Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 29 Nov 1944

Vol. 95 No. 8

Ceisteanna. — Questions. Oral Answers. - Portmarnock Estate—Position of Tenants.

asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he is aware that the Irish Tourist Board have acquired the estate of Mrs. W. G. Jameson, at St. Marnock's, Portmarnock, County Dublin, and have served notice to the tenants that they must vacate the cottages; that while the landlord is compensated under statute there is no provision for the compensation to tenants living on the land for loss of employment and disturbance; and if he will make provision that in all such cases adequate compensation is paid to tenants who find themselves dispossessed and that alternative living accommodation is found for them before their houses are taken over.

The Irish Tourist Board has entered into an agreement to purchase the property St. Marnock's, Portmarnock, County Dublin. The acquisition is by voluntary sale and is not subject to statutory conditions regarding compensation. I am informed that no notices to tenants of cottages on the estate have been served by the board.

Will the Minister state whether, if the Tourist Board propose in future to acquire land on which men are working and occupying cottages, he will see that they will get alternative accommodation and adequate compensation? The general principle is what I wish to raise here, because already there is a victim who has lost his job and his home because of the activities of the Tourist Board. It is a public concern.

That question is hypothetical, irrelevant and partly irregular.

I am asking the Minister, supposing it is true that there is a victim on that land as a result of the activities of the Tourist Board, will he see that he gets alternative accommodation or compensation for the loss of his house?

Question No. 19.

Is there any reply to my question?

We do not reply to hypothetical questions.

But there is a case in connection with the property, St. Marnock's where a man has been threatened with eviction and has lost his job.

Not by the Tourist Board.

By the action of the Tourist Board acquiring this land for a public purpose. Surely there ought to be compensation for that kind of thing.

Top
Share