asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he will state the cost of (i) the erection of the hydro at Tramore, (ii) the development of the site prior to the erection of the hydro, (iii) the pitch and putt course, (iv) the casino and (v) the boys' club; and, further, the total cost of each separately and the combined total.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - An Bord Fáilte Tramore Property.
asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he is aware of the protests made by Tramore Town Commissioners concerning the action of An Bord Fáilte in selling their property without a public auction as promised by him during a recent visit to Tramore; and, if so, if he will state (i) why the property was sold, (ii) why the sale was not by public auction, and (iii) what did the purchasers pay for it; and, further, if he will make a general statement on the matter.
asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he will indicate the circumstances under which Bord Fáilte property at Tramore was disposed of, and why the disposal was not by way of public auction.
asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he will state who negotiated the sale of the Tramore property to local individuals and if any auctioneer or broker was involved in the transaction at his request or that of Bord Fáilte.
asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if there were any other offers for the purchase of Bord Fáilte property at Tramore apart from the offer which was accepted.
asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he will state whether he met certain persons in connection with the purchase of Bord Fáilte property at Tramore; and, if so, when and where discussions took place on the matter; and, further, when he received representations from them on the sale of this property.
asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he will state the date of his approval for the sale of the hydro, etc., at Tramore and the date on which the proposal to dispose of it privately was discussed and approved by the Government.
asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if theGovernment will take steps to have a public inquiry conducted into the sale of Bord Fáilte property at Tramore, County Waterford, in view of the great prevailing dissatisfaction therewith, such inquiry to investigate the circumstances in which the property was sold privately and to ascertain why the property was sold at a figure much below the amount of public expenditure involved; and, if so, if the proposed inquiry will be a judicial one or by a committee of the House of the Oireachtas with power to send for persons, papers and records.
With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle I propose to take Question Nos. 12 to 19 together.
I am advised by An Bord Fáilte that the costs of acquisition and development of the properties at Tramore cannot be segregated in the form sought in one of the questions. The cost of erecting and equipping the hydro was £35,535. The cost of the pitch-and-putt course was £1,000 and the cost of the boys' club (lands and buildings) was £2,700. I am informed by An Bord Fáilte that separate figures cannot be provided for the cost of developing the site prior to the erection of the hydro or for the cost of the casino. The total net expenditure on acquisition and development of all the properties, after making allowance for revenues received, was £84,550.
The disposal of the properties at Tramore had been under consideration by my predecessor following a recommendation made by the Tourist Board in December, 1950, that all the board's properties should be disposed of as quickly as possible. So far as Tramore was concerned, the Tourist Board recommended in January, 1951, that they should negotiate a sale with the local directors of Tráigh Mhór (Tramore Development) Teo., but the matter had not yet been decided when I resumed office in June, 1951. When I came to consider the general policy to be adopted for the further development of the tourist industry I decided that the board's recommendation that the properties be disposed of should be accepted. As regards the method of disposal of the properties atTramore I recognised the risk that sale by public auction might result in the properties being purchased and used for purposes not connected with tourism, or possibly detrimental to the development of Tramore as a tourist resort. It was only with hesitation that I eventually decided to direct that the sale should be by public auction, and then only on condition that suitable legal safeguards could be devised against diversion of the properties to uses not connected with tourism.
I was later advised that the properties could be sold by way of lease and that a restrictive covenant could be inserted in the lease but that this would not be an absolute safeguard as the enforcement of the covenant, should the need arise, might ultimately have to depend on the outcome of legal action in the courts. It was also pointed out that the inclusion of a restrictive covenant would probably affect the yield from the sale.
On the 30th May, 1952, An Bord Fáilte reported to me that they had received an offer from the local directors of Tráigh Mhór (Tramore Development) Teo. to purchase all the properties for the sum of £20,000 to be paid over a period of years. Tráigh Mhór (Tramore Development) Teo. is a company which was incorporated on the 3rd July, 1945, at the instance of the Tourist Board with the general object of promoting and developing the resort of Tramore. The directors were appointed by the Tourist Board and included members of the Tourist Board and local directors. The company undertook the commercial management of the properties at Tramore. An Bord Fáilte, in forwarding the offer received from the local directors in May, 1952, indicated to me that, since January, 1951, they had had in mind the position of the local directors and their interest in the future of the properties. They stated that these local directors had, for several years past, taken a deep interest in the general scheme for the development of Tramore as a tourist resort and that they had been regular in attendance at meetings of the company at Tramore and had declined to accept any fees for their services. An Bord Fáilte also made the point thatthe Tourist Traffic Bill then before the Oireachtas provided for the encouragement of resort development by local companies and provided for financial assistance in such cases.
I considered the matter afresh in the light of this communication from An Bord Fáilte and came to the conclusion that the development of the properties in the interests of tourism was more likely to be achieved by negotiating a sale on satisfactory terms to the local directors of the company than by taking the risk attendant on a public auction. I was also influenced by the fact to which An Bord Fáilte had adverted that the disposal of the properties in this way would be in consonance with the provisions of the Tourist Traffic Bill.
On the 21st August, 1952, An Bord Fáilte reported to me that there had been further discussions with the local directors of Tráigh Mhór (Tramore Development) Teo. as a result of which the local directors had submitted a firm offer to purchase the properties for £20,000, payable in cash, and had given an undertaking that the properties to be acquired would be developed in the interests of tourism. An Bord Fáilte stated to me that they were satisfied that, having regard to all the circumstances, and in particular to the requirement that the Tramore properties be developed in the interests of tourism, it would be preferable to accept this offer and not to proceed to dispose of the property by public auction. In the light of this recommendation from An Bord Fáilte, and after consultation with the Minister for Finance, I indicated to An Bord Fáilte that I was prepared to agree to the sale of the properties on the basis proposed if, after further negotiations, the local directors could not be induced to improve on their offer.
On the 1st October, 1952, An Bord Fáilte reported to me that, as a result of further negotiations with the local directors, they had received a firm offer of £22,500 for the properties, subject to a lease rent for a term of 99 years, and that they were satisfied that there was no prospect of the amended offer being improved upon.They indicated that Mr. J.A. Nugent and Mr. A.P. McClafferty, the members of An Bord Fáilte on the Board of Tráigh Mhór (Tramore Development) Teo., would retire when the sale was finalised on the basis proposed. On the 10th October, I authorised the acceptance of the offer subject to the inclusion in the lease of a covenant to ensure that the properties would be developed in the interests of tourism. The negotiations with the local directors were carried out by An Bord Fáilte and no auctioneer or broker was involved in the transaction.
I am aware that the Tramore Town Commissioners have expressed dissatisfaction that the properties were sold otherwise than by public auction and that they were not given an opportunity of acquiring them. The town commissioners had been informed in March, 1952, of my original decision that the properties should be sold by public auction. Later on, in September, 1952, and while the negotiations between An Bord Fáilte and the local directors of Tráigh Mhór (Tramore Development) Teo. were in progress, the town commissioners forwarded to me a resolution that action should be taken to put the casino portion of the properties into a suitable state of repair for An Tóstal and proposing also that the town commissioners should be represented on Tráigh Mhór (Tramore Development) Teo.
The commissioners were informed in reply that I was then considering, in consultation with An Bord Fáilte, the arrangements which should be made to ensure that the properties would be maintained and developed in the interest of Tramore as a tourist resort and that when a final decision had been taken an announcement on the subject would be made by An Bord Fáilte. This communication was acknowledged without comment. I now understand that the town commissioners interpreted the communication to mean that no final action would be taken in the matter until an announcement had first been made by An Bord Fáilte. That was not the intention, and it did not occur to me that therecould have been any misunderstanding in the matter. The announcement of the sale of the properties was made to the Press by An Bord Fáilte on the 5th January, 1953, when the negotiations had been finalised.
So far as I am aware, the only firm offers made for the properties were those made by the purchasers. I understand from An Bord Fáilte that they received inquiries about particular portions of the properties, but that no actual offers for them were received and that the board, in any event, were averse to selling the properties in lots. No firm offer was ever received from the town commissioners. I understand from discussions I have had with representatives of the town commissioners that what they had in mind was not the possible acquisition of the properties by the town commissioners as such, but the promotion by members of the town commissioners, as individuals, of another local company for this purpose.
I cannot accept the implication in the Deputy's questions that the sale of property must always be by public auction and that it is not open to a Minister to dispose of properties, or, as in the present case, to authorise their disposal, on the recommendation of a State board, by private treaty where he considers that course to be more expedient in the public interest. Sales of Tourist Board properties by private treaty were authorised by my predecessor at Portmarnock and Killarney in 1949, and I authorised a similar course at Bundoran in 1951. There are no grounds for believing that the sale of the properties at Tramore by public auction in one lot would have been more beneficial to the Exchequer or to the interests of tourism in Tramore.
I am aware of no grounds on which an inquiry should be held and it is not intended to adopt the proposal.
In the course of the Tánaiste's reply he said there was no offer made to An Bord Fáilte by the Tramore Town Commissioners. Could the Tánaiste say under what circumstances An Bord Fáilte could receive anoffer when he himself previously gave an undertaking in the course of a public statement in Tramore that the property would be sold by public auction and that the Tramore Town Commissioners were waiting for an answer so that they might offer?
The whole business started long before that. In my predecessor's time the representatives of the town commissioners were received in the Department of Industry and Commerce and informed the Department that they were interested in the future of these properties. At that meeting the officers of the Department and representatives of what was then the Tourist Board were present. They intimated they would be prepared to consider any proposal which came from the town commissioners.
There was no question of selling at that particular time at all.
It was stated that the Tourist Board would consider any proposal. No proposal was in fact made, and it is clear that the town commissioners would not have had the legal powers to operate on the scale required for the purposes of these properties. As a matter of fact I met representatives of the town commissioners this morning, and they made it quite clear to me what they had in mind. They intended the purchase of the property by the town commissioners, not as such, but that members of the town commissioners would as individuals form a company for the purchase of the property. It was by no means obvious to me that one particular local company would have an advantage over the other.
If the individual members of town commissions and other enterprising people in Tramore decided to establish a company for the purpose of purchasing the property, what guarantee has the Tánaiste that he would not have got more from them for the property, if they had an opportunity of bidding than from the concern that purchased it? Does he now admit that he deliberately misled the people on the occasion of his visit to Waterford,where he stated the property was going to be disposed of by public auction?
I made no statement on this subject in Waterford, nor did I meet anyone in Waterford who was interested in this question. The contacts with the town commissioners were effected entirely by correspondence. It is quite true that the position developed in this way. The Tourist Board were always in favour of selling this property to this local development company which it itself had set up previous to my predecessor. The matter had not been disposed of at the time I resumed office and I adopted my predecessor's decision that the property should be sold. I decided it should be sold by public auction provided it was possible to effect an arrangement which would ensure that on sale it would never be used for any purpose other than the development of Tramore as a tourist resort. That decision was changed subsequently on the representations of the Tourist Board and in consideration of the offer which they had received from the local directors which, I was satisfied, represented a larger sum of money than could have been secured at a public auction. It was not obvious to me that at a public auction there would be, in fact, more than one bidder.
I would like to ask the Minister if at any time prior to the offer being made An Bord Fáilte recommended to him that the property should be sold by private treaty and not by public auction, recommended specifically against public auction?
The Tourist Board always were in favour of sale to this local company. They never recommended any other course.
That is not an answer to my question. The other point I want to make is that the Minister makes the case that the reason he changed his mind from having the property sold by public auction and decided to have it sold by private treaty was because he was anxious that the contract would be so drawnthat the property would have to be used for tourist purposes. Is the Minister aware there is no provision put into a contract of private sale that could not have been put into a contract for public sale? There is no restrictive covenant which he could legally have put into a contract for private sale that he could not put into a contract for public auction.
I said so. The Deputy misunderstands the position.
The Minister was giving that as the reason. If that is not the reason for changing from public auction to private treaty, I must say I do not understand what it was.
The reason was that the Tourist Board, which had become An Bord Fáilte, pressed me strongly to adopt the course of sale to the company they had set up, urging that that course was not merely in the best interests of Tramore as a holiday resort but also in accordance with the terms of the Tourist Traffic Bill then before the Oireachtas which contemplated the establishment of local development companies at all resorts and also because of their view that the offer they had received from the local directors of the development company represented substantially more money than they were likely to secure in any other way.
Is the Tánaiste aware that the same representations were being made to his predecessor and that his predecessor refused to act on them?
I understand the Tánaiste to state that this property was sold to a company. Is the Tánaiste aware that the Waterford Starof January 9th made the following statement: “TheWaterford Starhas been officially informed that the property has not been sold to a company. It has been sold to the three gentlemen already mentioned. We understand they are going to develop it in the interests of Tramore”? Is that correct?
The property was sold to the local directors of the company.
Not all of them.
Three of them.
Not as a company.
As individuals or as agents for the company?
The company consisted of these local directors and members of the Tourist Board. The members of the Tourist Board having withdrawn, the remaining directors now become owners of the property.
As individuals or——
As private individuals.
The Minister's reply, in effect, is that an investment of £84,000 by his Government in Bord Fáilte property has to-day depreciated to £22,000.
I think it should be realised that included in that sum of £84,000 there was the expenditure incurred on work done on site development there by the Construction Corps during the war and that could not possibly be valued on a commercial basis.
Will the Minister say why, when he changed his mind and the property was not going to be sold by public auction and when he decided that it was going to be sold privately, he did not announce that fact so that all persons interested could make offers? He has said that he does not accept that it is necessary to sell by public auction. Surely he accepts that when you are selling public property the whole world should be told and not only one set of people?
Everybody knew the property was for sale.
Is the Minister not aware that when it is announced that property is for sale by public auction everybody interested awaits the auction? Does he not remember that he himself, during the by-election in the summer of 1952, stated publicly that it was going to be sold by public auction?
The decision to sell all these properties was taken by the then Government in 1948. It was certainly widely publicised and fully debated in the Dáil. Many of the properties which were then in the possession of the Tourist Board were sold by private treaty.
After public auction. There was not one single property sold by the previous Government privately, except after public auction when the reserve was not reached—not one.
I want to give notice that I wish to raise the subject matter of this question on the Adjournment, in view of the Minister's most unsatisfactory reply.