asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he will state whether the prices realised by the sale of the Ballinahinch properties of the Irish Tourist Board are as reported in the newspapers of 15th instant; whether he is aware that the advertising of the sale of the properties in one lot militated against the realisation of the market value of the two lesser lots; why the three lots were not advertised to be sold separately when the auction proved abortive; whether Glendalough, in particular, has not been sold at a price greatly under value; whether the agreement to sell Glendalough at the reported price was affected by the subsisting tenancy; and will he give particulars of this tenancy.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Sale of Irish Tourist Board Ballinahinch Properties.
The prices realised by the sale of Ballinahinch properties of the Irish Tourist Board are correctly reported in the newspapers of the 15th July. I am not aware that the advertising of the sale of the properties in one lot militated against the value of the two lesser lots. The advertisement of sale stated that if the property was not sold in one lot it would be offered in three separate lots. This was done and when no sale resulted tenders were invited and each lot was sold to the highest bidder. The agreement to sell Glendalough at the price accepted for it was not, so far as I am aware, affected by the existing tenancy. The tenancy agreement was made, before the acquisition of the property by the Irish Tourist Board, on the basis of a nominal rental.
Does the Minister not recognise that there would be a number of people who would be potential purchasers of the small properties if these were advertised separately and that the advertising of the place in question for sale in one lot warned off a large number of potential purchasers?
That is not so. The Deputy is just trying to be mischievous.
I am not trying to be mischievous.
The property was fully advertised, not merely in this country but in Great Britain and in America as well. It was clearly and specifically stated in the advertisement that if the property were not sold in one lot—in other words, if a reasonable price and an acceptable price was not offered for the property in one lot— it would be offered in three separate lots. It was bid for. As a matter of fact there was a lesser sum offered in the aggregate for the three properties when they were offered singly than when the property was offered in one lot. It was withdrawn from public auction as we were not prepared to accept the price offered. Those who were interested were notified that a period of ten days. I think it was, would be allowed for the receipt of private offers either for the property in one lot or in three separate lots. While only one tender was, in fact, received after the auction for the property in one lot, for each of the three separate lots there were several bids. There were no fewer than—I am speaking now from recollection, but I think I am right in this—five bidders for Glendalough. The property in each case was sold to the highest bidders after the fullest publicity—public auction, withdrawal from public auction and a period of ten days to allow anybody who wished to bid for the property in one lot or in three separate lots. There were at least three bidders for each of the three lots, and, as I say, speaking from recollection, I think there were no fewer than five different people bidding for Glendalough. In each of the three cases the property was sold to the highest bidder.
Arising out of the Minister's further reply may I ask——
Question No. 37.
Nílim sásta, a Chinn Chomhairle, leis an bhfreagra agus táim ag iarraidh cead ort an cheist seo a tharraing anuas i ndeireadh na Dála anocht.
The purpose behind the Deputy's question is as purposeless and mean as is his first question.
A Deputy
Is he answering Question No. 37 now?
There is a different opinion abroad.
If the acquisition and amount of money spent on this——
A Deputy
This is not the right procedure.
The procedure is wrong and wrong on both sides of the House.
It seems to me that the Chair is only concerned with the procedure on this side. I submit that the Minister's behaviour is quite reprehensible.
The Chair will not be dictated to. The further remarks of the Minister, which were better left unsaid, when another question had been called, were in reply to interjections by Deputy Bartley.
I do not think they were.
The Chair heard them.
I interrupted to ask another supplementary.
I must apologise to the Chair and to the House for any disorderly conduct on my part.
You should, for a statement that a supplementary was mischievous is an invitation to a Deputy to ask a question.
We could have quite a debate on that.
Apologise.