asked the Minister for Finance if he has received or been advised of a proposal from the Chairman of An Taisce asking the Government to transfer by special sale or long lease Number 1 Hume Street, Dublin, and Number 46 St. Stephen's Green, Dublin, to that body for the conservation of these two buildings; and if the Government have as yet made any decision on this proposal.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Conservation of Dublin Buildings.
55.
The position regarding the two houses in question, in one of which the State has only a limited leasehold interest, was fully dealt with when the 1969-70 Estimate for Public Works and Buildings was before the House last week. It is a well settled rule that any State property which is surplus to requirements shall be disposed of in open competition.
In view of the reason given by the Government for disposing of properties, which they could not afford to keep up, is the Minister aware of the offer made by An Taisce to keep them up?
I am not aware that any specific offer has been made. I always distrust things which are communicated to the Government by means of the public press in the first instance.
Would the Minister not agree, as far as Government property is concerned, that there are considerations other than money considerations?
I accept that.
Surely, this should be the overriding factor in this case?
Which should be?
That there are considerations other than monetary.
Which should be the overriding factor?
The good of the nation as a whole—the preservation.
I shall have to look into my own heart and decide what that is.
That was a well-known exercise of one of the Minister's predecessors.
If that is going to be the Minister's exercise, there is very little future for Hume Street.
Would it not be inappropriate for the Government to seek in these particular circumstances to exploit the development value of such property and would it not be appropriate that the Government should be content to dispose of it in such a way as to be without loss and without incurring further expenditure? Would the Minister not agree that that would be the appropriate interpretation of the public interest as suggested by Deputy Cluskey?
There are two separate areas of responsibility here. One is the planning area which is the responsibility of the planning authority and the Minister for Local Government. The other is my area of responsibility which is to deal with Government property generally in the best interests of the taxpayer. These buildings were used by the Government for the public service as office accommodation. They are no longer suitable for that purpose but I do not think that I can legitimately retain them and spend public moneys on them if they are not suitable for my particular purposes as Minister for Finance.
The Minister will understand that I am for the purposes of the argument accepting that. What I am asking is that, given that he is disposing of them, would he not agree that it would be inappropriate of the Government to insist that they must get the full development value and that the buildings must be destroyed and the street ruined; and that an appropriate solution to the problem which the Minister poses would be their disposal to some interest which would be willing to take them and to keep them up to their present condition and use them for whatever purpose that might be thought proper; and would the Government not be prepared, therefore, if an offer of that kind were made by An Taisce to accept it rather than insisting on their last pound of flesh and getting the full development value as distinct from the value of the property in its present use?
I do not think it would be inconsistent with my responsibilities if I were to lean somewhat in favour of an offer for these premises which would have a social content as distinct from a purely commercial one.
I am grateful to the Minister for that answer.