Vol. 269 No. 2
asked the Minister for Finance if he will state the policy of the Government in regard to bidding for property at auctions by more than one Government Department or State sponsored body in view of the recent purchase of the premises of Irish Worsted Mills, Portlaoise, County Laois, by the Department of Posts and Telegraphs.
23.
asked the Minister for Finance if he will ensure that there is co-operation between Government Departments to prevent wastage of taxpayers' money such as occurred recently when the Department of Posts and Telegraphs and the IDA bid against each other at public auction for the Irish Worsted Mills premises in Portlaoise, County Laois.
With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 22 and 23 together. It is only infrequently that Government Departments purchase property required for State purposes at public auction and the likelihood of competition as between Government Departments or between them and State-sponsored bodies is remote. Nevertheless, I accept that there may be a need for a liaison system to ensure that they will not be in competition with each other for the acquisition of property. I am having the whole matter examined.
The Minister did not reply to my question as to the need for having this done because of the fact that £30,000 of taxpayers' money was wasted last week with this mix-up——
Has the Deputy got a supplementary question?
I am asking the Minister whether he is aware that £30,000 of the taxpayers' money was wasted last week where we had one Government Department outbidding a State body.
Is the Minister aware that this problem would not have arisen if Deputy Lalor had been doing his job 12 months ago? There would be no question of——
We cannot have statements following questions. It is not in order.
I agree entirely with the very reasonable comment of Deputy Flanagan. I do not accept what Deputy Lalor has suggested in his question. It reflects his lack of knowledge about this matter but, as Deputy Flanagan says, this is what probably led to the crisis a year ago. The reality of the situation is that the nearest bidder to the Department of Posts and Telegraphs was a private citizen and, accordingly, the price at which the premises was ultimately bought was dictated not by competition with any State agency but on the free market. It is of interest that the principal beneficiary of the sale price is, in fact, the State because Fóir Teoranta is the principal creditor of the firm whose factory was being sold. Whatever price was paid in this case the overwhelming portion of the money is being recycled for the public benefit.
Rather indirectly.
The Ministers concerned have ensured that the factory will be made available for industrial purposes. The allegations that have been made about the transaction have not been substantiated and there need be no fear that public money has been wasted. It has naturally caused me some concern to see that you could have a situation in which a semi-State agency could be in competition with a Government Department but the Deputy will realise that confidentiality must be maintained wherever the State or a State agency has an interest in property; otherwise, there would be danger that the price would be put up to the serious disadvantage of the State. Accepting that —I am sure the Deputy will accept it —I am concerned to ensure that we do not have unnecessary competition and I think it is unfortunate that steps were not taken years ago to ensure that there was adequate consultation at a confidential level. I shall see that this takes place in future.
It did not happen a year ago. It is only now it happened.
Is the Minister now saying that the arrangement whereby the Department of Posts and Telegraphs outbid the IDA, despite a promise made by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, was deliberately made in order to squeeze out a third party? Is the Minister aware that while he said the third party was a private individual Deputy Flanagan said that the third party was a Yorkshire industrialist. Was this an arrangement between the two parties to prevent the Yorkshire industialist from purchasing this property? I still say that the Post Office outbid the IDA to the extent of £30,000. The IDA were willing to go to £120,000; on Thursday last they agreed to go to £130,000. Is it true that the communications are such that neither of the Ministers was aware of this and could not inform Deputy Flanagan and keep him from putting his foot in it last Sunday?
Is the Minister aware that as a result of the sale of this factory, which was brought about through the mishandling of Deputy Lalor and his colleagues, part of the machinery, one machine in particular which cost £6,000 and cost £600 to service, was sold for approximately £200?
Who sold it?
We cannot debate this matter. We must move on to the next question.
If Deputy Lalor had displayed the same interest in the worsted mills when he was Minister for Industry and Commerce as he is displaying today, this deplorable position would not have arisen.
The Deputy may tell that to his constituents.
I have already told them the position.
The Minister is aware that the failure of the previous Administration to maintain this industry as a viable industry led to a loss of about £160,000.
This factory was working last March. Why did the Minister not keep it open?
We must pass on to Question No. 24.
Deputy Lalor asked a very important question and Deputy Flanagan got the Minister off the hook. The Minister did not answer the question as to whether two State bodies or a Department and a State body were bidding in order to squeeze out an industrialist who wanted to buy the premises?
Like most of the questions coming from the Opposition benches, it is a thoroughly mischievous question and the person who asked the question knew it.
The suggestion was made that you had a Government Department and a State body in cahoots to squeeze out a third party. That suggestion was never made by Deputy Flanagan and was made only in the form of a mischievous question here today.
I have called Question No. 24.
