asked the Minister for the Environment if he will make a statement on the recommendations contained in the ESRI report on housing, particularly those relating to the cost of building land.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - ESRI Housing Report.
16.
I take it that the Deputy is referring to the report entitled "The Irish Housing System—a critical overview" which was published last month by the Economic and Social Research Institute.
Many of the recommendations contained in the report are couched in broad general terms which will require detailed consideration. The recommendations are being examined by my Department, in conjunction with requirements made in recent years following housing research work done by An Foras Forbartha and the National Economic and Social Council.
Regarding the cost of building land, I indicated in my reply today to Question No. 7 from Deputy Quinn that this general issue is under active consideration in the Department. I referred to the complex constitutional, legal, administrative and financial factors involved and said that careful consideration has to be given to the effect possible solutions may have on the building industry and on employment in that sector of the economy.
The ESRI study re-emphasises what I have been saying regarding the danger in acting without full and adequate information and that decisions based on inadequate consideration of all the relevant facts and issues could have a serious effect on the building industry in the short- and medium-term and on the Government's programme of job creation.
In view of the fact that the cost of housing since the Minister took office has increased by approximately 40 per cent and that the combined increase in the cost of building materials and labour has been less than 10 per cent, how does the Minister account for the increase of the additional 30 per cent over that period?
On the question of houses there has not been a 40 per cent increase. It worked out last year—it was very high, I admit—at 24 per cent, not 30 per cent.
I am talking about since the Minister took office.
I am talking about 1978. It was 24 per cent. Towards the end of last year there was a steadying effect on the market, particularly in the last two quarters of the year, when it came down to something like a little over 3 per cent in the third quarter and .3 of 1 per cent in the last quarter. It has not continued to rise as it did in the first and second quarter of last year.
That is not the question I asked.
The Deputy is referring to the price of houses and I am putting the record straight.
If the approximate increase has been 40 per cent and that of building materials and labour combined has been less than 10 per cent, how does the Minister account for the increase?
The question relates to the ESRI report. These are separate questions.
And the increase in the cost has been more than 10 per cent.
(Cavan-Monaghan): Could the Minister give exact figures?
We are dealing with Question No. 16.
The fact that the Minister finds it politically embarrassing does not make it irrelevant.
We should be grateful that he is there at all. He has someone else standing in for him a lot of the time.
The Chair is the judge of whether a question is in order.
Would the Minister not say that the excessive increase is due to speculation and allowing people to speculate in building land and that this has been encouraged actively by the Government?
I am calling Deputy Keating. The question on the Order Paper is to ask the Minister for the Environment if he will make a statement on the recommendations contained in the ESRI report on housing, particularly those relating to the cost of building land. I cannot allow a broad discussion on housing on that, whether the Minister is embarrassed or not.
It is a scandalous speculation on a basic need and it has been encouraged actively by the Government. It is bordering on corruption.
In relation to the comments in the ESRI report, would the Minister have any comment on two statements in that report? One says that there can be little doubt that the portion of mortgages going to those on lower incomes decreased in the last year and a half. Secondly, the report stated, in relation to completion of houses and referring to the previous year, that this represented an annual rate of completion well below that of any year since 1973. Would the Minister be good enough to comment on both of those points?
First of all, more mortgages were made available to the lower income groups last year, particularly from September. Is that the question the Deputy wishes me to answer?
That is not what is in the report.
I am calling Question No. 17.
The policy recommendations were extremely vague in this report. They made some strange suggestion that owner-occupation should be encouraged further. It is a very strange suggestion because we have the highest rate of owner-occupation in western Europe. That is the kind of vague recommendation we got.
Does the Minister accept those two points?
No. More mortgages were available, particularly in the latter half of last year and the first quarter of this year, to the lower income groups than previously.
Is the report wrong then?
It is very vague. I have said that.
Question No. 17.