It is necessary, first of all, to correct some of the statements made in connection with this motion and to make clear the exact position of the local authority of which I am a member. Listening to the various speakers here, one would think no progress had been made in housing in this city for many years. Attacks have been made on a number of small contractors and contractors of one type or another who have given great service to this city in providing dwellings over the years.
Private Members' Business. - Land Prices: Motion (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following Motion:
That Dáil Éireann welcomes the statements of the Minister for Local Government that land buying and high profits had put burdens on the home-seeker; that the private sector must not unduly exploit the social needs and that while reasonable returns to landowners are acceptable it is inequitable that house prices should be unnecessarily inflated through individuals making exorbitant and totally unearned profits from the community's investment; and calls upon the Government to take steps, if necessary, by the introduction of amending legislation to enable immediate effect to be given to the principles contained in these statements.
—(Deputy M. O'Leary).
Who attacked the contractors?
I shall deal with that.
The Deputy might give the quotations when he is dealing with it.
There are a couple of quotations I want to give. As I say, there are in this city a number of building contractors who have given valuable employment and made a very significant contribution to the building programme by making available many of the dwellings that we see around us today. They are referred to as land and building speculators or, in some cases, as speculators in land, which is a completely different thing.
The corporation have in the past number of years purchased by agreement very large portions of land. It is important that they should purchase by agreement. The question of land is one that has been foremost in the minds of the city manager and members of the council. Quite recently the Minister for Local Government, in answer to a question, indicated that the corporation had acquired over 2,500 acres of land for building, and the building programme envisages the provision on these lands of 16,134 dwellings. They are acquiring land for a further 5,030 dwellings, and in the capital programme for 1969-70 a sum of £2 million is earmarked for land acquisition. This is an indication of the ever-increasing desire of the corporation to ensure that a large pool of land is available. This land has been and will be obtained by agreement rather than by confiscation as indicated here particularly by some of the speakers from the Labour Party.
It would be a sad day for this country if we embarked on a scheme of confiscation of one's property, particularly land. I wonder how the farmers and other people who have land to which they are entitled would feel if that land were taken from them under some of the schemes that have been outlined here.
Of course, the Deputy knows that was never suggested by us.
Deputy O'Leary and other Deputies here have ignored the fact that over the years we have been engaged on a large-scale programme of land acquisition. This is very plain to be seen by anyone who has made any inquiries at all from the Dublin Corporation. Deputy O'Leary and Deputy Tully went to some pains to indicate that bona fide landowners should not be penalised. I do not know what they mean by bona fide landowners. The landowners with whom we have made an agreement were bona fide landowners, and this large pool of land to which I have referred has been made available as a result.
It is undesirable that any group of people would try to force land up in value and put it out of the reach of people who want it to meet normal needs. It may have happened in the case of one or two individuals or groups who are in the business for profit, but where land has been bought in an unserviced state, the matter can be rectified by the imposition of charges for the servicing of such sites.
Quite recently at the Dublin Corporation meeting a member of the Labour Party indicated in relation to house purchase that it was an evil thing to own public or private property. I do not hold with this, and I am sure all members of the Labour Party do not hold with this. Nevertheless, there was an effort on behalf of that Party to impede the progress of the present scheme of house purchase. I am glad to say that this house purchasing scheme has now reached vast proportions and the citizens of this city who are desirous of owning their own homes are getting quite considerable assistance from the local authority. This was one of the things which the Minister for Local Government indicated some time ago as being desirable and necessary, that people should be in a position to own their own homes. Only last night we passed quite a considerable number of applications for persons who are desirous of owning their own homes and whose cases had now reached an advanced stage.
I am glad to say that the various deductions to which tenants of corporation houses are entitled range from £754 8s 0d down to about £400 and there are also some smaller deductions. Private property is something all of us cherish. I trust that the time is not too far distant when every member of the community will get the necessary assistance to become the owner of his own home and thus have a stake in the community.
Deputy Dunne mentioned the amazing fact that some builders require very large deposits while the corporation demand quite small deposits of £150 or £170. He did not mention that one of the factors in this was the recent Fianna Fáil Housing Bill which made available an additional £150 grant which is now paid by the local authority to tenants who are about to purchase houses on sites developed by the local authority. It is interesting to note further that there is a £275 State grant and £275 supplementary grant in addition to the £150 site grant which goes to corporation tenants who are buying tenant-purchase houses. This is a very desirable feature. It is because of foresight and the type of policy this Government and this Party believe in that those additional grants were made available.
Obviously there is a distinct advantage in buying a house from Dublin Corporation, that is a tenant-purchase house, in view of this additional grant which is now available. As a result Dublin Corporation have embarked on a large-scale building programme of tenant-purchase houses, and will be in a position to do so. This additional £150 brings the total amount of grant available to £700, in addition to which there is rate remission where applicable. A tenant of Dublin Corporation who is able to obtain one of the sites which the corporation have at their disposal will get a total of £700 paid off his new home. This is an indication of the progressive thought in this matter. It was not necessary to confiscate land in order to produce houses at a cheaper rate.
The question of the Ballymun scheme has been mentioned by some of the Labour Party speakers and one Fine Gael speaker. I might mention that the Ballymun scheme came into operation because at that time the then Minister for Local Government, Deputy Blaney, felt that Dublin Corporation were not making enough progress in housing development and that the target set by them was not adequate to meet the requirements of the people but was much too low. We were aware then, as we are now, that when building by traditional methods there is a limit to the amount which can be produced in a given period. It was the Fianna Fáil Minister for Local Government at that time who suggested that Dublin Corporation should send members to a number of European cities to examine system-built structures and report back with a view to the adoption of such methods in this city.
Members of Dublin Corporation, at the Minister's request, travelled to about six European cities and examined quite a number of systems. They then reported back to the Corporation and the Minister and it was as a result of this that the Minister made land and services available for the development of Ballymun. The Ballymun scheme was in addition to the Corporation's own housing programme, because we were impeded by a number of factors, one being the availability of skilled labour in our city. The Minister set in motion a scheme which provided houses for close on 3,000 families. This means that there are 3,000 families occupying accommodation at the moment that would not be available to them but for the fact that the Minister for Local Government of the day stepped in and said: "You must get on with the job."
It is quite untrue to say that the Corporation or the Minister have fallen down on the job. The Ballymun scheme is a clear indication of the desire of the Minister and the Government to ensure that houses were made available in the quickest possible time. I am glad to say that the Ballymun scheme, while it may have some defects, and while it will take some time for the entire group of families there to become used to the new type of structure, the new type of dwelling, central heating and other features, has been very successful. I feel sure that in time they will be satisfied with the very excellent accommodation that has been provided in Ballymun.
While it is possible that many people would find it undesirable that they would have to reside on the sixth, the ninth or 12th floor the accommodation there is second to none. One outstanding feature of the Ballymun development is that decent accommodation is provided there for citizens of this city, in addition to Corporation requirements, at the request of the present Minister for Agriculture. People of this city who now have this accommodation owe it to the then Minister for Local Government.
It is heartening to note from the recent Progress Report of Dublin Corporation the total development that has taken place in the city and which will take place in the very near future. The number of dwellings under construction at the end of January, was 1,959. Of this, approximately 253 tenancy type houses were being developed. In addition to the tenancy type houses, there are purchase scheme houses. A number of other purchase schemes are now being made available.
In addition to the 1,959 dwellings in Kilbarrack, building tenders have been sanctioned and contract documents are being prepared for the erection of 160 houses in that area; for 122 flats in the Poplar Row area; for 50 flats in the Dorset Street/Frederick Lane area; for 304 flats in the Emmet Road/St. Vincent Street West area and in the Kilbarrack East, section 2, area for the erection of 128 houses. Work has already begun on some of these schemes. In addition, there was the "package deal" which was offered and for which the contract documents are now being prepared.
Building tenders have also been sanctioned and contract documents are being prepared for the erection of 342 houses at Old Bawn, Tallaght. Work has commenced on these sites and I am quite sure that the development will not take very long to complete. Building tenders and offers have been received and are under examination for the erection of 32 houses at Kimmage Road Lower, for 40 houses at Finglas 2K, for six flats and one house at O'Hogan Road, Ballyfermot and for 730 houses at Donaghmede. Building tenders and offers have been invited for the erection of 198 houses at Kilbarrack East, Section 3. These figures give a clear indication of the progress that has been made in relation to housing development.
In addition to all that, development works are in progress on 124 sites in Kilbarrack East, on approximately 248 sites in Kilbarrack West, section 1, and on 256 sites in Kilbarrack West, Section 2. Development tenders have been approved and work is about to commence on the development of 633 sites in the Rathfarnham/Holylands area and for the development of 718 sites at Tallaght.
This gives a clear picture of the progress which one can expect from Dublin Corporation now that it has been pushed along its way by the successive Ministers for Local Government and, as the Minister indicated some time ago, all the moneys which the Corporation have sought have been made available. In their capital programme for 1969/70, the Corporation have indicated that their requirements will be in the region of £10 million. In addition to the sites I have mentioned, there is land for more than 16,000 sites and the further £2 million will make it possible to acquire a further 5,000 sites.
Reference has been made here to small builders and in relation to those, I should like to point out that Dublin Corporation have undertaken a scheme that will ensure continuity of employment for these small builders. The Corporation have invited tenders from small builders for small sections of development—development of six or eight houses—to ensure that the small builder will be able to maintain employment. These small builders have given substantial service to the city. By ensuring their continuity, we are also ensuring that there will be greater variety of types of accommodation and a less monotonous approach to the question of development so that all our dwellings will not be practically identical. In the Kilbarrack area, four small building contractors have been accepted for the erection of 32 houses, each erecting eight houses which they will develop to their own designs and to our specifications. For this scheme, we invited applications from small contractors and had applications from approximately 90 of them. We will have further parcels of land in due course and we will again be in a position to offer other small schemes to small contractors.
Servicing of land is one important problem that has been mentioned here and in which I have a particular interest. The time has come when the south city sewerage scheme must be got under way without further delay. There have been many groups and organisations who have tended to impede the development of the sewerage scheme by way of the canal. This can only lead to the impeding of land development for housing purposes. I am sorry but there are some members of Dublin County Council who would divert the Corporation from this particular line of thought. I would appeal to members of all Parties to ensure that when this question comes before the council, it will get their support and approval. It is unfortunate that up to now there have been many members of the Dublin City Council who have impeded the Corporation in their efforts to develop this scheme.
If the Deputy is talking about a sewerage scheme, I fear that it is outside the bounds of debate on this motion.
The position is that if this sewerage scheme is developed as soon as possible, more land will be made available for housing at reasonable prices. Therefore, I believe that the sewerage scheme has quite a bearing on the question of buying land for high profits.
The Deputy, of course, must conclude at 6.30 p.m.
Will the Deputy, before he sits down, give the names of those Deputies who attacked the small builders?
I should be glad to supply Deputy Tully with the names and the quotations.
Here is the place to do it. At 6 o'clock Deputy Dowling promised to give that information, and for half an hour he has been talking through his hat.
I mentioned Deputies Tully, Seán Dunne and Michael O'Leary as three people who spoke about the price tag on land and the methods of acquiring same.
The Deputy said we attacked small builders.
Deputy Dowling's time has expired. Deputy O'Leary to reply.
The motion originally put down in the names of the Labour Party was tabled in the interest of a wider dissemination of private property in this city. It was put down in the interest of the man who attempts to buy his own house. We put it down because we felt that the cost of an average housing site in the Dublin area is becoming quite unreasonable. We felt that the site cost was adding to the burden of a house for the prospective house purchaser. We felt that a large number of citizens who would like to own their own houses were prevented from doing so at present because of the high price of houses, and this motion was for the purpose of airing the problem.
Therefore, far from trying to push any nightmarish proposals, what we attempted to do by way of this motion was to ensure that private property in houses would be more widely shared by those in the city who cannot at the moment own their own houses. We submit that this calls for certain action against land building speculators in the city.
Those on that side of the House voice their illusions and their inaccuracies and sneers about our policy and they need to understand what our concern is. We have said that unless the community acted against these gangsters in land speculation, the community would continue to be held up and there would continue to be what Deputy Seán Dunne called a racket in land purchase for building purposes in Dublin. Only last week, some interesting information came to hand about the matter of site costs. I mentioned it here for information purposes. The London Co-operative Permanent Building Society have put out a survey on the average cost of new houses in their area. Considering an identical type house selling on the London and the Dublin markets, the Co-operative Permanent Building Society produced a price of £5,688 for the London house. For a similar house in Dublin, a citizen is paying £5,082. That means that the Dublin price is very close on the heels of the London price and because the London prices have been pretty high—it is a much larger metropolis—it is clear that house prices in Dublin are going very high.
The conclusion we can draw is that the prices of Dublin houses have been rocketing, because traditionally the London prices always have been ahead and if the gap is narrowing it shows the situation here is becoming alarming. I have taken the price of £5,082 for a Dublin house from our own Department of Local Government bulletin. The Department of Local Government do not give us any information on site cost in the Dublin area and they do not give us how much it contributes to the price of a house. The London figures, on the other hand, give us some idea. The Co-operative Permanent Building Society go on to say that the site cost of a new London house is £1,555, or 27.3 per cent of the eventual price.
We can conclude, and it is our information, that on average a developed house site in Dublin represents £1,200 of the actual cost of the new house. In Northern Ireland we know that the average price of a new house of the type we have been talking about in Dublin is £3,798, and we know that the site cost there is £553, or 14 per cent.
Our whole point has been that because of land speculation the site cost in Dublin is becoming a larger element in the cost of a house to a purchaser and that basically the reason site costs are rocketing, going away beyond all reasonable value to be attached to them, is these speculations in building land in Dublin. We felt that if we were to give the ordinary family in Dublin a look in, a chance to own their own house, some action had to be taken to curtail the price of the land which these people are charging.
An element in the price of land being developed in Dublin for building is the rocketing cost of land for office development. The price, for example, paid by the company who own the Stillorgan Shopping Centre, for Crawford's Garage in Earlsfort Terrace in the last week—presumably they intend to build an office block on it— was £300,000, estimated to be at the rate of £9 per square foot. This, obviously, must have its consequence on the cost of building land in Dublin and people who have bought property on behalf of Dublin Corporation for municipal building will admit that the activities of speculators contribute to the situation in which the corporation have to pay more money for the land they need.
There is another element. The man who speculates, who lives on that sort of speculation and depends on it for his main business, will be in a position in which the community in Dublin, in the city area, must undertake, if drainage is needed, to connect the speculator's property. The community are, therefore, subsidising the land speculator in any enterprise he takes on for his own gain. I know that £4,500 an acre was paid quite recently in Artane by a private speculator. These prices do not really represent the cost to the speculator because he in turn passes on the cost—the money he paid when he acquired the land— to the house purchaser.
Therefore, following the argument around, we can say that because the community stand aside and are complacent in this racket, the ordinary man and woman, the office worker, the manual worker who attempts to put by some savings, finally, because of our inactivity, must pay through the nose for the three-bedroom house and work for the rest of his life to do so.
It often amuses me when I see the proponents of private property looking across at the Labour benches when they talk about our Party being somehow seemingly against private property. The vast majority of the citizens of Dublin or any other city spend their whole lives in an attempt to own their own homes. Very many of them do not succeed in their lifetime in owning them. I wonder what kind of private property people are referring to when the majority of our citizens cannot pay for the property over their own heads.
Our policies and our motion are designed at least to lower the cost of owning one's home and to ensure that it will be a possibility in one's lifetime to do so, a possibility which is becoming far more remote for the majority. These advocates of private property do not ask themselves how many of their fellow citizens are in a position to own their own homes. The present situation is that they cannot own their own property. Building societies can put up interest rates month after month as it suits their profit margins. The person attempting to own his own home and who is chasing that mirage must scrimp throughout his whole working life and may find at the end that there are many more hundreds of pounds to be paid off. He finds that the politicians who told him that they were in favour of private property could not guarantee that he could own his own home.
It is time that this community stopped talking claptrap about private property when we cannot even guarantee that the majority of citizens who have incomes under £1,000 a year at present, can acquire their own houses. We are telling them lies when we say that they should be able to own their own homes because the cost of doing so at present has gone beyond their pockets. They will spend their whole lives attempting to pay off the mortgage on their house and technically it will never be their own as costs are going at present. A three-bedroom house which is built very rapidly, a house of very modest proportions in Dublin, cannot be bought for under £4,000 at present. The building societies are not looking around for clients; indeed, one must be in a particularly secure job and wait quite a period before getting a loan. If one is lucky enough to succeed with the building society one then starts the neverending instalment purchase plan attempting to own one's own house and be one of the few privileged to spend the rest of one's life in the attempt. This will be difficult enough but at present we have a large number of young married people who cannot even get this doubtful privilege of coping with the mortgage sum and the interest that is constantly jerked up as each economic crisis arises. Remember, the house purchaser must face a constantly rising bill for rates and, again, nothing can be done about that. The man who attempts to look after himself in the community, the man politicians always say is the backbone of the community, the thrifty man who wants to be no burden to the community is constantly penalised. In no case is he more acted against or his interests less well looked after than in the matter of housing.
The community itself is very largely to blame for allowing a free market to develop in land speculation and land purchase in city areas. This contributes to the rising cost of houses. Nothing is done for this man who is lauded on all sides as the backbone of the State. He is on his own in paying for his house, paying rates on it and he is on his own when he must meet the bills each month. He is the darling of all political Parties but he has not been looked after by any Government in regard to the cost of the site, the rates or the price he pays for the house.
I saw this morning—perhaps as a result of this motion—that there is a conversion to the idea that more modest prices should be charged for building land. I saw that Deputy Brennan made a speech on that subject. His master, the Minister for Local Government, spoke on the same subject nearly two years ago but has not done anything about it. We put down this motion in the hope that the Minister would produce some action two years after his speech. I do not know if we can give the same interpretation to Deputy Brennan's essay into speech-making this morning on the same subject and whether we will be here in two years time again asking for action. Action there must be. It is no use attempting to smear us in this House by suggesting that our proposals are somehow unconstitutional. What we have suggested is that the price of land for building purposes in city areas should be stabilised, that the element of racketeering should be eliminated. The Minister said this was unconstitutional. He was merely repeating the same smear speeches as have been made for the past six weeks because of our policies, attempting to suggest that there was a big threat to private property in our proposals. The truth is that the people whom he was seeking to influence by lauding private property, attempting to say to them: "There is the Party that is against private property," are the people whose cause we are pleading. We are the only ones who are aware that it is impossible under the present dispensation to own one's own house and, in fact, our motion is on the side of those who wish to own their own property, their own house.
I presume the Minister was not making a speech in the interests of accuracy because this is election weather and we understand that all Ministers' speeches are now dictated by the approaching general election rather than by accuracy and possibly it is a vain hope on our part that they will see first what we say and then criticise us on that. Probably all we may expect from now on is that kind of speech from those sources. The Minister was quite wrong in suggesting that there was anything extraordinary in the motion, or that we called for anything unconstitutional. At present a local authority is empowered to acquire compulsorily land needed for building. We could ask: "Is this against the Constitution?" Of course not. Most communities in Britain and most Continental countries have done just what we have suggested in this motion, have provided that the price of land required for building purposes in an urban area which the community has built up should be stabilised and that people who are at present creating havoc in regard to site prices would have a stop put to their gallop in a situation where we see £4,000 per acre being paid for building land. Obviously, nobody can compete against that. Obviously, that kind of price being paid for land which is to be used for housing development is passed on to the housing market, to the consumer, the home purchaser. It is not enough to say that, perhaps, this is only catering for those who want to pay £8,000 or £10,000 for a new house. If one income group begins to pay this price and if this tends to become the price for one type of house, like everything else in the world, at the other end of the scale, the £4,000 house begins to creep up to the £5,000 figure.
We are all in favour of as many citizens as possible being able to own their own houses; of the State and the community so exerting themselves that costs would be kept down to the point where the citizen wishing to own his own house would be facilitated in doing so in the realisation that a democracy which has a majority of selfreliant citizens owning their own houses and attempting to fend for themselves is in the last analysis the most healthy democracy. This is where we part company with many people here.
We believe that the community must make its voice felt in this matter of housing and house purchase. There is something profoundly unethical in making a social need subservient to the laws of the marketplace. Housing should be regarded as a social service and, as in the case of every other social service, all citizens should be entitled to benefit. All citizens should be entitled to afford, as it were, that particular social service. Every citizen should be able to purchase his own house and sufficient houses should be available at all times for purchase by citizens. Housing should not be dominated by considerations of private profit in the hands of a few. I believe the community will yet grow wise enough to see that housing must be taken out of the marketplace and no man put in the position of saying: "I make my money out of the needs of the people in this particular area."
None of our measures was designed to put the private builder out of business. They are, if anything, to do the opposite and, if there is anything designed to put the private builder out of business, it is the present spiralling cost of land. If our motion is accepted the private builder and the small builder will be helped rather than hindered. The only people who might suffer are those who are in a position to pay the high prices they are paying for land at the moment in Dublin. Only a few tycoons will be affected by this motion if it is accepted. The motion is designed to help the private builder, the small builder and the man desirous of purchasing his own house. It will also make it possible for more citizens to own their own house; that is something they cannot do at the moment.
It is time the Government stopped making speeches and realised that they alone can take the appropriate action. There is a crisis. There is always a crisis when things become impossible for a great many people and it is now impossible for a great many people to set about owning their own houses. We must take action to help them. These people are not asking for charity. They are merely asking for community help and the community help we can give them is to stabilise the price of land in Dublin so that the price of houses can be brought down to a reasonable level. The cost of the site at the moment is nearly one-quarter the purchase price of the house. Surely, if we bring the cost of the site down to a more reasonable level, the result in the cost of the house will be beneficial to those looking for houses? It should be possible to take the strain off and make it easier for more people to own their own houses. That is why we have tabled this motion. That is why we look for support here for this motion. That is why we do not understand the smear statements of the Minister. The only conclusion we can come to is that he has wilfully decided to misrepresent what we said.
Motion agreed to.
Motion No. 36 in the names of Deputy Corish, Deputy Seán Dunne, Deputy Mullen and Deputy James Tully.
You are not making a mistake, are you, a Cheann Comhairle?
I do not think so. The Chair has not been notified of any other motion taking precedence.
But it is evident to the Ceann Comhairle that both the Minister for Lands and I are here for the purpose of dealing with the motion on Forestry and, unless Deputy O'Leary has been otherwise informed, that motion comes next.
I should like to inform Deputy Oliver Flanagan that the Chair has not been notified of this.
I thought it was agreed among the Whips.
I frankly was not aware of this and I would not agree to any other motion being called if No. 36 should be taken now.
There is some confusion.
There is because the Whips have not informed the Chair if some later motion is to be taken at the conclusion of No. 35.
Sir, I informed the General Office last Friday that this motion would be taken—the motion on forestry in the name of Deputy Oliver Flanagan.
If the House agrees, the Chair has no objection, but the Chair should have been informed. That is not a matter for the Whips.
The Minister in charge of forestry is here.
Was this an agreement between the Whips?
No, but our motion was next. We were taking this motion and we notified the General Office.
We have just disposed of a Labour motion and, surely, a Fine Gael motion must come next, and then a Labour motion again? Is not that the procedure?
That is not the position but, if the House agrees to take a certain motion, the Chair has no objection so long as the Chair is informed as to what the House desires.
I am not aware of what the Whips' decision on the matter was but what I am being asked to do now is to take responsibility, on behalf of my Party, to pass over a motion which has been called.
The Chair has no option but to call the next motion—No. 36—but, in view of the fact that the Whip says an agreement has been reached to take No. 37, if the House so desires, the Chair has no objection.
Has there been a Whips' decision on that?
The usual procedure is a Labour motion and then a Fine Gael motion and I told the General Office on Friday that we would be moving the motion on Forestry.
If the Whips have agreed, I have no objection.
It is the usual procedure—Labour, Fine Gael, and then Labour again. I did not specifically see the Whips about this motion, but that is the way it always has been. We were in trouble once or twice before and, in the circumstances, we gave way.
Could we hear from the Labour Whip to clear the matter up? The Chair has called Private Members' Motion No. 36 but I understand that there has been agreement to take another motion.
That is right.
No. 37.
All is well that ends well.
I want to make it clear that the Chair was not informed of any agreement. So far as the Chair is concerned the order of motions on the Order Paper cannot be changed without the agreement of the Whips or the House.
Perhaps the fault is partly mine. I was having tea. I understood that Fine Gael would, as we did last week, inform you, Sir, that their motion was next. We took our motion out of turn and the Fine Gael motion is next and ours goes to the end.
An inefficient Whip.
Motion No. 37.