Vol. 243 No. 1
asked the Minister for Local Government if in the light of his replies to questions of 19th and 25th November he will state the nature of the serious constitutional difficulties standing in the way of a solution to the problem of speculation in scarce serviced land for housing.
33.
asked the Minister for Local Government whether further to his reply to Question 47 on 25th November the Government have been advised that it would be repugnant to the Constitution to delimit by law the exercise of property rights in relation to the sale of land for development purposes with a view to reconciling the exercise of these rights with the exigencies of the common good.
I propose, with your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, to take Questions Numbers 32 and 33 together.
I would refer the Deputy to my reply to Deputy Loughnane on 19th November, 1969, and to Articles 40.3.2º and 43.1.2º of the Constitution.
I am advised that the provisions of Article 43.2.2º could not be interpreted as permitting the bringing of all building land under community control at prices to be determined by the previous use of the land, as advocated by the Deputy's party, as this would amount to the expropriation of all building land at prices fixed in an arbitrary manner, the abolition of the right of free sale of building land, the abandonment of the principle of fair market value in the assessment of compensation for land acquired compulsorily for public purposes, and the giving of monopolistic powers to local authorities to control the market in building land.
Could the Minister relate the powers of local authorities who can acquire land by compulsion for house building to the Articles of the Constitution he has mentioned?
Yes. They can acquire land compulsorily for these and other purposes, but there is provision in the law that compensation must be fixed on the basis of market value.
By arbitration?
Yes, by arbitration.
Would the Minister give a specific reply to my Question No. 33 which can be answered "Yes" or "No". He already gave the House the impression in answering an earlier question that he was answering "Yes". He is now evading it. Will he answer "Yes" or "No".
I have answered it in the reply I have given.
No, the Minister has not.
The Minister has been asked would he agree that he has been advised that it would be repugnant to the Constitution to delimit by law the exercise of property rights in relation to the sale of land for development purposes. He he been so advised?
I have answered the question.
Has the Minister been so advised?
I have been advised that the provisions of Article 43.2.2º could not be interpreted as permitting the bringing of all building land under community control at prices to be determined by the previous use of land, as advocated by the Deputy's party, as this would amount to the expropriation of all building land at prices fixed in an arbitrary manner, the abolition of the right of free sale of building land, the abandonment of the principle of fair market value in the assessment of compensation for land acquired compulsorily for public purposes, and the giving of monopolistic powers to local authorities to control the market in building land.
Do the local authorities not do this for the purpose of getting land to build houses?
They do on the basis of the compensation being fixed on the market value.
How is it they can do that?
Would the Minister agree that the alleged constitutional difficulties which he claims to discern are simply a shelter belt behind which activities continue to be engaged in relating to speculation in serviced land by which he and his colleagues benefit?
No, the only one in this House that I know that benefited was the Deputy's colleague and there are a lot of things that can be done in Cuba that are not constitutionally possible here.
The Minister is really the Mayor of Pinkville—that is what they should call him.
