asked the Taoiseach if in view of the pending sale of the Powerscourt Estate the Government have decided to take any action to preserve the Estate for the enjoyment of the general public.
2.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Powerscourt Estate.
1.
Mr. Ryan
andMr. McQuillan asked the Taoiseach whether the Government have considered whether it would be possible to acquire the Powerscourt House Gardens and Estate (a) for use as a national park, (b) for the relief of small farmers living in congested districts of the west of Ireland or (c) for use as a home for the aged poor of Dublin city and county, to house mentally defective children or as a convalescent home for the sick of the city and county of Dublin.
I propose, with your permission. Sir, to take Questions Nos. 1 and 2 together.
The Government are not considering the purchase of the Powerscourt Estate for any of the purposes mentioned in the Questions or for any other purpose.
It cannot be assumed at this stage that the sale of the estate will result in any interference with the facilities and amenities which are at present enjoyed by the public. The general question of legislation to safeguard public rights-of-way and means of access and to preserve places of natural beauty and of scenic, archaeological or historical interest has been under examination for some time.
The Land Commission have inspected the property and have reached the conclusion that the estate as a whole is neither suitable nor required for their usual land-settlement purposes. The area of farmland is considered to be no greater than is necessary as an adjunct to the mansion, and its acquisition would, in the opinion of the Land Commission, have the effect of mutilating and spoiling the estate.
The existing accommodation in the Dublin area for the aged poor has been expanded considerably in recent years and is regarded as reasonably adequate. As regards convalescent homes, I understand that the accommodation available in existing homes in the area is not fully utilised.
In the recent White Paper on The Problem of the Mentally Handicapped, it was announced that the Minister for Health proposes to set up a Commission to examine various aspects of the problem. This body will be able to give valuable advice on such matters as the size, type and location of the accommodation needed. As was indicated in the White Paper, there is a prospect that it may be possible to provide accommodation for approximately 600 mentally handicapped persons in new and redundant institutions.
Mr. Ryan
In view of the considerable public uneasiness which exists regarding the possible exploitation of this estate in a manner which would be harmful to the national interest, does the Taoiseach not consider it his duty to communicate with the vendors to ensure that some conditions will be imposed in relation to its preservation as a national amenity in a manner similar to that by which his predecessor arranged for the protection of the national interests in relation to Killarney?
The matter hardly arises yet.
May we take it that, if this estate passes into the hands of people outside this territory, the interests of the people will be protected in so far as the amenities of the estate are concerned? Will the amenities which have been made available in the past be preserved, irrespective of who purchases the estate?
I should not like to reply to that question in relation to a particular property. As I mentioned in my reply, this whole question of the safeguarding of public rights-of-way, and means of access to places of natural beauty and of archaeological or historical interest has been under examination for some time, and I understand that proposals from the relevant Department may be forthcoming in the early future.
With specific reference to the Taoiseach's statement that the Land Commission do not require this property for the purpose suggested in the question, namely, the relief of small farmers, would the Taoiseach, in view of the fact that, at a conservative estimate, 150,000 acres of prime agricultural land have passed into the hands of non-nationals since 1946——
That is an entirely separate matter.
—— at a time when the pool of land for the relief of congestion has dried up——
The question the Deputy is asking is an entirely separate one.
I am relating it to section (b) of the Question and I am asking the Taoiseach how it is that the Land Commission do not require this land for the relief of congestion when in fact thousands of small holders and congests all over the West of Ireland have to leave because they cannot get economic holdings——
The Deputy should be aware that this estate consists mainly of mountain bog.
Is the Taoiseach aware that his colleague, the Minister for Lands, when questioned in this House, did not make any such statement, that this estate was composed of mountain bog?
I am saying it now, and everyone, who knows the estate knows that.
Is the Taoiseach suggesting now that it is purely mountain bog——
Yes.
Question No. 3.
May I ask the Taoiseach, irrespective of whether it is composed of mountain bog——
I have called Question No. 3.
——is that a justification for allowing this estate——
The Deputy will resume his seat. The Deputy is defying the Chair.
I do not want to defy the Chair.
That is what the Deputy is doing. I have called Question No. 3.
Of course, it is too embarrassing for the Taoiseach.