asked the Minister for Local Government the average cost of a new Dublin Corporation house.

14.

asked the Minister for Local Government the average cost of a new Dublin Corporation flat.

With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 13 and 14 together.

I understand from Dublin Corporation that the average all-in costs of their houses and flats, on the basis of tenders accepted in 1967-68 were as follows:—

The high cost of the 3-roomed flat is, I understand, due to abnormally high acquisition and development costs on some schemes which were comprised mainly of such flats.

Did the Minister say that the price he quoted there for flats over £5,000 is due to the cost of the acquisition of land, mainly?

No. I was referring to three-roomed flats.

Only to three-roomed flats? How does the Minister explain it?

I said that the comparatively high cost of the three-roomed flat was due to abnormally high acquisition and development costs on some schemes which were comprised mainly of such flats.

Can the Minister offer any explanation for the cost of the larger flats being of such astronomical proportions as over £1,000 per room?

It is a very costly form of building and they are usually in places where acquisition and development costs are also high.

It is not multi-storey?

Yes, in many cases it would be multi-storey. The flats are generally multi-storey schemes.

In multi-storey flats there is very little site cost involved.

There is not very little site cost involved. There is very substantial site cost involved, normally.

Is the Minister not aware that the site cost could not be enormous, that the site cost affects only the flats on the ground floor?

It is easily seen that the Deputy has no knowledge of housing in Dublin.

The Minister should not talk as if he knew the answer to everything. Is it not a fact that if flats are built on top of each other there is only the one price of land involved, or does the Minister give a new price for every floor he builds?

In this country we try to have open spaces with the flats, the land for which has to be acquired.

The Minister referred to site costs.

That is part of the site.

In view of the fact that these figures represent an extraordinarily high price for flats, with the eventual end result of high rents for the people who will tenant them, would the Minister not consider that it presents an unanswerable case for the control of the price of houses?

The price of——?

——of houses—the control of the price of new houses and flats, control of building prices, in other words? Is that not the obvious indication?

These prices are as a result of competitive tenders.

I know they are. Are these figures not the result of throwing the market open to competitive tenders from speculators?

I do not think control of prices would be the answer.

Does the Minister intend to allow the rampant profiteering in this kind of building activity to go ahead without let or hindrance for all time to come, at least as long as he is there?

With competition, there is not likely to be rampant profiteering.

That is nonsense and the Minister knows it.

Would the Minister state if the prices indicated are as a result of the acceptance of prices by the Corporation Housing Committee, of which Deputy Dunne is a member?

I do not know whether Deputy Dunne is a member of it or not but I think he should have some interest in it and more knowledge than he displays.

The Deputy is a party to it.

Is the Minister satisfied that, from the figures he has given, there is a strong case to be made in favour of single-storey houses on the ordinary traditional lines rather than for high-rise flat building?

I think the ordinary traditional style is more two-storey than single-storey.

Well, then, two-storey? It looks as if the case is made.

In certain cases the comparatively high-rise flats are practically essential because of the type of site that is involved and the demand there is for accommodation in the area.