people who told them to say it knew they were telling lies.

I would suggest the Government have no option but to accept this motion; and they will, in effect, be accepting that what they said during the last general election was wrong. One often comes across people in the country, generally well-housed themselves, who say that there is no housing problem in rural Ireland. I am afraid it is like the dole—it is as big a problem in rural Ireland as it is in the cities and the Department of Local Government have got to face up to it.

I do not know whether the Minister gave his blessing to it, but I recently saw a suggestion about the lengthening of the period for loans. Those of us who know what it means know that the amount finally paid in interest does not matter: what does matter is whether or not the weekly outgoings can be met. Even if it means increasing it to 100 years, it is far preferable to what is happening at the present time.

However, that has nothing to do with this motion, which suggests that the Government should give authority to local authorities to acquire necessary building land which is at the price appropriate to its former usage. It is ridiculous to find the price of agricultural land going up from £200 an acre to £2,000 an acre. Just because a pipe is run down the road and water is put on the site the land is classed as building land. I seriously suggest the Government should do something about this. If they do not like the wording of the motion they can reword it themselves. As far as we are concerned we do not mind how it is done so long as it eases the situation which exists in the country at the present time. The city is bad enough, the country towns are bad enough but when one finds it is almost impossible to get a site at a reasonable price in rural Ireland the time has come for the Government to do something about it.

I did not receive much notice that this motion was being taken this evening. I have dwelt on this matter at length on numerous occasions already, but as the motion is before the House it gives me another opportunity of dealing with it. However, I should have liked more notice of it.

The proposers of the motion should recognise that I accept that the price of houses on the open market today is increasing at a rate which is causing me some concern. It must be recognised that, although land prices are most often mentioned as the factor which contributes in a big way towards the increasing cost of houses, the cost of land is not the only factor. There are numerous factors which I have dealt with in the House not so long ago. Even if we were able to control the price of building land, either by legislation or by some other measure, we would not find ourselves in the position where house prices were not increasing, although I admit it would make a substantial contribution.

I have made my attitude clear on so many occasions that I am surprised I am asked to speak on it again. Since I have become Minister I have undertaken a detailed study of this problem. I have gone into every aspect of house prices and the land factor as an element in the cost of houses. I have explored every avenue in an effort to find solutions. The personal experience I had as a Deputy before becoming Minister has helped. I have put the full resources of the Department of Local Government working on this problem and, after many months of study, with great consideration given to it, at top level, we did not come up with an effective solution to it. It was in that situation that I decided to seek the advice of others outside the Department so that the Government and I would be finally advised as to whether there was any way of doing this under the present Constitution.

In a last ditch effort to find some practical solution and to find some measure of control over land prices, I established the Kenny Committee. I am grateful to Mr. Justice Kenny for accepting the onerous task of chairman which he readily did, already having expressed a keen interest in the problem, and I am grateful to the other members of the Committee. I am quite happy at the pace of their work. I believe Deputy Cunningham has indicated to the House that the Kenny Committee has already met 14 times in a very short space of time. My final statement to the Committee before they embarked on this task was that I was very anxious that they should come up with a recommendation as quickly as it was possible for them to do so but I am not going to put a gun to their heads and demand a recommendation or a final report tomorrow, next week or next month. They must be given time to examine the problem fully and to make their suggestions with full knowledge of all the facts. I am satisfied they are working diligently and I await their findings.

The idea that all building land should be brought under public control at prices determined by existing use was, of course, suggested to me; it seemed an attractive idea and, on the surface, it might appear the best way of dealing with the problem. This is Labour Party policy, but there is a wide difference between the Labour Party adopting a policy and my approach to that policy. I have gone a little deeper into this. I was not able unfortunately to be here for the full debate and so I did not hear everything that was said, but I have not heard any Deputy come out with any ready solution.

As I say, I have taken the trouble of considering the proposition in depth from the point of view of the provisions of the Constitution and the legal position with regard to the compulsory acquisition of land and the assessment of compensation for land compulsorily acquired for public purposes. Apart from the legal aspects, I had to consider whether it would be feasible to build up the elaborate administrative and technical machinery which would be needed if a comprehensive system for the control of the supply and the price of building land were decided on. I had also to consider what a land acquisition programme on a comprehensive scale would cost. Where the money would come from is a perennial problem. The resources available are not unlimited and there has to be a judicious distribution of all the moneys available in order to ensure adequate protection of the economy and of the interests of the community as a whole. Economic expansion will not continue if there is too heavy investment in one sector at the expense of another. We all know that that kind of financing can create enormous problems with large-scale unemployment. One is not free to pour huge sums into one sector; one must pay heed to the effect such a withdrawal of moneys from other sectors may have on the economy as a whole.

I considered all these various aspects and I obtained the best legal advice available to me and, having done so, I came to the conclusion that a solution was legally, administratively and financially impracticable. The Articles in the Constitution which govern the position are Articles 40 and 43.

Article 40.3.1º states:

The State shall, in particular, by its laws protect as best it may from unjust attack and, in the case of injustice done, vindicate the life, person, good name, and property rights of every citizen.

Article 43.1.2º states:

The State accordingly guarantees to pass no law attempting to abolish the right of private ownership or the general right to transfer, bequeath, and inherit property.

The rights thereby guaranteed can, of course, be restricted or delimited with a view to reconciling their exercise with the exigencies of the common good. I was advised that, while the exigencies of the common good can require the exercise of powers to acquire land compulsorily from an unwilling owner. Article 43.2.2º could not be interpreted as meaning that the State could assume itself or confer on local authorities the power to confiscate or expropriate land at arbitrarily fixed prices. This, of course, is in essence what the Labour Party have been asking the Government to do.

The Constitution is a bit contradictory in parts, is it not? It is contradictory even in the Articles the Minister has read.

If the Deputy wants to discuss the Constitution I would be very happy to get his opinion. I have got so many opinions to the same effect.

The Minister is not a lawyer.

I am not a lawyer but I respect the opinions given to me by some of the best constitutional lawyers in the country. I will await the outcome of Justice Kenny's deliberations on this particular problem. The whole crux of the problem is the question of compensation. Under existing law the basic rule for the assessment of compensation for land compulsorily acquired is that the value of the land is taken as the amount the land might be expected to realise if sold on the open market by a willing seller. The owner is entitled to expect to get from the acquiring authority the sort of price he would receive if he sold his land freely on the open market. This may seem a fair principle but, when the supply of serviced land in any area becomes scarce because of population pressures, the price of serviced land rises as a result of the operation of the supply and demand principle and the competition between the various private builders; and the various local authorities acquiring land in those circumstances are forced to follow the market trend and pay compensation accordingly. If it were possible to empower local authorities to acquire such land at less than the prevailing market value, there would then be a two-tier price system in operation and the man selling in the open market would get one price, the market price, while the man whose land was being acquired compulsorily would get considerably less. It should be obvious, even to the Labour Party——

What does the Minister mean by "even the Labour Party"?

I do not think the Labour Party would approve of a discretionary system of that kind. It would be very difficult to defend it. However, if local authorities were given this power, then it would be equally logical to give it to other authorities; State and semi-State bodies should have the same compulsory powers of acquisition.

That does not follow at all. It does not follow in other countries. It is quite normal to have compulsory acquisition for houses, but not for other purposes. That is normal all over the western world, even in the USA.

It is not, not outside the Communist countries. The only place I can see the solution the Labour Party offers is in the Communist countries.

Fighting the 1969 election all over again.

Most of the land acquired by local authorities is acquired by agreement. After the usual haggling the buying price is finally settled. Even though there may be a threat of CPO proceedings the vast bulk of the land acquired is acquired by agreement between the purchaser and the seller. If the compensation for land acquired compulsorily were to be arbitrarily fixed at a low value it is obvious these private deals by local authorities would not be countenanced at all. The result then would be that local authorities would have to use compulsory powers to acquire all the land required by them and anyone who has knowledge of the compulsory purchase machinery and the delays inherent in it will readily appreciate the problems and difficulties that would arise in that situation.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share