I move:—
That, in view of public uneasiness caused by the sale of An Bord Fáilte property at Tramore by private treaty to three private individuals at a much lower figure than possibly might have been obtained if an opportunity had been given to the public to bid at a public auction or by tender, Dáil Éireann is of opinion that a Select Committee of the House should be set up to investigate all the facts of the sale and to report back to the Dáil.
This motion was tabled with a view to having a full discussion in this House, so that Deputies would have an opportunity of saying whether or not they believed that the facts they heard during the discussion would justify their setting up such a committee. The motion was put down by me not from any narrow Party political point of view; it was put down by me as a public representative of a constituency at the request of a local authority in that constituency. That request was conveyed to me and to the other Deputies of the constituency of Waterford by the unanimous wish of the town commissioners of Tramore. The members of that body hold different shades of political opinion. As far as I know there was no Party politics motivating the commissioners but a sincere desire that the full facts of the sale of certain properties at Tramore should be investigated and that the whole country should have an opportunity of judging whether or not the sale, including the manner in which it was carried out, was justified.
I suggest to the Minister for Industry and Commerce that it is just as essential for him as it is for the people of Tramore or anywhere else that all the facts of this case should be made public, that this committee should be set up. They should have power to examine every detail, every transaction, every letter in connection with the sale and they should publish, for the whole country to see, their considered opinion—whether it be that the sale was properly constituted, that it was an advisable act, and that it was done in the public interest, or whether they find contrary to that.
I do not intend to suggest that there is any bribery or political corruption in this sale. I am suggesting that it was an ill-considered move, that the Minister was induced to do something that should not have been done, and that it is in the public interest that when such a thing happens an investigation should follow, so that, even if no remedy for the particular act follows from the investigation, it will for the future act as a deterrent to similar actions taking place. The Minister and his office should, I suggest, be like Caesar's wife, above suspicion. I do not wish to attribute to him any question of suspicion in this case, but I suggest to this House that the facts are such that an investigation is desirable and that some conclusions should be come to by the committee and should be published, to assure the people of the country once and for all that public funds and public property held by the Government for the people of the country will be administered and will be used to the advantage of the people as a whole, with no particular private gain to any individual or any group of individuals.
I ask the Deputies who are interested to listen to this, irrespective of what political views they hold, as just an ordinary business transaction, and to say to themselves: "If that happened in my ordinary private life, what would be my view of it?" and to vote, not according to the Party to which they belong, but according to conscience on the matter. I would appeal in particular to my colleagues in Waterford constituency to take part in this debate, to express their views, and to appeal to this House for support for this motion so that, once and for all, the matter can be finished with.
I will give in very brief detail an outline of the facts as I know them. Property was held at Tramore estimated at a value of £84,550 by An Bord Fáilte. A decision had been come to by the previous Government that it was desirable that properties held by the Tourist Board should be disposed of. That Government, acting on that decision, did dispose of a considerable amount of property throughout the length and breadth of this country but this particular property of Tramore had not been disposed of at the time when the inter-Party Government went out of office. The present Minister on taking up his position indicated that while he did not agree with that decision because of the fact that so much of the property had been disposed of it would not be desirable to alter it and that he intended to continue that policy. The property at Tramore was finally sold. It is on the question of how it was sold that the motion is down.
I suggest that there are three questions which Deputies should put to themselves: (1) Was the sale carried out in the normal way; (2) were there any circumstances, if the sale was not carried out in the normal way, to justify any change in the method of procedure of selling and (3) was the best possible price got for the property and were the interests to whom the property was sold the best interests in the long run when viewed from the point of view of tourism. I think that is a very ordinary and very simple series of questions for anyone to put to himself and give a decision on.
On No. 1, as to whether the sale was carried out in the normal way, I would say this—and I suggest I cannot be contradicted—that this was the only property sold by the board that was sold without having been first offered for sale by public auction. I am well aware that on two occasions property held by An Bord Fáilte was sold by private treaty, having first been offered by public auction at which the bids made did not apparently reach the reserve fixed by the board. The property was then withdrawn and later, as a result of private negotiations, the sale took place. I suggest that in every other case in which property held by the board was sold an opportunity was given to those interested to bid for it in the public market up to whatever figure they thought represented its value.
The Minister, replying to a series of questions put to him by various Deputies, and particularly Deputy Flanagan, in February, 1953, indicated that his general view was, prior to the sale, that it should be a sale by public auction. I can quote from the reports statements made by the Minister in this House that that was his belief at that time. I can also quote from the Waterford Star of January, 1953, which published the report of a meeting of the town commissioners dealing with the sale of this property. At that meeting, letters were read from An Bord Fáilte indicating to the town commissioners that they could be assured that the sale would be by public auction. In the same paper there appears a report made by members to the town commissioners, who are not politically opposed to the Minister, to the effect that at a public meeting in the town of Tramore he had made statements assuring the people of Tramore that if there was a sale the public would have an opportunity of bidding. I think all that establishes that there was the direct intention up to a certain point to have the sale by public auction.
I am informed that the owners of certain property, which was taken over by the Tramore Development Company, were assured that if ever this property was to go back into private hands, they would be given the opportunity of redeeming it at a value roughly corresponding to the compensations which they had been paid for it, or at least that they would be given the opportunity of bidding for it in the public market.
I now propose to give some of the facts in regard to this case. This property was sold to three private individuals by private treaty, negotiated between An Bord Fáilte and themselves, for a sum of £22,500, roughly one quarter of the estimated value of the property. The estimate that I gave of £84,550 was not made by me but was given in this House by the present Minister. Therefore, we find that, at one quarter of its estimated value, this public property held in trust by An Bord Fáilte for the people of Ireland was disposed of to three private individuals. It was not until the sale had been completed that the people of Tramore and other people interested knew of what had happened. They had been assured that their property would be sold by public auction. They had indicated that they were interested in it and were awaiting the public auction, and then learned one morning from a public announcement that the property which they desired to purchase in the interests of the people of Tramore had been purchased not by a company but by three private individuals at a price representing one quarter of its estimated value.
This property consisted of land and of buildings. One portion of the buildings was what was formerly a summer camp or a summer house for St. Joseph's Boys' Club. This was a charitable organisation formed by certain people in Waterford City, the object being to send young boys, who could not afford to take a vacation themselves, to the seaside for a period each year. That was a laudable object. Therefore, Deputies will agree that the building was being used for a laudable purpose. It was acquired in the public interest by the Tramore Development Company for a sum of money, by way of compensation to the trustees of the society who owned it. They were assured that if ever it was to revert back to private ownership they would have an opportunity of purchasing it to continue the work in which they had been engaged. That organisation was willing and interested in making a bid to secure its former property as, I say, it was anxious to continue the work in which it had been engaged prior to its purchase by the Tramore Development Company. There was an urgent need for the continuation of that work, and I understand from certain members of the society that they had so indicated to An Bord Fáilte.
There was a garage owner in Tramore carrying on a substantial business whose property was acquired. He informed me that he also had been assured that, should the occasion arise, he would be given an opportunity of bidding for it. Not only were the members of the St. Joseph's Boys' Club and the garage owner deprived of their right of again securing the property which they formerly held, but the Waterford County Council acting, as they believed, in the public interest through the commissioner appointed to act for the council, gave to the Waterford Development Company two acres three roods and 38 perches of land which they owned. They did so, believing that it was in the interests of tourism that the land should be surrendered to the company that had been established in Tramore.
That was in consideration of a sum of £170, a nominal sum. The members of the Waterford County Council surrendered their rights, but they wished, should the property ever revert to any private interests, that they should have an opportunity of taking over the land which they had given. It is a fact that since this land was sold to three private individuals the Waterford County Council, on behalf of the Tramore Town Commissioners, made application for a portion of the property to be used as a parking-place for the cars of tourists visiting the town, and the conditions under which they were given the property by the present owners were such that a sum of £870 for a stretch of land roughly 30 yards long by 30 feet deep had to be expended by the council so that the town commissioners in Tramore could carry out work essential to tourism.
The Minister made the point that one of the reasons which induced him to change his mind about consenting to the sale of this property by private treaty was that the people who were thinking of purchasing the property were so well known to be interested in tourism that it was desirable that they should secure it rather than that the risk should be taken of some outside body securing it at public auction for personal gain. I do not wish under the shelter and the privilege of the House to make any claims against the interests of the three individuals who purchased the property so far as their wish to develop and foster tourism in Tramore is concerned. From my knowledge of them—some of them I know personally—they are quite respectable and responsible people but I suggest that they are three private individuals and that the purchase was motivated by the fact that here was value for their money and here was a likely return in the form of yearly dividends. I cast no blame on them for taking that view. It is a natural everyday thing for people to look at a proposition in that way but I suggest that when the Minister states that he selected these because they and they alone were the people so interested he is guilty of a misstatement of fact.
It must be well known to the board and to the Minister that, prior to the sale, the town commissioners of Tramore, either as a body as town commissioners or as individuals, were prepared to bid for this property. That body comprised of men of standing, of money and of responsibility, were prepared to join together and form a company to purchase this property and use it in the interests of tourism and of the people of Tramore without any personal gain. I can give the names of distinguished people, of people who carry on extensive business in the City of Waterford and the area around Tramore who are members of the town commissioners and who have assured me that they were prepared—if they could not do it as town commissioners to do it as private individuals—to put up their own money in the interests of tourism. I suggest that they were deprived of the right to do that by what happened. I suggest that all the circumstances should be examined to see whether blame can be apportioned for what happened, so that in the public interest never again will such a thing give rise to the justifiable suspicion that something underhand or careless has taken place.
Two significant facts have taken place since the property was sold which do not indicate any particular desire on the part of the three people who now own the property to encourage tourism in Tramore. Almost immediately on the property going into the possession of these three private individuals the Irish Countrywomen's Association which had rented from An Bord Fáilte a large plot of ground, were notified that they were required by the new owners to give immediate possession of that property. In that ground—roughly an acre or an acre and a half—I understand the Irish Countrywomen's Association had planted thousands of bulbs which would be in flower around the Tóstal period, but the Irish Countrywomen's Association were compelled to root up these bulbs and to leave the property free for the new owners. Does that indicate any particular interest in seeing that Tramore was made beautiful, developed and made interesting for visitors? I suggest that that act can only be construed as indicating a desire quite contrary to any desire to encourage tourism.
I am also told that buildings in this new property are now being used against the interests of hoteliers in Tramore in relation to catering for wedding breakfasts and various other functions which would normally be a source of income to the people who own property and pay rates in Tramore. There is not, I suggest, one single thing done by the new owners that can indicate any justification for the confidence reposed in them by An Bord Fáilte and the Minister in giving them the property as custodians of the interests of tourism in County Waterford. I would feel that this House would be doing a sensible act by appointing 15 members drawn from all sides and saying to them: "There is something to be investigated. We suggest to you that you act for us, you sift through the various pieces of correspondence, you inquire into all the facts, and that you come to a decision which will be sent back to us here so that not only are the facts known and made public but all question of suspicion shall be cleared from the Minister and from the board and that the people of this country can be assured that any property held in trust by his Department for the nation will be administered and sold if necessary in the very same manner as it would be had it been his personal property."
