Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 21 Apr 1971

Vol. 253 No. 2

Private Members' Business: Price of Building Land: Motion (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:
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.
—(Deputy O'Connell.)

The time remaining for debate on the motion is 1 hour 33 minutes.

During the discussion last night I think I outlined fairly sufficiently the difficulties that arise in seeking a legislative solution to the problem of building land prices. As I pointed out last night, the committee I established under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Kenny was set up in the hope that if there is an effective solution this committee might come up with it. I have asked the committee to deal with the problem and to make a report to me as soon as is practicable.

In the course of the discussion to date no Deputy has suggested any other solution. For that reason I would ask the House to await the report of the committee, and for that reason also I must reject the motion because what it proposes is premature at this stage. I would go so far as to say that the motion is unfair in that it does not give any recognition of the Government's anxiety in regard to house prices. This anxiety has been given practical form in the various steps which have been taken. Apart from the establishment of the committee, which is the only sensible and practical way to approach the legislative difficulties we are faced with, other steps have been taken. Although I have not much time to deal fully with the various measures that have been taken by the Government, I shall briefly go through some of them.

In the long term it may be that the only practical solution would be to ensure that so much serviced land is made available that land will lose its scarcity value and in this way become available on the market at normal market prices. The resources available to the Government are not unlimited. However, within the limits of these resources, my predecessors and myself have impressed on the local authorities the necessity of proceeding with the planning and execution of schemes for the provision of water supply and sewerage facilities in those areas where it is evident that there is a strong demand for serviced land for house building. Various priority schemes have been worked out at the request of Minister for Local Government. The main priorities given to these schemes were to ensure that they catered for new housing and new industrial development. They were to be designed for areas where they would meet the most urgent needs.

A sum of approximately £15.2 million for new sanitary service schemes in the major pressure areas has been released since April, 1968. However, it is obvious that the allocation of resources for sanitary service works must complete with all other demands for capital on the public purse and this is accepted by everyone. Particular attention to the provision of sanitary services has been given to the Dublin area. It is recognised that this is where the greatest need arises because in this area there is the greatest number of people and the greatest rate of expansion. In Dublin, two of the four major sections of the Dodder Valley main trunk sewer have been completed; the third section has commenced and it is expected that tenders will be invited for the final section quite soon. The Dodder Valley scheme will open up 6,300 acres of new land for housing, industry and other development. In addition, Dublin Corporation are pushing ahead with the design of the Grand Canal sewer project. At present the time scale envisaged for this project, which will provide services for an area of approximately 11,000 acres of additional building land, suggests that it will be completed by 1976. These large-scale schemes, together with others either at the planning or execution stage, will cater for the building land needs of Dublin city and its environs for many years to come. Of course, other large schemes are planned in other areas where significant growth is anticipated.

In addition to making provision for sanitary services, a number of other steps have been taken. Regarding the acquisition of land, which I have mentioned on a number of occasions, local authorities are constantly urged to acquire land for development in advance of their present needs. This is particularly the case where services are to be provided, in order to ensure that as far as practicable, the increase in the value of land attributable to the provision of these services accrues to the community. All major housing authorities have been acquiring considerable quantities of land in recent years. In many cases the land on hand should be sufficient to meet their expected needs for some years to come.

The £3 million that was made available in the Dublin area for the acquisition of land for future house building over and above the normal land acquisition programme of Dublin Corporation for its own house programme enabled the local authority to purchase an additional 2,000 acres. Taking into account the other 2,000 acres which the Dublin authorities have for their normal housing programme, they have on hand at the moment 4,000 acres of land. Some of this has been disposed of to private builders at favourable prices. The price at which land is available to a private builder in Dublin ranges from about £4,500 per acre for land which has been disposed of by the corporation in fairly substantial blocks and which has services adjacent to its boundaries. In addition, building sites are available from £1,100 to £1,300. Water and sewerage services are laid on to those sites. Public roads, footpaths, lighting and the other expensive services that must be provided are included in the package deal price of £1,100 in some cases and £1,300 in others. This land has been disposed of and is being disposed of within a progressive programme by Dublin Corporation. They are in the strong position of being able to say that no builder needs to be without building land. The land can be supplied to him by Dublin Corporation provided that he is a traditional building operator in the Dublin region.

One of the contributing factors to the escalation in the price of building land was that the small builders were competing with each other for land which became available on the market, pushing the price up against each other, introducing a certain amount of panic into the land buying market, and contributing to the high prices which they were subsequently obliged to pay. I hope that the disposal of land by Dublin Corporation will convince these builders that there is no need for them to compete with each other now in the purchase of land. This applies mainly to the smaller builders.

Another step taken by the Government was the introduction of the special subsidy in the 1966 Housing Act, the £150 per site for private houses, in order to encourage local authorities to acquire and develop land on a scale sufficiently large to bring with it economies of size and the benefit of a good overall design suitable to the particular neighbourhood. The authorities are beginning to avail themselves of this subsidy to an increasing extent, and this is making a substantial contribution towards providing sites at a reasonable price for persons anxious to buy them to build homes for themselves.

Under the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963, the local authorities were empowered to require developers to make a contribution towards the cost of the provision of services such as water supply and sewerage services. The judicious use of this power should ensure that at least part of the increased value of the land attributable to the provision of the services at public expense will accrue to the community. The provision of services, however, accounts for only part of the increase in the value of land which arises when land is needed for development to meet various community needs. The principle that the community should in fact derive some benefit at least from this increased value created by the needs and actions of the community and the planning policies and decisions of planning authorities, is obviously a reasonable one which must command general acceptance.

It is interesting to mention that in the Dublin area—and Dublin is most often mentioned as an area where land is scarce, an area in which there is the greatest demand and where the highest prices are paid generally—in their acquisition programme Dublin Corporation, in acquiring the 2,000 acres I mentioned, some of which was serviced and some unserviced land, acquired the land at an average price of £1,500 per acre. They have already begun to distribute and sell it. Recently the corporation leased 115 acres of this developed land to private builders and will make more land available from time to time as it becomes serviced. Recently also they decided to allocate 735 serviced sites comprising about 150 acres to small builders and to co-operative housing groups.

All in all, the proposers of the motion should accept that there is full recognition on the part of the Government and certainly on my part, as I have stated publicly on several occassions, of the undesirable trend which has appeared on the open market where land was being sold, and the part this was playing in adding to the cost of housing. I am concerned about it. We have taken steps. The legal obstacles which faced us are being thoroughly examined and, until I am in a position to study the report of the Kenny Commission, it would be premature of the proposers of the motion to ask me to accept the motion. For that reason I propose to reject it.

I do not think I have very much more to say. This is a problem which concerns all of us and, if a ready solution could be found, I would be very anxious to take whatever steps were practicable. I have great faith in the examination which is being carried out at present. Despite that, we will continue with our programme of acquiring as much land as possible, because the greatest single factor is the operation of the principle of supply and demand. If we can supply more serviced land than there is a demand for we will deflate prices and enable young people in particular, who are of such great concern to me, to purchase their houses at a cost which would be reasonable and within their resources.

All of us in this House are concerned or at least should be concerned with the situation to which this Labour Party motion draws attention. This is an extremely difficult problem. The proposals in this motion are not clear enough to satisfy me that they are the answer to the problem. In fact, I do not think there is any clear-cut answer to it. It is deplorable that when so many people decide they want to get married, settle down and get a house they find such difficulty in doing so. The site cost is one big element in the overall cost of housing our people but it is not by any means the worst element. Site costs have rocketed over the years. I think the Minister feels, as I do, that the principal way to bring down the cost of house sites is to extend the services, to service more land. What was responsible for the price of housing sites rocketing, particularly in the Dublin area, over the years was the failure to recognise that this was extremely important.

The Minister speaks in a very saintly way about the concern felt by the Government over the years about this problem. Since I came into this House approximately ten years ago I have heard Ministers for Local Government expressing the same views which are now being expressed by the Minister about the serious concern that exists. I saw the racket carried on in the Dublin region by friends of the Government who were allowed to carry it on. This was deplorable. I can give the Minister specific instances, if necessary, where people bought land where there were no services, knowing that the local authority would have to refuse them planning permission, but knowing full well that when it went to the Minister on appeal they would get permission, and that the local authority would then be saddled with the responsibility to provide services within a certain time. They then disposed of it without putting £1 into it themselves, without putting any effort whatever into it. They disposed of it at enormous profits.

I am saying quite clearly that friends of the Government passed that burden on to unfortunate people who were trying to provide themselves with houses. This is what I object to and seriously object to. I do not think anyone should be allowed to speculate and traffic in land at the expense of unfortunate people who have the problem of finding the wherewithal to provide themselves with a house. I hope this will never be permitted again. I hope we have seen the end of it. That is one aspect with which the Kenny Commission should be concerning themselves. Nobody should have the right to buy land and sell it when they get some special permission, or when they use their advance knowledge that certain land will become valuable, and that development will take place in a certain direction.

The price of sites in the Dublin region will come down, because at long last the Government appreciate the great necessity for extending services. Services are now being extended at a fairly rapid rate but it took far too long to get to this point. The Minister is quite right when he says there are limits to the resources available to the Government and to the Minister for Local Government, and that is quite so. However, the manner in which these resources can be best used is by extending services. In my view that is the least expensive way of bringing down the cost of building land. It requires an enormous amount of money to build up a substantial land bank, and a fairly substantial land bank has been built up in the Dublin region.

There is a limit to where you can go in this direction without doing damage. We have reached the point in this connection where local authorities put a compulsory purchase order on land that has been bought by a builder who is ready to go ahead and build whereas the local authorities themselves are not in a position to go ahead with the building. More houses can be made available by leaving the building to people who are erecting a large number of houses, however we may feel about the amount of profit they are making. Perhaps they are making too much profit and perhaps there has not been sufficient examination of the profits being made by builders, but at least they are producing houses quicker than the local authorities are producing them. Influence can be brought to bear on them to build moderately priced houses having regard to overall costs. Great care should be taken about putting compulsory purchase orders on land that could be built on long before the local authority can do the building.

The Minister has spoken here as if this scheme has worked in the most perfect fashion and that this competition between small builders that was responsible for the price of land rocketing has been brought to an end.

What has happened is that the corporation have been competing against small builders in the purchase of land and have made it quite impossible for a small builder to purchase land. I know of a case where a builder wanted to buy 18 acres of land and had the price just made when the corporation stepped in and said: "No. We are putting a compulsory purchase order on that." That is not good business. That is putting a small man out of business.

Is it right to say there is no builder now without sites? Only a month or so ago I had a builder with me who said he applied last November and he is still waiting. It is not running as easily or as smoothly as all that. Nobody can pretend that there are cheap sites. They may be bought by the corporation at an average of £1,500 but they are being sold at £4,500. The corporation still say this is not an economic figure and they are making no money on it. It is difficult to see that this could be so; in certain instances it could be so. There is another way in which this undesirable speculation in building land could be overcome. There is now a levy of £1,500 an acre on land. This is a blister that goes on top of the normal price of land. I personally was opposed to this levy because I knew that inevitably it would put up the price of houses.

No. This is for services provided by the local authority.

That is so, but it is something new.

No; services, whether they are provided by the local authority or by the developer, have the same effect on the price of houses.

I do not quite get the Parliamentary Secretary's point, but up to quite recently there was a development charge of £375 per acre. This development charge has now been increased to £1,500 per acre and the statement by the local authority is that this is meant to compensate the local authority for extending the services.

It is the full cost.

It is the full cost? In fact that is not said. It is supposed not to be the full cost.

It is, actually.

I am glad to hear it is the full cost. Therefore the person who buys the land is now paying the full cost of the services. First of all, he is selling his land at whatever he can get for it but the fact that it is a certain price is not costing the local authority anything because on top of that he has to give them £1,500. It is said the local authority has made his land suddenly valuable overnight and therefore he should not be allowed to sell it. It is one of these extremely difficult problems, because if a man has property of any other sort will he be told he cannot put that on the market and get the best price he can for it? That is a problem that will have to be resolved by supply and demand. I am very much in favour of this building up of an advance pool of land more than sufficient to meet the requirements of the local authorities. Certainly, they must have a more than adequate amount of land available for their own requirement over a period of years, but it would be a grand thing if the local authorities could eliminate the competition and buy all the land for building and resell it. They have the advantage that they can buy very large areas of land. They have the machinery for acquisition and for valuation and the powers of compulsory purchase. They would need sufficient money but the plain fact is that there is not sufficient money in the State. It would require an enormous amount of money to do this job. However, it should be done on a limited scale all over the country where housing is seen to be required over a period ahead. This is the only way that the housing programme can proceed and that prices of building land can be kept at a reasonable figure.

Everybody in the country is seriously concerned about the plight of people who are trying to buy houses today. The Minister says he is seriously concerned. I have heard this over and over again, but I do not think this concern has been shown clearly. There has not been a searching analysis of the profits in building today: what constitutes the full cost of a house and why it should reach this point. The people should know fairly clearly what is involved in this. A house is something that must be bought by every family or, at least, every family must possess a house; some of them are fortunate enough not to have to buy it. If people knew there was not a racket in this, then they would make a very great effort to save the necessary money and pay what would be regarded as fair prices. Undoubtedly the way to reduce site prices is to extend services. The Dodder Valley scheme has been mentioned and the number of acres it will open up in the Tallaght area will have the effect of reducing the price of land.

If we consider an area of ten or 12 acres of serviced site land on which, when fully developed, houses would cost £4,000 or £4,500, we will see that the site does not represent an enormous element in the cost of a house. There are many other factors that go to making up the price of a house and, indeed, the Government are responsible for contributing to the cost by way of taxation. Many aspects of the committee's report should make interesting reading. Incidentally, I hope the committee will report on matters other than site prices and that they will consider the entire cost of providing a house. I hope they will indicate where are the elements of cost and what profit there is in the business today.

This motion is being debated at a time when the situation is certainly improving in relation to site costs and when some action has been taken and is being taken in an effort to reduce the cost of land for building. Previous speakers referred to the Local Government circular in relation to ribbon development. I have had a fair amount of experience of such development in Dublin and I know the effect it has had. We have reached the stage in County Dublin that I do not know for what purpose roads are being provided, because in any place where there is an existing road we are told, in relation to any proposition there may be, that a traffic hazard would be constituted. Of course, it would bring in extra traffic, but what are roads for if they cannot take traffic? The roads concerned are supposed to be main roads only, but I am sorry to say that, because of the way this is being interpreted by engineers, in regard to any place where there is an existing road and where there is a proposition to build houses on that road frontage, we are told there is a traffic hazard and, consequently, the proposition is turned down. If we are not to utilise our existing road frontage to the fullest extent, we will increase vastly the price of houses.

Ribbon development does not utilise land to the fullest extent.

Does the Parliamentary Secretary wish to speak?

I shall decide that matter for myself.

Then stop interrupting.

I am not interrupting.

The Parliamentary Secretary is not going to speak; he is much too cute for that.

How does the Deputy know whether I shall speak?

I do not mind if the Parliamentary Secretary interrupts in this way because he is only helping me. However, I am sure that I know as much about ribbon development as the Parliamentary Secretary knows. He says this is not utilising land to the fullest extent but that is only a half statement because, of course, ribbon development can be descriptive of many things. It is possible to utilise existing road frontage while leaving sufficient openings for building in depth at a later date if that is so desired; but the idea that we should clamp down now and say "no" is adding enormously to the cost of providing houses. Also, it is delaying greatly planning permission because applications are being turned down wholesale.

As chairman of the planning authority in County Dublin, I have had a lot of arguments with our own planners in this regard. I know that if an engineer says a proposition would constitute a traffic hazard the planning manager is in a very difficult position. He is being advised by a person who is supposed to be qualified to advise him, and if there is even one accident on that road in anybody's memory and if planning permission is given against the engineer's advice, there may be serious trouble. Of course, this is all nonsense and has a very serious effect on the cost of houses because we are not utilising our existing road frontages. I would advise the Parliamentary Secretary to issue a further circular explaining what the first one meant.

The previous one covers national primary and national secondary roads.

I want to impress on the Parliamentary Secretary that it is being misread by road engineers and is constituting a considerable element of extra cost. Roads are very expensive to build and everybody knows that today it is the house purchaser who is paying for the roads. In the old days, if a road existed somebody built a house on it and that was all there was about it, but now the house purchaser is also providing the road. That is what is happening in relation to all these building estates.

There is an enormous burden on people purchasing houses because of the gap between what they can get by way of grant and loan and the actual cost of the house. Perhaps the Government are going as far as they can in their efforts to remedy the situation having regard to the resources available to them, but a way must be found to enable people to purchase their own houses. We are told that a searching investigation is being carried out in this matter. The sooner the results of that are known the better, because people are in desperate straits in their efforts to find sufficient money for house purchase and, having found it, they find that the interest rates are crippling. I do not know where all this is going to end. Recently I went on a trip to England to study ways and means of reducing the price of houses. The Minister himself has done something about this and this is an indication of his concern and appreciation of the situation.

The main thing that this motion is doing is drawing attention to the plight of people but I cannot see in it the answer to the problem. However, I can see the frustration of anybody who sets about finding an easy way to solve the problem of the cost of land for building because there is no easy way. The only effective way I can see is by the extension of services and the utilisation of available moneys for that purpose rather than for the purpose of building up enormous land banks all over the country—land banks that are not likely to be used in the fairly near future by the local authorities. It would be wrong to buy land vastly in excess of needs and vastly in excess of the building capacity not only of the local authorities but of the country generally over a short number of years.

I know that such land is let in the normal way until it is required for building and, in that way, it is likely that it more than services the debt involved; but the money must be found in the first instance and that is the Government's big problem. As I see it, it is locking money up unnecessarily to buy land too many years in advance, whereas if the services were extended in advance of requirements the law of demand and supply would operate. If there is more than an adequate supply, the price of building land will be brought down to the level at which we all believe it should be, but it is going a bit too far when it is stated, as it is in this motion, that land should be acquired at its previous use price. I do not think anybody would suggest that, for instance, land in the region of Dublin city should be sold for building purposes at what would be its economic price for farming.

I do not think that is in the motion.

Perhaps I am not reading the motion correctly. "At prices determined by its previous use." Well, if its previous use was farming is it suggested in this motion that that should be the price, what it is worth as an economic proposition for farming? That needs a little explanation. Land must always have a location value over and above what it would be worth as an agricultural proposition. I do not think you can fix the price of land. First of all, too many people fought for far too long for free sale in this country and the second thing is that if you attempt to fix the price of land so much of the price will appear in public and on paper and there will be so much of it given this way. I do not think there is any effective way to do it except for the Government to buy all building or development land. This is being done in some countries where the money does not matter, so to speak, but certainly it matters here where resources are very limited.

To be practical about it, I do not think it can be solved in this way. I think we can go part of the way to solve it and the Government have started to try to do this. The main grouse I have with the Government is in regard to the racket they allowed to take place over the purchase and resale of land, having got permission on appeal to the Minister. That is what I resent more than anything else and that this was pushed on to the backs of unfortunate people in the Dublin region, as I am well aware. They had to bear the extra cost. Fabulous fortunes were made in this business over the years. I support the thought behind this motion but I do not think the solutions suggested will achieve what the Labour Party have in mind.

As one who, like Deputy Clinton, is a Deputy for the Dublin area, I would like to refute out of hand the very serious allegations which Deputy Clinton has made against the Government——

Would the Parliamentary Secretary like specific instances?

——under a number of heads, firstly, lack of concern by the Government, and, indeed, the Fianna Fáil Party, in relation to the cost of land, sites and so on, and secondly, the very serious allegation that because you know a Member of the Government, you are, therefore, in a better position to benefit yourself by it, through some sort of corrupt practice going on in relation to land deals and so on. It is easy to make the latter statement. It will make the headlines "Government accused of corruption", and so on. Deputy Clinton made this allegation in the context of this very well-intentioned motion but he made the statement and then ran away from it. This to my mind is the sort of allegation, imputation, mean-mindedness that brings the body politic, Dáil Éireann, institutions of this State, and so on, into disrepute. Deputy Clinton like any honourable Deputy must produce the facts, the figures and the names of those people——

No trouble to him.

——and must place them before the House.

(Interruptions.)

He must do it as a matter of public urgency. He must do it publicly because the community are entitled to be protected against that type of allegation and then those people, when Deputy Clinton places their names before the House, will be in a position to answer these mean and unfair allegations.

They are quite true.

They are allegations which cause public disquiet. Who in the Fianna Fáil Party, the Labour Party, or the Fine Gael Party is not concerned about the housing situation in this country, in this city or in this county? What Deputy is not concerned about the prices being asked for land at this point of time and the prices young married couples in the middle and lower income groups are asked to pay for houses? Any public representative who is not concerned should not be called a public representative. He should get out of public life. Of course, we are concerned about it but the mean allegations made on this well-intentioned and well-meaning motion do not do very much for anyone. However, I shall leave that subject but I look forward to the time in the near future when Deputy Clinton will produce the results, as he calls them, of his investigations and puts them before the House. It is the kind of remark and allegation Deputy Clinton makes in another place——

The Parliamentary Secretary is a very innocent man.

——namely, Dublin County Council. Well, I will tell the Deputy this. It is better to be innocent of the charges which the Deputy has made against this Government and Party. It might be a bit of innocence but if it produces some sort of decency arising out of my innocence then let us have it.

I have been close to it for a very long time.

The Deputy has been close to it for a very long time. I am not going to make any further observations in relation to the Deputy's allegations. I look forward to the Deputy's production of his facts, figures, and names.

No trouble.

If it is no trouble we can look forward to it as a matter of some urgency because I am going to pursue it. I have said that those of us who are not interested in the welfare of the people I described, the people in the lower income group, and, indeed, in the middle income group, and the cost of housing to these people should not be called public representatives. In the recent past I opened a number of houses which were in the region of £7,000 to £8,000, middle income group houses nowadays, as they would be described, and the plot of ground on which each house was built added something in the nature of £1,200 to £1,500 to the price of the house. That to me is immoral and it is wrong. The Minister in his contribution of one quarter of an hour yesterday, and again in his concluding quarter of an hour this evening, indicated his concern on behalf of himself and his Department in the context of spiralling land prices brought about by this inflation about which we hear so much these days, and, consequently, the concern of the Government about this whole problem.

We are not heartless people. We do not want to burden the population with the weight of the prices of houses and lands they are being asked to pay. There is no pleasure or joy for us in that—quite the contrary. As I say, this is our concern and again our concern is witnessed by the setting up of the Kenny Commission which the Minister mentioned and which will look into this problem which the Labour Party mention in their motion "the consequent cost of houses to private house purchasers and local authority tenants".

These are problems which particularly affect the urban city areas, be they in Dublin, Galway, Limerick, Cork or any other major growth area. Dublin Deputies and Deputies living in cities, or in the counties where there are cities or towns, are concerned about the prices asked nowadays for houses. Neither is it fair to blame builders, because if some builders did not build vast estates in the city and county of Dublin we would be in a very serious position. It is not fair to be over-critical of these people. We are living in a free enterprise society. I do not mean a grab-all type of society but free enterprise with proper control. If we are living in that sort of society these people are entitled to make a just profit on the amount of work they put into housing. I say a just, not an excessive or unfair, profit. If we examine the intention behind the motion it suggests that the Government are not concerned. That is why I am voting against it. We are very concerned——

We accept your concern.

This motion does anything but suggest that and, as Deputy Clinton, if he had the honesty, in the words of the motion itself——

Action is needed, not concern.

The Parliamentary Secretary came in only as I was finishing my speech.

I was listening to the Deputy's unfair speech over the monitor and that is what brought me here to speak. That sort of allegation makes headlines in the newspapers and if it is not answered I do not know what sort of headline my reputation will get.

(Interruptions.)

The Parliamentary Secretary is very innocent.

Do not worry about my innocence or otherwise. I shall be able to stand up for myself.

Your party cannot have a monopoly of headlines.

That is another day's work of which I am sure the Deputy's party will continue to remind us. I shall do nothing to help them on those lines.

The Minister earlier suggested that possibly in the long run the answer to this great problem would be the operation of the law of supply and demand and that if enough serviced land were available the price would drop as a result. We in the Labour Party who put down this motion feel that day is so far off that while waiting for it many more thousands of young married couples will be joining ever-increasing housing lists in every city and town.

I think it is generally accepted, particularly since the enactment of the 1963 Planning Act, that the scandal existing in the sale of building land has increased particularly in the case of land adjoining towns and cities. It is with this in mind that we, not only on this occasion, but on every possible occasion jump at the opportunity of raising this question and seeking a solution. Somewhat belatedly the Minister, on 24th March last, in replying to a debate on a supplementary estimate in which I participated, said according to the Official Report that he was referring to the Kenny Committee recently set up to inquire into building land prices. He said:

I wish to refer to it in passing as an indication of the Government's concern about the increasing price being paid for building land and what we are trying to do about it. Pending any recommendations the committee might make, we are continuing to encourage local authorities to acquire as much land as possible and build up a land bank. This land could either be let out to builders or let out in private developed sites by the local authority. Acquiring land for the community in this way ensures that the increasing value will be passed on to the community instead of into the hands of speculators.

Clearly there the Minister acknowledges that there is speculation in land, that there is a scandal in the present operation of land sales for house building and that it is something that must be dealt with. As a new Minister it is to his credit that he has done something about this matter.

The setting up of a commission to deal with the particularly thorny problem is perhaps an old Parliamentary way of handling a difficult problem but in this instance I think we can accept that the Minister appreciates the problem and perhaps by having an interDepartmental committee rather than a committee drawn from outside he has shown a sense of urgency in wishing to do something about the problem. In that way we welcome the setting up of the committee and we hope it is not a method of shelving the problem. The Minister has not indicated how long the committee will sit——

They have had 14 meetings already.

That is certainly promising. I hope their findings, as they become known, will be made available to the House. It shows the Minister's concern about the problem, a concern singularly lacking in the past eight years.

We say in our motion that the land required for housing should be brought under community control at prices determined by its previous use. Deputy Clinton queried that. We give an indication there of what we feel could be a solution to the problem and, as a party, we think that community control would in effect be a very good watchdog on speculators and perhaps in regard to the problem at the moment of land being paid for in ways other than the stated price. The community could keep a very close watch because one of their interests would be to see how the land was purchased and paid for. It is reasonable to suggest that prices could be determined by the previous use of the land but naturally it does not mean to say that if as agricultural land it is worth £200 an acre it should be worth £205 an acre as building land.

The situation in County Dublin seems to be one at the other extreme. Only last week it was reported in the newspapers—I am sure Deputy Clinton is well aware of this—that a 60-acre farm sold for something in the region of £270,000, which is equivalent to almost £4,500 per acre. Everyone accepts that the owner of land is entitled to a just profit when he sells it, but it is just as important that a person owning land in my own county or any other county should get a just profit. How do we gauge what price per acre such land would go for in places where it is restricted to farming? I venture to suggest that land restricted to farming would not fetch anything like £4,500 per acre. People with farming land in or near Dublin are compelled to sell that land if they get planning permission for it because they know that prices like £4,500 an acre cannot last forever—there must be an end to speculation.

I appreciate the urgency with which the Minister set up the Kenny Committee and I am glad to hear it is meeting regularly. I am sure the sale of land at the price I have mentioned has not escaped the notice of that committee. I am equally sure they are aware of the need to control land speculation in the very near future.

It has been suggested that speculation occurs only around Dublin and other large cities, but County Wicklow is suffering and the pressure for building land in Dublin is now spilling over into Wicklow. This is causing problems for Wicklow County Council. I had the pleasure recently of meeting the Minister at a chamber of commerce dinner in Wicklow and he spoke at some length about the housing problem in County Wicklow.

Those problems were adverted to in three articles which recently appeared in the Irish Times, with particular reference to the setting up of a recreation centre or national park in the Dublin-Wicklow mountain area. Reference was made in that article to the number of planning applications which were being put through by Wicklow County Council under section 4 of the County and City Managers Act. It is purely and simply because of our close proximity to Dublin that this problem has arisen. Despite what the writer of the articles in the Irish Times thinks, county councillors and public representatives in Wicklow are just as aware of the beauties and amenities which County Wicklow possesses as people outside it are. We are equally well aware of the need to preserve them not only for the people of Wicklow but for people from other parts of the country and indeed for visitors from all over the world. Nevertheless, people have to be housed in Wicklow the same as anywhere else and if a family wants to buy a site on which to build a house near Glendalough why should they not?

That does not seem to arise on the motion.

I was endeavouring to point out that the cost of building land in Wicklow is affected by the problems which exist in land speculation in Dublin at the moment. The price of building land in Wicklow has rocketed because of the pressures of the population in Dublin. Dublin is a small county compared with Wicklow and the population of Dublin at present is 800,000 whereas the population of Wicklow is less than 70,000. It is only natural that, with the ever increasing price of building land in Dublin, people will move to adjoining counties and this is causing Wicklow County Council problems.

The Planning Act as it is being operated in Wicklow at the present time is causing serious problems, and this was adverted to by the Minister when he visited the county. Planning permission is being looked for in every conceivable part of the county, and if all applications were granted it would be possible to house the entire population of Dublin.

I feel the Deputy should relate his remarks to the motion, which deals with the price of building land and land acquired for housebuilding. The question of planning would not arise for discussion.

I shall endeavour to do that. The Labour Party motion suggests that the previous use of land could be used as a method of arriving at an equitable price for land. There must be some sort of guideline for people at present trying to buy land for building purposes. The price I have mentioned earlier shows the necessity for this. If the Kenny Committee does not find a solution to this problem I cannot accept the Minister's statement that the law of supply and demand will solve the problem. The amount of land available to local authorities as a result of the policy of acquiring land to form a land bank is, as far as I am aware, not sufficient if building continues at its present rate or at a slightly increased rate. Local authorities have to buy land on the open market. This means that they themselves are contributing in some degree to inflated prices because they compete with other interested buyers and the price is ultimately arrived at by the law of supply and demand.

£1,500 an acre was the average price paid by Dublin Corporation.

Only last week a farm was sold for building and the amount realised was some £270,000. This was in Dublin. Wicklow County Council have been buying land at a figure well in excess of £1,000 per acre. The Minister is probably aware of this.

Probably!

Wicklow is regarded as a rural constituency. The problem is not simply a Dublin problem. It is becoming a general problem. In Wicklow it is becoming increasingly difficult to acquire land for building, not only because of its scarcity but also because of objections to building in many parts of Wicklow. Supply and demand is an important element in the price factor. Recently we had an unfortunate incident. I am sure the Minister is aware of it. Wicklow County Council decided to purchase a piece of land and an individual who had knowledge of the proposed purchase because of his position as a councillor went to the owner and put a deposit on the land before the council had time to act. This is what we are trying to prevent by this motion. I think people are well aware of what happened in Wicklow because there was some newspaper comment. I hope the Minister's committee will find a remedy for this kind of thing. It was an unfortunate episode and it highlights the need for greater restriction on the sale of land for building.

Talking about just profits is not altogether logical in this context because people are availing of the shortage of houses and the demand for houses to make profits which could not be regarded as just. Legislation is needed to combat certain practices. The price of land is determined by the fact that there is or is not building permission for it. The difference is too great to be regarded as a just profit and this is what we want to correct. If the 1963 planning Act was designed to eradicate this kind of thing, in my opinion it has had the opposite effect. Planning permission makes the land that much more valuable. The Minister will have to amend the Act. I hope the Kenny Committee will have suggestions to make in this respect so that abuses stemming from the Act can be corrected. We regard this as an urgent matter and we ask the Minister to accept the motion as a possible method of doing away with the present abuse in land speculation.

Deputy R. Barry and Deputy Coogan rose.

Deputy Barry understands that the mover of the motion will be called at 7 18 p.m.

That means I have just a few minutes.

About one minute and a half.

That will suit me perfectly. I am glad the Minister is sitting across from me because I think he must agree there is a great deal of sense in this motion. I speak as a member of Fermoy Urban Council and refer to their problem in acquiring land. I also speak as a member of Cork County Council. The stage has been reached at which the Minister must take serious cognisance of this motion. He will do no injustice to anyone if he says that from tomorrow onwards nothing will be done to deprive anyone of his just rights if he is lucky enough to own property contiguous to an urban area——

A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, we will concede time.

I do not need time. The Minister must agree that this is a sensible, sound and timely motion tabled by the Labour Party. Indeed, this motion should have been tabled long ago and it is our own fault that we did not put it down much earlier. In effect, it means that the Minister should act now.

There is no solution in the motion and I have taken action.

There is no solution in the Minister's action.

That is facetious. The Deputy does not know what action I have taken.

Keep banning the old traffic now. That will keep the Minister in the headlines, but do not do anything effective.

In the 1966 Act local authorities got certain powers and is it not true that local authorities did nothing? Is it not also true that they were not encouraged by the Minister to do anything?

This motion reads:

That Dáil Éireann records its grave concern at the continuing increase in the price of building land.

Surely, there is nothing contentious about that? Anyone who is concerned about the price of houses realises that building land is the main factor in the increase in price. Nothing effective has been done by this Government to control the price of building land. The speculation that has gone on and the vast fortunes that have been made by particular people out of the basic needs of our people has, in many instances, surprised even the people who were speculating. Even they were surprised at the amount of money that it was possible to make out of the needs of others. In this House to my knowledge since 1965, since I became a Member of this House, this has been plugged, this has been said and it has been acknowledged, even from the Government benches, but no effective action has been taken to control this type of speculation in a basic need of our people.

When you talk about building land it is a sort of abstract subject. It is something you cannot really get your teeth into unless you are meeting people night after night, day after day, who are living in the most deplorable conditions that one could imagine. Then you realise exactly how these speculators are making their money. They are making their money on the misery not only of men and women but of the children of this country. If one is a member of a local authority or indeed a Member of this House one has what are commonly known as clinics at which one meets one's constituents. I do not know about the rural areas, I am not a rural Deputy, but in Dublin 98 per cent of the people one meets are concerned about housing. They are either living in a flat which is privately owned and paying an exorbitant rent or they are living with their in-laws in crowded conditions. What young married couple wants to live with their in-laws, irrespective of what their relationship is with them? It may be very good but try living with them. It can burst a marriage. They may be living with friends. There is a lot of difficulty about health charges and the burden of health charges on the rates. I say, without fear of contradiction, that at least 60 per cent of the health charges can be ascribed to our housing conditions. If a normal young married couple are forced to live with their in-laws the tensions are indescribable. They must be experienced to be appreciated.

I have met many people anxious and endeavouring to buy their own homes, sacrificing all the normal luxuries, if one could describe them as such, such as cigarettes, going to the pictures, going to a play. These people sacrifice so much and achieve so much only to find that the deposit on a house has suddenly escalated by at least 20 per cent. They save, they scrimp, they sacrifice to get £600. What happens? Some cute little boy comes in, buys a bit of land and, bang, their deposit now is £850. Now £250 to this gentleman may mean nothing whereas £250 to a young couple who have been saving, sacrificing and scrimping is an awful lot of money. What is this gentleman about? He is about getting rich quick and in what is described in a ridiculous way as far as I am concerned as a free society he can get away with it. In a civilised society he would not get away with it. The only people who can stop this type of thing are the Government in power. The Minister interrupted Deputy Barry to say that he had catered for this, that he had stopped this. I wish to God the Minister would come to my clinic next week——

I did not say that.

——and tell this to the people I have to deal with, the people with two or three children who are coming to me and who have made all these sacrifices. They have not seen the effects of the Minister's intervention because the get-rich-quick merchants are still operating despite the fact that since 1965, to my personal knowledge, and long before that I am sure this thing has been brought before the Government. This Government have neglected to provide local authority houses in sufficient numbers. That is an established fact. It is not an attack on the Government, it is a statement of fact. By their failure they have compelled a number of people to purchase their own houses but even then they did not stop. They have now reached the point where not only are they depriving the people of local authority houses but they have made it virtually impossible for a very large number of people who are quite prepared to make sacrifices to get the deposit. Why? I intend no reflection on the Minister. I think the Minister personally is a conscientious Minister, relatively new to his job. I will tell you why. Because according to the philosophy of his party he thinks the get-rich-quick merchants are the boys who will provide the lolly. They do.

Will the Deputy move the adjournment of the debate?

A lot of rubbish.

Debate adjourned but no progress as far as the Minister is concerned.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share