Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 16 Mar 1960

Vol. 180 No. 5

Leases Under State Lands (Workhouses) Act, 1930: Motion.

Mr. Rooney:

I move:

"That Dáil Éireann is of opinion that no lease should be granted under the State Lands (Workhouses) Act, 1930, pending amendment of that Act."

I felt compelled, on reading the Order Paper last Wednesday, to table this motion because it affected a farm in my own parish. That farm was held under the State Lands Act and recently the Minister for Health made arrangements to lease that land to a stranger for a period of 99 years, which is three generations hence when there are many small farmers in the parishes of Lusk and Rush who would be glad of an opportunity to bid or tender for the use of that land annually or for a period of 99 years, as happened in this case. I have tabled this motion in the hope that the Minister will accept it, so that this lease will not go through and that the interests of the community in Lusk will be protected.

First of all, I have stated my reasons for tabling the motion. I shall now give details of a question which I raised in the Dáil yesterday concerning the same matter. The question was:

To ask the Minister for Health why he has in effect evicted tenants of land in Lusk controlled by the Balrothery Board of Assistance by granting a lease to a stranger under the State Lands (Workhouses) Act, 1930.

The Minister's reply was:

I have been informed by the Balrothery Board of Assistance, which is responsible for the management of the lands in question, that they have no information that any tenant has been evicted from them.

After consultation, and in agreement with the Balrothery Board of Assistance, of which Board the Deputy is Chairman. I agreed to grant a lease, under the State Lands (Workhouses) Act, 1930, of two parcels of land attached to the old Balrothery Workhouse which have been untenanted for several years. The financial terms upon which the lease is being granted were fixed in accordance with the recommendation of the Commissioner of Valuation.

It is possible that the Minister may make play with the fact that I happen to be chairman of the Balrothery Board of Assistance. It so happened that I was not at the meeting when this matter came up for discussion, and was noted, so that, apart from that, it is in a general way I require my motion to be accepted, and not particularly in relation to the Balrothery Board of Assistance. I shall now read a letter issued by an official of the Balrothery Board of Assistance, explaining, in a general way, what occured in connection with these premises.

Minister for Health (Mr. MacEntee):

On a point of order, the Deputy is purporting to quote from a letter—may I make the point of order?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

Deputy Rooney should resume his seat while the Minister is making a point of order.

Mr. MacEntee:

The Deputy is purporting to quote from a letter. I suggest it is necessary for him to read the whole letter or to Table the letter.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

It would be better if, when quotations from a letter are made by any member of the House, the whole letter should be read, if possible.

Mr. Rooney:

I shall be very glad to quote the entire letter. I had intended to make it shorter by reading out the relevant parts. The letter is dated 18th Eanair, 1960 and is addressed to Councillor Miss Mary C. Ennis, Springhill, Garristown, Co. Dublin. It states:—

I am directed to refer to your call at the office yesterday in connection with the lands at Balrothery Workhouse Premises. The position is that these lands are vested in the Minister for Health. See State Lands (Workhouses) Act, 1930. Section 3 of that Act specifies the nature of leases and licences which may be granted by the Minister, and Section 5 the nature and limitation of leases and licences which may be made by local authorities.

In 1958, inquiries were received from a solicitor on behalf of an interested party and the Board gave the necessary information. In 1959 the Minister for Health notified the Board that he had received inquiries from another person in connection with the lands, and the Board supplied all necessary information to both persons interested, but the second enquirer did not pursue the matter. The solicitor acting for the original enquirer did however pursue the matter further and indicated that his client proposed to use the premises for private residential purposes, and that he desired using the entire buildings on the plot. It was also indicated that he intended to reconstruct and modernize the building in so far as was practicable, and that, further, a long lease was desired. This information was given to the Minister for Health who, on the 22 Meitheamh, 1959, indicated that he was prepared to grant a 99 years lease, subject to a rent of £100 for the field comprising 10.710 acres, which was one of the fields let by the Board for grazing for some years past. The Minister further indicated that the rent for the area outlined in red on the map, a copy of which is attached, and comprising approximately 5 acres should be £50, the tenant being liable for rates and all repairs. The position was brought to the notice of the Board at its meeting held on Friday, 17th July, 1959 (Minute 14/59 refers). At that meeting the terms on which the Minister for Health proposed making the lease were noted by the Board. It is understood from the Department of Health that the lease is under preparation in the Chief State Solicitor's office, and under the provisions of Section 4 of the State Lands (Workhouses) Act, 1930, the Minister is required, when he proposes to make a lease or licence for a term exceeding five years, to lay before each house of the Oireachtas a statement showing the person to whom such lease or licence is proposed to be made or granted, and the necessary conditions relating to the lease or licence.

I trust this makes the position clear to you.

Yours faithfully,

(Signed) T.D. Wyer,

Acting Secretary.

That is the letter explaining what happened between the officials of the Balrothery Board of Assistance and the Minister's office. I should now like to mention in detail the papers which have been laid on the Table.

State Lands (Workhouses) Act, 1930. Ref. A.131/104. Statement for the purposes of Section 4 of the State Lands (Workhouses) Act, 1930, giving particulars of a proposed lease or licence of lands: County: Dublin; Property: Balrothery Workhouse premises—Portions containing 10 acres, 2 roods, 34 perches—and—4 acres, 3 roods, 18 perches; Purpose of Proposed lease or licence: Residential and farming purposes; Proposed lessee or licensee and address: Mary Ellen Brennan, Clonmahon House, Summerhill, County Meath; Fine, rent, or other payments proposed to be charged: Rent—£150 per annum; Term and any other conditions, etc., of proposed lease or licence: Term —99 years. Conditions—Lessee to pay all rates, taxes and outgoings and to keep the premises in good condition; not to assign, underlet or part with possession of the premises or any part thereof without the prior consent in writing of the Minister. Dated 3rd March, 1960.

Those are the papers which were laid on the Table of the Dáil, and which must lie there for a certain number of days, before this matter is finalised. The purpose of my motion is to ask the Minister if, at this stage, he will agree to withdraw this proposition, pending the amendment of the State Lands (Workhouses) Act, 1930. I am supported in this matter by a very vigorous battle fought by the Taoiseach at the time when that Bill was going through the House. He seemed, at that time, to adopt the attitude which I am adopting now in relation to Section 4 of that Act. He was supported at that time by Deputy Hogan, who is now the Ceann Comhairle, and also by Deputy Kennedy, and I think by the former Deputy Little, as can be confirmed from the Official Report.

I should like to mention now some of the things that happened which brought all this to a head. First of all, the Balrothery premises consist of an old workhouse and union which were well known all over the country at that time. It stands on about five acres of land, as mentioned in the papers on the Table. In addition to these old buildings and the land on which they stand, there are three fields, one of ten acres, one of approximately 6½ acres, and another of approximately seven acres.

In July, 1958, the solicitor mentioned in that letter wrote to the Balrothery Board of Assistance saying he was interested in getting a letting or a lease of the building and one acre of land. The solicitor was Mr. Turlough de Valera acting for our friend, Brennan. He asked at that time for one acre of land and the old derelict premises which are incapable of reconstruction or repair even to the eyes of a person who is not an engineer.

The solicitor followed up then in September, after some correspondence with the Board of Assistance, saying that his client, Brennan, was definitely interested in renting the premises and approximately four acres of ground. Anyone knowing these premises would realise that the ground and the premises were absolutely useless, but I assume that it was for the purpose of getting the final arrangement that this initial inquiry was made. The Board of Assistance went so far as to point out to the solicitor at that time that the premises were unsuitable for private residential purposes and inquired if they had any plans.

Mr. MacEntee:

What is the Deputy's authority for that? Has the Deputy any letter which would substantiate that? Has he any proof?

Mr. Dillon:

On a point of order, the Deputy is entitled to make his speech. The Minister is not entitled to cross-examine him.

Mr. Norton:

This is not a Press conference.

Mr. Dillon:

The Minister may express that view when he is called upon to speak but in the meantime he should observe the rules of order.

Mr. MacEntee:

The Leader of the Opposition should keep his mouth shut.

Mr. Dillon:

Not when the Minister cannot behave himself.

Mr. MacEntee:

I am not misbehaving myself.

Mr. Norton:

The Minister should be spanked.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

I would point out that time is running short. Deputy Rooney, without interruption.

Mr. Rooney:

I have a date here, 21st May, 1959.

Mr. MacEntee:

What precisely was said in that letter?

Mr. Norton:

Do not answer the Minister's questions at all. He is not entitled to do that now.

Mr. Rooney:

This solicitor is Mr. Turlough de Valera.

Mr. MacEntee:

Sir, you see? May I interrupt?

Mr. Dillon:

No. On a point of order. Deputy Rooney is entitled to be heard.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

The Minister said he is putting a point of order.

Mr. MacEntee:

I am putting a point of order.

Mr. Norton:

Deputy Rooney is entitled to be heard.

Mr. MacEntee:

Look, Jack Horner, you are displaced. Be silent. You are a back-bencher now, so be silent. Stay quiet or I shall bring in Deputy McAuliffe to shut you up.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

Order.

Mr. MacEntee:

This has no reference to any solicitor. The only point concerned here is whether the lease is being properly made to a reputable person. Deputy Rooney, for his own purposes, has seen fit to mention the name of a legal practitioner who bears a very honoured name in this State. You can quite see what is involved here?

Mr. Dillon:

Is this a point of order?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

Deputy Rooney is entitled to make his speech.

Mr. Rooney:

The Minister has received more information than I had planned to give him. He has it now and he does not like it. He asked me to quote. I shall not quote it exactly. I shall give the date of the letter, which is 21st May, 1959, when he indicated that his clients wanted to use the premises for private residential purposes. It was pointed out by the Board of Assistance, quite rightly, that it was not suitable for that purpose. If I can get back to the point I was making here——

Mr. MacEntee:

The Deputy has referred to a letter dated 21st May, 1959.

Mr. Rooney:

That is the date approximately.

Mr. MacEntee:

From whom to whom?

Mr. Dillon:

Do not answer the Minister's question.

Mr. MacEntee:

From whom to whom?

Mr. Rooney:

I shall not bother with that.

Mr. MacEntee:

The Deputy need not run away. He referred to a letter.

Mr. Dillon:

Sir, are any rules of order to obtain? Is Deputy Rooney entitled to make his statement without interruption?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

Deputy Rooney is entitled to make his speech without interruption.

Mr. MacEntee:

I am putting to the Chair that the Deputy has referred to an alleged letter. I am now asking him to quote that letter. I think I am entitled to know what was said in the letter—not to have Deputy Rooney's gloss upon it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

That, I feel, is a matter for Deputy Rooney. The Chair has no power to make Deputy Rooney or any other Deputy produce a private letter.

Mr. MacEntee:

As the Chair will have seen a moment ago, Deputy Rooney was flourishing a letter. It is not a private letter; it is a letter relevant to Public Business. When Deputy Rooney sits down I shall make my point of order. This is a letter relevant to Public Business. The Deputy says a letter was written by a public authority to a certain person. I have no copy of the letter to which he referred.

Mr. Norton:

That is not a point of order.

Mr. MacEntee:

Yes——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

The Minister is entitled to make his point of order.

Mr. Norton:

It is a scandalous performance.

Mr. MacEntee:

Let the unruly Little Jack Horner be quiet. When the Deputy refers to a letter from a public authority I am entitled to have the text of that letter read here. Otherwise, I do not know what the Deputy is talking about. I doubt if the Deputy does.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

If Deputy Rooney does not wish to produce the letter, the Chair cannot force him to do so.

Mr. MacEntee:

He is making his case on the basis of an alleged letter dated, I think, 21st May, 1959.

Mr. Rooney:

The point is that I can make my case without even quoting the letter I have mentioned and I intend to proceed. May I ask at this stage if I have a limited time in which to make this case?

Mr. Dillon:

No.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

I understand an hour is allotted to this motion and that the Deputy is entitled to 15 minutes in which to conclude.

Mr. Rooney:

Thank you, Sir.

Mr. MacEntee:

No. I was not aware of that limitation.

Mr. Rooney:

The solicitor was in it just on behalf of another party. Now the Minister comes into it. A second party came along and wrote direct to the Board of Assistance regarding the parcel containing the buildings. Strangely enough, it was the parcel containing the buildings that the solicitor also wrote about for the previous client. Then the Board gave details to both interested parties.

On 10th April, 1959, the Minister wrote to the Board of Assistance stating that the Architect, Mr. McNicholl, was interested in a 99-year lease and requesting inspection facilities. Mr. McNicholl wrote later stating that the premises were primitive and dilapidated and that he had lost interest. His comments regarding the state of the building are interesting from the point of view of the case I am making here.

On 21st August, 1959, the Minister indicated that he would have all his communications direct with the solicitor, Mr. Turlough de Valera. On 9th October, the Minister notified the Board of Assistance to draw up a lease. Then, on 28th October, the Minister asked the Board for possession, pending execution of the lease. On 14th December, the Minister completed a caretaker's agreement with the Chief State Solicitor. On 19th December, the keys were handed to our friend, Brennan, the interested party. This was the time when the annual letting of the Balrothery Board of Assistance should take place as it did in previous years, but at this stage it was out of their hands.

In May, 1959, strangely enough, I went to the county manager with some farmers who depend on the drainage of the Balrothery lands for the proper drainage of their own land in connection with the Land Project. The county manager kindly arranged for us to inspect the Balrothery lands for the purpose of considering co-operating in the drainage arrangements to free the lands along the stream from flooding. However, as I say, the farmers did not take action quickly enough and the result was that there was nothing further done about the drainage of those lands.

In February, 1959, these lands were advertised for letting and for the inferior land on this property, that is, land in which this person, Brennan, is not interested, one person named Moore offered £10 1s. per acre and the person who got it, Mr. McQuiggan, offered £10 2s. 6d. per acre. These offers were in respect of the undrained fields to which I have referred which were regarded as inferior land. The good field which is on dry land comprising 10 acres is the one which the Minister has let for 99 years at £10 per acre. These men, in fact, were offering £10 2s. 6d. for the swamp portion of the farm.

It is very difficult to understand why the solicitor became interested in these ten acres of good land when he inquired at the outset whether he could make a letting of the derelict buildings and one acre which was alongside those buildings. The ten acres of land are on the opposite side of the main Belfast-Dublin Road. The position regarding the remaining two fields here is that there is a right-of-way through this field of ten acres which will be available to persons who will be interested in a letting of the swamp portion of this holding in future.

Rush and Lusk market gardeners are known to have paid over £30 an acre for parcels up to well over ten acres. There are plenty of examples of these lettings or takings by the market gardeners who are very short of land and need it in connection with their market garden enterprises. Why not give these Rush and Lusk market gardeners a chance to bid or tender for a lease or letting of these lands instead of the back-stage methods which have come to light now in connection with this lease? There are plenty of local congests in the area. In fact, the Land Commission—they do not do it in most of the other parts of the country —have even in recent years given out parcels of six acres each to local market gardeners.

We have heard the case argued that 35 acres of land could hardly be regarded as an uneconomic holding. These people were given by the Land Commission six acres each. Apparently it was considered sufficient to enable them to make ends meet in connection with their activities as market gardeners. The question is: why lease aways these lands to a stranger for the next three generations? Actually, it amounts to a sale of the farm behind their backs, giving them no chance to bid in public or make an offer. All that has happened unknown to them. No advertisements appeared in the newspapers indicating the Minister's intention. The only publicity was in connection with its placing on the Table of this House.

When we consider that this good land, this good field of ten acres, is being let at £10 an acre for 99 years, we must consider that the value of the £ has dropped during the past 30 or 40 years. Is the pound going to maintain its value during the next period? Secondly, we have watched the fluctuations in the value of land upwards. Were these points not considered by the Minister? Does he consider it was fair to give a lease for 99 years? Why not give it for a more reasonable time? The person interested in this lease has apparently undertaken to reconstruct and repair these derelict buildings. Anybody familiar with them will realise the extent of these buildings and the foolishness of trying to turn them into a mansion as they would be if they were completely reconstructed for residential purposes.

It also emerged from my inquiries that the Minister got some kind of report from the Commissioners of Valuation who applied a valuation of £9 10s. to this field of ten acres. Can the Minister assure me that is a modern valuation or is it very much out of date, having regard to the letting value of land at the present time and particularly the letting value of land in this area?

I have said nearly enough so far as the local interest is concerned and I now want to make the case in favour of the motion.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

Does the Deputy intend to hear the Minister?

Mr. MacEntee:

He does not, Sir.

Mr. Rooney:

I do, certainly.

Mr. Dillon:

What time?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

At 4.29 p.m.

Mr. Rooney:

I think I shall finish in less than ten minutes.

Mr. MacEntee:

If I do not get adequate time to expose Deputy Rooney, I shall refuse to speak. I should have a sworn inquiry into Deputy Rooney's activities as Chairman of the Balrothery Board of Assistance, which might put him in a very difficult position.

Mr. Dillon:

Is there any precedent for a Minister rising in the Front Bench to threaten a Deputy with a sworn inquiry into his conduct?

Mr. MacEntee:

As to why the lands were not let.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

That has no relation to the motion.

Mr. Dillon:

It is the most scandalous——

Mr. MacEntee:

Do not be histrionic.

Mr. Dillon:

I want to say, as Leader of the Opposition, that the words just used by the Minister——

Mr. MacEntee:

You have your scavenger behind you.

Mr. Dillon:

——are as scandalous an abuse of the Ministerial position as I have heard in 30 years in this House and I protest most emphatically.

Mr. MacEntee:

If I have time to reply——

Mr. Norton:

I do not know whether there is any merit in Deputy Rooney's case——

Mr. MacEntee:

Sit down.

Mr. Norton:

——and there may very well be no merit in it, but is it proper that when a Deputy, who happens to be Deputy Rooney, is making what he thinks is a good case, as he is entitled to make his case, a Minister with all the resources of the State behind him should abuse his position by saying "I will have a sworn inquiry against you"? There has never been a precedent of that kind established in this House. Does the Chair think that this debate should be permitted to proceed in view of this threat by the Minister to use his powers to hold a sworn inquiry into the statements made by Deputy Rooney?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

I am concerned only with the Motion before the House.

Mr. Norton:

If I were Deputy Rooney I should not proceed further. I should send for the Taoiseach and have this matter discussed here. It is a scandalous threat. Is the Minister not going to apologise for it?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

Deputy Norton is taking up the time allotted to this motion and the time for it is running out. Deputy Rooney to continue.

Mr. Rooney:

I shall conclude with the following case in favour of the motion and by asking the Minister not to take any action until this is amended. I am supported by the Taoiseach, Deputy Lemass, by reason of the very vigorous opposition which he made to Section 4 of the Bill which, in fact, has brought about this particular letting which has caused so much embarrassment and trouble now in the parish of Lusk. The Second Stage of the State Lands (Workhouses) Act of 1930 was moved by the Minister for Local Government of that time on the 12th February, 1930, "to provide for the better control and management of workhouse lands and buildings formerly vested in the Local Government Board and held by it for the purposes of the Poor Relief Acts".

The Saorstát Constitution laid down that State lands must be controlled and administered by the Oireachtas and it was decided that workhouses were State lands and vested in the State, and that a maximum period of 99 years for lease or licence could be granted. There was also a provision that if the period of lease or letting was for over five years it must be placed on the Table of the Dáil. A local authority might let for a period less than 12 months without reference to the responsible Minister. At this stage I intend to quote the then Deputy Lemass in relation to this Bill. I quote Deputy Lemass as reported at column 120, Volume 33 of the Official Report of 12th February, 1930:

It is not a question of giving Government time. The question is whether a section which appears in the Bill requires another subsection, if it is to be effective, to provide that a motion tabled by a Deputy under subsection (2) (b) must be considered within the statutory limit of time fixed.

He put down an amendment himself to Section 4 of this Bill and his amendment, which he moved as reported at column 428, reads as follows——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

Has this any relevance to the Deputy's motion?

Mr. MacEntee:

None whatever.

Mr. Rooney:

This is the case asking the Minister to provide that no lease should be granted under the State Lands (Workhouses) Act pending the amendment of that Act. I am making the case that Deputy Lemass at that time put up a very strong argument for the very point that I raise now and if Deputy Lemass's case then had been accepted, what has now happened at Lusk would not have arisen. He suggested here——

Mr. MacEntee:

On a point of order, am I to be permitted time to reply to this long slanderous statement?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

I have already pointed out to the Deputy concerned that there does not appear to be any point in moving a motion unless the Minister is given sufficient time in which to reply. That is the only concern of the Chair.

Mr. Rooney:

I do not know what to say at this stage because I should like the Minister to say what his attitude is towards the case made by Deputy Lemass. If he is prepared to accept that attitude, then I shall not quote the case so ably put by Deputy Lemass at that time.

Mr. MacEntee:

I put it to you, Sir, that as the person in the Chair, you are entitled to product the interests of every other Deputy in the House including the Minister who has to answer the charges which have now been made by Deputy Rooney. I am putting it to you that Deputy Rooney having exhausted the time—he has been speaking for 40 minutes—you should give me an opportunity of replying to those charges.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

I have made several appeals to Deputy Rooney to allow sufficient time for the Minister to reply. Beyond that I have no power to direct Deputy Rooney to sit down.

Mr. MacEntee:

All I can say is that when the Taoiseach has an opportunity of studying this debate he will be very reluctant ever again to give public time to a Deputy who is abusing the facility that has been given to him as Deputy Rooney is now doing.

Mr. Dillon:

That is not a point of order.

Mr. Rooney:

I should like to educate the Minister on this point. It has already been agreed that a motion of this nature must be given priority and it has been given priority. The Taoiseach gave priority to it because he recognised that it had to get priority. Since the Minister is not going to hear what the Taoiseach himself said when he was opposing Section 4 of the State Lands (Workhouses) Act—I shall not ask him to listen to it—I shall ask him please to read it. In the meantime would the Minister defer taking action? Would he desist from giving away this farm at Lusk for a period of 99 years to a stranger when there are so many small-holders in the area who would be glad to get and opportunity to bid for it? As far as the quotation is concerned the Minister is having his way; I shall not quote it but I ask him instead to read the debate in which it occurs.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle:

Is the motion being seconded?

Mr. O.J. Flanagan:

I second the motion.

Mr. MacEntee:

The Deputy has exposed the purpose of this motion by bringing in a name which he and his associates are always anxious to besmirch. It is an honoured name in the history of this nation and the only reason this issue has been raised today is in order that that name be made the subject of a debate in this House.

Let us see what in fact is involved. The Deputy has referred to three fields on the west side of the Balrothery Road, opposite to where the old Balrothery workhouse was and he has said here that these fields have been advertised and let on conacre for a great number of years. The Deputy has been for some years a member of the Balrothery Board of Assistance. I assume that in that capacity he knows what the Board does with the property entrusted to its care. That property does not belong to them; it belongs to the State, but it is entrusted to their care in order that they may make the best possible use of it. In order to do that, the Board is entitled to make temporary lettings for short-term periods. For a great number of years past, since 1955 at least, two fields have been let to one person on conacre and those are the two swampy fields, I believe.

Mr. Rooney:

Yes.

Mr. MacEntee:

The other field is the one concerned in this lease. It has never been advertised by the Board for letting. I assume that Deputy Rooney was conversant with that fact. I assume that as Chairman of the Balrothery Board of Assistance he would have been concerned in the interests of the ratepayers who send him there to ascertain why this field was not even being advertised and why, for a very great number of years, it remained without a tenant. It is, as he has told us, the best field of the three. Who was having the grazing rights for nothing of that land? Was it a friend of Deputy Rooney's? Was it a friend of Councillor Ennis? When I said that perhaps the conduct of certain members of Balrothery Board of Assistance might call for investigation in relation to this matter, I was not talking without the book. I was astounded when this matter first came to my notice—coming up to me in the regular way from Balrothery Board of Assistance who had had correspondence about it for over a year before it ever reached my office—to find that over a great number of years a rich field for which Deputy Rooney thinks more than £10 an acre could have been got was allowed to lie fallow and untenanted at the expense, of course, of the ratepayers of Rush and Lusk for whom Deputy Rooney now professes to be so concerned. Does that not warrant some explanation from the Deputy who got up here and, as I said, made a scandalous speech in moving this motion?

Let me see what actually happened so far as the Minister for Health is concerned. Deputy Rooney has pointed out that some time in 1958 a solicitor acting on behalf of a client wrote to Balrothery Board of Assistance. I assume that when he wrote that letter it was received in the office of the Board and, relating as it did to lands which were within the temporary disposal of the Board, that the matter was brought to the attention of the Board and of Deputy Rooney. That happened, as Deputy Rooney told us, in 1958. I had no knowledge of that letter but Deputy Rooney had.

Apparently certain discussions or correspondence then took place. And at that point it would appear that the client of that solicitor was apparently interested only in the site of the old derelict workhouse and not in the other lands appertaining thereto. But in 1959 the client of this solicitor did what he was perfectly entitled to do. Having visited the site, I assume, and seen the lands in which he was originally interested and other lands which were convenient to them he decided he would also make an offer for the other patch of land. Therefore, in 1959 his solicitor wrote to the Balrothery Board of Assistance saying that he was interested in the additional lands and that he would like to become a tenant on lease for these lands for as long a period as was practicable under the State Lands Act.

All the correspondence took place, let me repeat, with the Balrothery Board of Assistance. In April 1959 also it happened that an approach was made direct to my Department by another person who was also interested in these lands. Perhaps he, like others, might have learned what I was unaware of—that the land in question had no tenant, not even a conacre tenant. I do not know the exact position and I do not know who influenced the Board in this matter to the extent that, as I said before, in not even advertising the lands, they were utterly negligent of the interests of the ratepayers and of the Board as a whole. In any event, this second individual wrote to my Department in April, 1959. He mentioned he was interested in these lands and in the site of the old workhouse. My Department referred him to the Balrothery Board of Assistance. Simultaneously we wrote to the Board pointing out that this contact had been made with us and asking them to deal direct with the applicant, to try to give him whatever information he required and, presumably, to lead him to make what would be a reasonable offer for the land.

The gentleman in question, according to my information, visited the site on a number of occasions. He found it was deficient in sanitary services and water supply services and said that the derelict buildings on the land would be more a liability than an asset. Ultimately, he made an offer. The offer which he made was at the rate of £25 for, I think, the whole letting. Then in May, 1959, I understand, the solicitor who had written to the Board originally in 1958 indicated to the Board that his client's interest in this site was still continuing and that he would like to discuss the matter further.

I am not giving the ipsissima verba of this letter but I am telling what happened. The Board wrote to us and so informed us. In the ordinary way, we wrote back to the Board to ascertain what the proposals were, to find out what the user of the site was likely to be, because naturally one would not want to let a site of this kind if it were not going to be used for a purpose which would ordinarily be regarded as reasonable.

Mr. Rooney:

What about the one acre?

Mr. MacEntee:

This correspondence eventually came to the point at which the solicitor was prepared to make an offer. Then the matter was transferred to my Department only on the issue as to what would be a reasonable rent and a reasonable term for a lease. There I followed what was the usual practice—the established practice of the Department of Local Government previous to the setting up of the Department of Health, and the established practice of the Department of Health ever since it was established. That is to say, we left it to the Commissioner of Valuation to go in and, having inspected the lands, to fix what would be regarded as a fair rent.

Mr. Dillon:

Why not put it out to tender?

Mr. MacEntee:

That is not the practice and the Leader of the Opposition knows very well that that has never been the practice in relation to these old workhouse lands. I am not bound to put out to tender. When a person approaches a Minister and makes what is a reasonable offer for lands of this sort, which very often have lain derelict for years and for which they are very often anxious to find a use, the general practice is to ask the Commissioner of Valuation to fix the rent, a fair rent for that particular property. If the applicant for a lease or tenancy is not prepared to pay that rent, he is told he cannot get it. That has been the invariable practice followed ever since the 1930 Act was enacted by this House.

I shall not discuss the merits of that Act because it is quite obvious from the speech made here by Deputy Rooney that this motion was not put down in good faith, that he is not concerned with an amendment of the State Lands Act, which has been operating here since 1930 and which he has never questioned, whether he was sitting on that side or this, until now. The only reason Deputy Rooney put down that motion was—may be there were two reasons—first, to make a name, which as I say is honoured in Irish history, the subject of discussion in the Dáil, to try to suggest that the present Minister for Health was doing something improper, was conferring some sort of improper favour upon a person because he happened to have as his solicitor a man who bore the name of de Valera. That is one of the reasons. The other reason may be to cover up Deputy Rooney himself. The other one I say may be that this motion is to cover up Deputy Rooney himself. Deputy Rooney is Chairman of the Balrothery Board of Assistance. Now I have here an extract from the minutes of the meeting of the Balrothery Board of Assistance held on the 17th July, 1959.

Mr. Rooney:

Which I did not attend.

Mr. MacEntee:

The extract reads:

Lands at Oberstown House, former workhouse—the Board mentioned that inquiries had been made with regard to the leasing of portion of the lands at Oberstown, former workhouse, and that the Minister for Health had indicated the terms on which he would give a lease.

These are the minutes and that is an extract from the minutes of the meeting of the 10/7/1959 of the Board of which Deputy Rooney is Chairman. The Minister for Health did not open the discussion about this lease. The discussion about this lease was opened by the Balrothery Board of Assistance and my function was merely to indicate the terms upon which I would be prepared to give that lease.

There was prolonged correspondence between the Balrothery Board of Assistance, my Department, and the solicitor concerned in this matter. It lasted for several months, from May, 1959, until at last having settled everything, as I thought, with the Balrothery Board of Assistance which is not controlled by my Party, and over which Deputy Rooney is Chairman, I indicated that having regard to the valuation which had been placed on these lands by the Commissioner of Valuation I was prepared to enter into a lease. May I say that as a normal precautionary measure, even though I had no doubts whatever about the merits of the transaction, I would have been particularly careful, knowing the sort of misrepresentation which I should have to meet in this House, before I tabled any lease here which would be subject to the sort of misrepresentation we heard from Deputy Rooney today? I made quite certain that in a matter of this sort no improper conduct could be ascribed to me or to the solicitor or to the client concerned.

I made that absolutely certain but, of course, I knew that I could not safeguard myself against the activities of the scavenger crows in the Opposition. I knew I should have to face here in this House the same sort of speech that I have heard today from Deputy Rooney. Now, Deputy Rooney, you had better tell us——

Mr. Dillon:

Address the Chair.

Mr. MacEntee:

Deputy Rooney had better tell us why, as Chairman of the Balrothery Board of Assistance, this patch of land, of valuable land was never advertised for letting for years past and why instead they advertised the miserable scrub land, the swampy land, the boggy land, the land that Deputy Rooney said was fit only to grow rushes. It is quite a revelation to me to hear that last year there were two applicants for this land.

Mr. Rooney:

Yes.

Mr. MacEntee:

Up until then there had been only one but I had no intimation from the Board of which Deputy Rooney was Chairman that there was ever more than one applicant for this patch of boggy, swampy land. I want to know this from Deputy Rooney, is that the way in which he conferred favours on his friends? Was the gentleman who secured the conacre letting of the swampy land entitled to have the run of the good land which was never advertised for letting and is it because Deputy Rooney was not able to safeguard him, was not able to secure for him that sort of uncovenanted value, that this motion was put down today? If Deputy Rooney has let down his friends that is no justification for the speech he made in this House today trying to heap odium and slander on a great and honourable name.

Mr. Dillon:

How many minutes are left?

Acting Chairman (Mr. Palmer):

Five or six minutes.

Mr. MacEntee:

This debate began before half past three.

Mr. Dillon:

I want to protest emphatically at the scandalous conduct of the Minister in threatening a Deputy in this House for exercising his undoubted right. This motion was put down by Deputy Rooney and it is a perfectly simple motion put down for a perfectly simple reason. Here is a patch of land in County Dublin which could be used for market gardening and it would ordinarily be imagined that if this land were to be let, an advertisement would be put in the papers, inviting the neighbours to tender for it. If the land were to be alienated for a period of 99 years, if it were the Minister's decision that it was in the best interest of the local authority or the State that that should be done, then it is astonishing that a lease should be given of State lands for a period of 99 years without any publication whatsoever in the papers to the people who live in the neighbourhood, affording them an opportunity of tendering, and then purchasing or leasing it.

I do not know why the Minister has displayed such ferocious temper in this matter. The terms of the State Lands (Workhouses) Act require him by law to lay on the Table of this House any lease he intends to make, for the purpose of affording Deputies an opportunity of putting down a motion to have the lease examined in detail. The reason this motion made under the is that the Act, the original Act, requires a motion made under the terms of the Act to approve the lease or to amend it. Deputy Rooney did not choose to put down any motion to amend it. He chose to put down a Parliamentary Question and a motion in this form.

The Government were asked to provide time for discussion of the motion put down in this form and very properly they gave it. It is no compliment to them that they did because they are bound to give it, but it is very disedifying that the Tánaiste should, when a Deputy avails of that statutory right, say he will seriously consider inaugurating a sworn inquiry into his conduct. That is an utter outrage on the fundamental rights of the Deputies and I protest on their behalf—not on behalf of Deputy of Rooney but on behalf of every Deputy of every Party, and of the Independents, because if that were allowed to pass without comment, the whole procedure of the House would become a farce.

We function as a parliament because we function according to a code of rules and, if it were given to any Deputy to tear down the structure of those rules, Parliament would cease to function and if any Deputy, however humble or inexperienced, is to be threatened by an angry Minister with a sworn inquiry because he has done his duty, the House will cease to function. It is disgraceful and something of which the Tánaiste should be ashamed, that, in speaking on behalf of an Irish Government, he should utter such a threat in an Irish Parliament.

It caused me a surprise, and I think it caused a surprise to many Deputies, that an area of ten acres of land should be alienated for a period of 99 years, at what appears to be a very modest rent, without any publication in the local papers affording neighbouring farmers an opportunity of tendering for the land. The Minister tells us that is the invariable procedure of the Department of Health but I do not think many leases have been made under this statute.

Mr. MacEntee:

Quite a number.

Mr. Dillon:

I cannot recall any, and I think it will come as a revelation to Deputies that State property should be alienated for a period of 99 years, without maximum attendant publicity in order to ensure that all interested will be given an opportunity of tendering for it. I know that when I was Minister for Agriculture, it was my duty on occasion to set fisheries, but on much more restrictive terms than envisaged in this lease, and the invariable practice recommended to me was that notice should be published in the local Press and, on occasion, in the national Press, saying that it was open to offer and fixing a date before which tenders should be in. The invariable rule was that the highest tender got the lease, unless there was some reason to believe that he was a poacher and an unsuitable person.

I am in entire sympathy with Deputy Rooney in raising this matter. I do not think the Minister has given any fair reason for leasing this land for a term of 99 years without having first published the fact that he intended to make a lease to all who might be interested. I think he was highly disgraceful in losing his temper here and in using some of the language he did, and I do urge him, in the exceptional circumstances surrounding this matter, to withdraw this lease and either direct the Balrothery Board of Assistance to publish an advertisement in the papers, or let him do it himself, to say that it is intended to set this land on a yearly lease on terms prescribed by him, inviting tenders before a definite date and thus afford small farmers with land in the vicinity an opportunity of tendering for it, affording them an equal chance with what Deputy Rooney has described as a stranger. He uses that phrase in the colloquial form, in the form in which it is used throughout the country, in the sense that a resident in a parish is a neighbour and that a person from outside is a stranger.

It would be in the interests of the Minister, of the Government and of this House if he withdrew words which he may have used in heat and which I cannot imagine in cooler moments he would use and if he dropped this lease and submitted the letting of this piece of land to the procedure of public tender, and thus put out of the minds of the local people the belief that they have been denied a right which local people tend to think is peculiarly theirs, namely, to have first preference in the conacre of land adjacent to their holdings where those holdings are, in the ordinary employment of the terms we use, uneconomic or smaller than their individual labour could profitably exploit.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan:

I would say, Sir, that this was a very profitable transaction for Mr. de Valera.

Mr. Dillon:

I do not believe that. I do not believe it was present to Deputy Rooney's mind, or to the mind of anybody else on reflection, that any particular profit accrued to Mr. de Valera in relation to this matter. I think it is most unfortunate that the leases were made on these terms. That is the primary issue joined between us, and I think the Minister ought to take steps now to mend his hand in this letting.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan:

I am not so sure. I should like to see the bill of costs.

Mr. Norton:

I should like to get the date for the sworn inquiry.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Palmer):

Is the motion being withdrawn?

Mr. Dillon:

No. It could not be withdrawn.

Acting Chairman:

Is the motion being accepted?

Mr. MacEntee:

Oh, no.

Mr. Rooney:

I should like to say that the motion is in general terms. It does not relate specifically to Balrothery Board, but it was the action of the Board which prompted the motion. This could happen anywhere else in the country. It could happen all over the country. Land could be taken from local people for a period of 99 years. That could be done behind backs. That is what happened here.

Mr. MacEntee:

Oh, no.

Question put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 21; Níl, 60.

Tá

• Barry, Richard.
• Blowick, Joseph
• Burke, James.
• Carroll, James.
• Corish, Brendan.
• Dillon, James M.
• Fagan, Charles.
• Flanagan, Oliver J.
• Giles, Patrick.
• Jones, Denis F.
• Kenny, Henry.
• Lindsay, Patrick.
• Lynch, Thaddeus.
• Manley, Timothy.
• Murphy, William.
• Norton, William.
• O'Reilly, Patrick.
• Palmer, Patrick W.
• Reynolds, Mary.
• Rogers, Patrick J.
• Rooney, Eamonn.

Níl

• Allen, Denis.
• Bartley, Gerald.
• Blaney, Neil T.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Breen, Dan.
• Brennan, Joseph.
• Brennan, Paudge.
• Browne, Seán.
• Burke, Patrick.
• Calleary, Phelim A.
• Carty, Michael.
• Childers, Erskine.
• Clohessy, Patrick.
• Collins, James J.
• Crowley, Honor M.
• Cummins, Patrick J.
• Cunningham, Liam.
• Davern, Mick.
• Doherty, Seán.
• Donegan, Batt.
• Dooley, Patrick.
• Egan, Kieran P.
• Egan, Nicholas.
• Fanning, John.
• Faulkner, Padraig.
• Galvin, John.
• Gogan, Richard P.
• Haughey, Charles.
• Hilliard, Michael.
• Humphreys, Francis.
• Boland, Kevin.
• Booth, Lionel.
• Brady, Philip A.
• Brady, Seán.
• Johnston, Henry M.
• Kennedy, Michael J.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Kitt, Michael F.
• Lemass, Noel T.
• Lemass, Seán.
• Loughman, Frank.
• Lynch, Celia.
• Lynch, Jack.
• MacCarthy, Seán.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• Maher, Peadar.
• Medlar, Martin.
• Millar, Anthony G.
• Moher, John W.
• Moloney, Daniel J.
• Mooney, Patrick.
• Moran, Michael.
• Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
• O'Malley, Donogh.
• O'Toole, James.
• Ryan, James.
• Ryan, Mary B.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Traynor, Oscar.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies T. Lynch and Rooney; Níl: Deputies Ó Briain and Loughman.

Motion declared lost.