Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 22 Jan 1975

Vol. 277 No. 5

Private Members' Business. - Fota Island Acquisition: Motion (resumed)

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That Dáil Éireann is of opinion that moneys should be provided out of public funds towards the acquisition of Fota Island so that its amenities can be preserved for the public.

—(Deputy J. Lynch).

Mr. Wyse

I want to stress at the outset that I shall follow the same line as that followed by the Leader of our party last night in debating this very important matter. Like him, I shall resolutely eschew any political argument.

It is impossible to understand why the Government and the Minister for Finance will not avail of the opportunity to acquire the Fota estate. Only once in a lifetime does an opportunity like this occur. I want to quote now a statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance last night. Unfortunately the Official Report is not available and I hope I shall quote him correctly. He said Fota was well down the list of Government priorities.

It was laudable but selfish of Cork interests to have the Fota estate preserved for its own people but it could not be considered as a national park.

That is the note I made. As one who headed a number of deputations to the Minister I want to make it clear that at no time did we place emphasis on Fota Island being used as a purely local amenity. We assured the Minister we wanted the estate used as a national park. We pointed out that visitors came to Fota from all over the world.

Last night the Parliamentary Secretary tried to define what is meant by a national park. He referred to education; the park must be of educational interest. Apparently the Parliamentary Secretary was not aware that scouts and girl guides from all over the world used the Fota estate for camping holidays during the summer months. Surely that is an educational exercise for these young people.

It would be as well at this stage to recapitulate the efforts made by the two local authorities concerned in trying to acquire this property. I am glad the Minister is present and I trust he will bear me out in what I say now. On the first deputation to the Minister asking him and the Government to acquire this property we were told that public moneys could not be spent on local amenities. Surely a demand from 250,000 people that this property be acquired as a public amenity is a demand to which the Minister should lend a sympathetic ear.

On the second deputation we were informed by the Minister that he was somewhat disappointed that we had not brought with us a plan showing how best acquisition could be shared between the Government and the two local authorities. We assured the Minister we would return with a plan, and so we did. After long discussions with various interested bodies, including the farming community in the area, An Taisce, and so on, we returned and assured the Minister we would share the financial involvement of acquiring the property and would then give the property as a gift to the nation. The Minister refused this offer. I am sure the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary have been in Cork and seen this property. It is a local amenity and surely the people of Cork are entitled to this amenity. The situation is ideal. It is no more than six miles from the city. It is served by rail. Deputy Lynch reminds me that the station is actually sited on the property.

Minister for Finance (Mr. R. Ryan)

I know that.

Mr. Wyse

I would appeal to the Minister to reconsider his decision. It is a last minute appeal. We have offered £250,000. That has not been accepted. There are three other interested parties, one of whom is from outside the State. I should hate to be part of the present Government if I were the cause of or lent any hand to anybody outside the State acquiring this beautiful property. I do not know where the two local authorities could go from here. We have done everything possible as a local authority. We must be cautious and avoid any further infliction on the people where rates are concerned.

I want to make a very strong appeal to the Minister that he should share the responsibility and show good will to the people of the city and county of Cork and the people of Ireland who are using this property as an amenity and a national park. When the last deputation met the Parliamentary Secretary I said that if we acquired the property the responsibility to maintain it should be his. I also mentioned that thousands of pounds were not involved at this stage in the development of the property. That kind of money is not needed. Development could be carried out over the years. I say without fear of contradiction that an investment of about £10,000 a year is as much as would be needed to develop the estate.

Last night the Parliamentary Secretary placed great emphasis on industrial expansion in this area. I should like to remind him that the planning authority are Cork County Council. Surely if that authority invest the sum of money I mentioned they will be very cautious about the kind of development that will take place in and around the Fota estate. If the Government become financially involved in this, I have no doubt that they, too, will be cautious about the development of the area.

I do not think the people of Cork will accept this as an excuse to relieve the Government of their responsibility in this matter. Even at this late stage I am prepared to go back to both local authorities and ask them to increase their offer, on condition that the Minister and the Government will accept responsibility for the maintenance of the estate. I want to ask the Minister why did he tell us, when he met the second last deputation, that we should go back to Cork and come back to him again with a plan. Why has there been a change of mind? Both authorities thanked the Minister for giving us a chance to return to the city and county and set up a joint committee and ask them to make some financial commitment so that we could come back to the Minister and present a reasonable case. There was a change of mind. I do not know why.

We also know that when the property first became available the Minister put a stay order on it. Why? We are asking many questions because we, as a joint committee of both authorities, were encouraged by the Minister to devise a plan and commit ourselves financially to acquiring the property. All members of both local authorities, irrespective of their political affiliations, support the plea I am making to the Minister this evening. Members of his own party suggested to us that we should offer the sum of £50,000. We have been very brave. We have gone to £250,000. It will be a shame for the Minister and the Government if this property falls into the hands of an interest outside this country, thus depriving the people of Ireland of this beautiful amenity in County Cork.

Those who are contributing to this discussion this evening represent over 250,000 people in asking the Government to have a last minute change of heart and to help the two local authorities who are now committed to acquiring this property. Their offer is £250,000. We have shown our hand. We have done what the Minister asked us to do. Time is running out because a final decision must be made by the trustees of the property to dispose of it within the next fortnight. Even at this late stage, as Lord Mayor of Cork —and I know I am joined by the other local authority, Cork County Council —I would ask him to play his part and to satisfy the desire of practically every national organisation, not only the two local authorities, and over 250,000 people. I plead with the Minister to involve himself now before it is too late.

Minister for Finance (Mr. R. Ryan)

The clearest evidence that the promoters of this motion consider Fota to be a Cork amenity, and not a national amenity, is the fact that not one Member of the Fianna Fáil Party outside of Cork——

Mr. MacSharry

The Minister is wrong.

Mr. R. Ryan

——has put his name to the motion. In other words, the party who are now looking for this public money, in an effort to gain for themselves some popularity in Cork, were unable to persuade any one of their colleagues from any other part of Ireland to subscribe to the motion.

Mr. MacSharry

Utter nonsense and poppycock and the Minister knows it.

An Ceann Comhairle

No interruptions.

Mr. MacSharry

Such nonsense. It is disgraceful.

Mr. R. Ryan

The insincerity of their charges is clearly established by their own conduct. Actions speak much louder than words.

Mr. Wyse

On a point of order——

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

The Minister is drawing our fire. Ask him to be respectful for once.

An Ceann Comhairle

There is a time limit to this debate and interruptions are regarded as grossly disorderly. I will not tolerate interruptions. The Deputy who spoke before the Minister spoke without an interruption of any kind. I am asking for the same good hearing for the Minister.

Mr. Wyse

I am sorry. I did not mean to interrupt the Minister but I thought I should mention this organisation.

An Ceann Comhairle

If a Deputy wishes to ask a question and the Minister or the Deputy in possession gives way that is all right, but there must be no interruptions.

Mr. R. Ryan

Further evidence of the insincerity of the promoters of the resolution is their conduct in this House in recent days and weeks when they voted against steps to collect revenue for the State. Yet, having refused to approve necessary but understandably unpopular taxes to collect revenue of over £60 million for essential purposes, they now have the temerity to suggest the expenditure of money that they would not vote on a less than essential purpose.

Again, their insincerity can be tested by their continuing opposition, as voiced in the budget debate, to the State's foreign borrowing requirements next year of £250 million to run essential services and meet essential capital requirements to maintain employment, to promote new employment, to build houses and so on. Having criticised us, and continuing to criticise us for essential borrowing for vital purposes, they consider it more important to spend public money which would have to be borrowed abroad for this local amenity. They criticise the Government for the size of the current deficit and yet they are demanding that the Government should not only acquire the property or join in the purchase arrangement but that the State should thereafter maintain the property thereby increasing the cost of running the State.

What is of the greatest interest is the change of tactics on the part of the sponsors of this resolution and some of their colleagues who came on deputations to me about the matter. The first proposal was that the State would buy and hand over the property to the local authorities in question to maintain. But obviously on receipt of very good advice as to the cost of maintaining the property, the tremendous risk involved to the arboretum by reason of the proximity to industry, advice on the condition of the house and the cost of its future maintenance, they ask, not that the State should buy it but that the State would maintain it. It seems to me that they have had very good advice to convince them that ultimately the cost of maintenance would far exceed the cost of the original purchase. As members of a local authority they did not want to spend local money on something that could not be preserved except at enormous cost. They wanted to put the State in the very awkward position of having responsibility for the maintenance of an arboretum and other features there which, because of the danger of pollution, would be at very great risk so that the State and not the local politicians would be blamed if anything went wrong and the State and not the local politicians would be asked to bear the cost of correcting the extremely costly damage resulting from industrial pollution.

I do not like having to speak in these highly critical terms but it would be less than fair to the public if I did not draw attention to these aspects of the matter. I entirely refute the suggestion of Deputy Healy that I, at any time, gave anybody to understand that the State would expend money on this project, either to purchase or maintain it. When I first had the pleasure of meeting a deputation of public representatives and officials on the matter on 5th June, 1974, the deputation emphasised—I quote here from a note of the proceedings of that meeting which was made on that day:

The deputation wished Fota Island to be preserved for Cork city and county and preserved for the local people as an amenity.

The emphasis then was on its desirability as a local amenity. I do not blame anybody in Cork for wishing to have an amenity of that kind. It is desirable that all urban areas particularly should have lungs of greenery and rural amenities. It has always been accepted policy that such amenities should be purchased by local authorities for themselves and that the State should not be involved in the acquisition of a property which is essentially something of local value, and particularly where the property was required by a substantial number of people in an urban environment.

Such State parklands as had been acquired—other than exceptions like the Phoenix Park, which was acquired for historical reasons and did not involve, as far as I am aware, the expenditure of any money by the State— were acquired for reasons different from Fota. Such State lands as are in urban environments were gifts. Where you have other State parks they are in areas with a very sparse local population and the acquisition of them has been undertaken to preserve substantial areas of spectacular beauty at very small cost for the benefit of the whole nation and for tourists in particular. What is sought on this occasion is that State funds should for the first time ever be expended on the purchase of a local park for an urban area.

Perhaps Deputies do not see the undesirability of that development. It would be very difficult to justify a departure from the very well-established practice that local authorities buy and maintain their own parks. If that line were to be broken in respect of Fota there could be no resistance to an application by any local authority in any part of Ireland that the State should acquire and maintain vast acreages of parks and stately homes and so on for the benefit of urban populations. I am a believer in local democracy and like many other members I have had the privilege of serving for many years on a local authority and in that local authority I have pressed, as I know others have also, for more parks and more amenities in parks, but never in my wildest enthusiasm did I visualise that the burden of doing so should be paid by taxpayers outside the area of my own local authority. That is the unreasonable request that is being made tonight.

Mr. Meaney

I should like to remind the Minister of the fact that the motion does not refer to that.

Mr. R. Ryan

The motion requests that moneys be provided out of public funds towards the acquisition of Fota Island so that its amenities can be preserved for the public. Deputy Wyse was very fair. Having chastised me at the beginning, when he said that no deputation had ever urged that it be preserved for Cork city and county, he slipped into that notion himself, because he said he thought it was very mean of the Minister not to make the money available for the acquisition of this amenity for the people of Cork. They are the Deputy's words and the record can prove that. I do not blame him for that view because, naturally, he has a loyalty to the people he represents.

Mr. MacSharry

Will there be a sign restricting the island to Cork people only?

Mr. R. Ryan

The loyalty of the national Parliament must be to all the taxpayers and on that account we cannot use national funds for the purchase of something which is regarded, especially by the local people, as primarily a local amenity.

Mr. Wyse

I have a feeling that I have been misquoted. I said that it was now being used as a national park and that people from all over the world were visiting it. I pointed out that scouts and girl guides from all parts of the world use the island as a holiday camp centre.

Mr. R. Ryan

The Deputy also chastised me for not providing money for the acquisition of an amenity for the people of Cork and the record will so show. If it does not I will withdraw my remarks, but, in my view, the Deputy simply revealed his innermost thoughts when he made that statement.

As regards what happened at the first meeting I should like to emphasise that I made no commitment whatsoever. I drew attention to the principle I have been enunciating, that national funds were not expended for the acquisition of local amenities. It was pointed out by the deputation that the Land Commission could possibly have an involvement here because there were, and still are, quite a number of farmers on the Cobh peninsula anxious to acquire land on Fota for farming purposes. It was also indicated that the Office of Public Works had great experience in the field of management of properties of this kind and it was also revealed at this meeting—this is of great importance—that University College, Cork, had possibly an interest in the matter. It was quite clear on that occasion that there had not been consultations between Cork Corporation, Cork County Council and the college authorities. I thought it was only reasonable that such consultations should take place.

I urged these honourable people who came on the deputation—I have the greatest of respect for each person on that deputation and many of them are very close and dear friends of mine—that it would be a useful exercise if they discussed among themselves the best way of dealing with Fota Island for the future because it might be possible to compromise the interests of the college authorities, the corporation and the county council. This was certainly possible at that stage and I said that if suitable agreement was reached it might not be necessary for the deputation to come back to me because at least some of the people involved in that tripartite arrangement would have had resources available to them which would not require any involvement of State money.

A long time transpired before there was any response from that particular meeting and I was asked to meet a delegation on the 25th July. At that meeting I asked the delegation what progress had been made since our earlier meeting on 5th June. Deputy Wyse, who was the principal spokesman for the group, told me that while Cork County Council and Cork Corporation, and others, were in full agreement that the property should be acquired, they had not yet had any consultations in regard to how the acquisition should take place. They had decided to set up a committee of various interests to devise a plan. There we had a period of six weeks during which reasonably one might have thought there would have been a working group devising a plan to act in time but during which nothing was done.

I expressed my disappointment that the people who were professing such a great interest in the acquisition of Fota should not have taken any effective steps themselves towards setting up a group to study the machinery that would have to be put in motion to acquire the property. I pointed out that it was putting me in an impossible position, as Minister for Finance, to be receiving a delegation who had no thoughts about what should be done other than the very simple one that the State ought to buy the property for the people of Cork.

The Minister for Lands put a stop order on the land and that expired on 18th July last but there is a limit to the authority which the Minister for Lands has in putting stop orders on properties.

Mr. MacSharry

Did the Minister for Lands renew that stop order?

Mr. R. Ryan

The Minister may only put a stop order on lands in order to allow the Land Commission time to consider whether or not the property should be acquired for distribution under the Land Acts. The Land Commission, having considered the matter, were not disposed to purchase the property for redistribution under the Land Acts. As the House knows the Land Commission are independent in the exercise of their jurisdiction and it is not open to the Minister for Lands to veto any decision of theirs.

Mr. MacSharry

When did the Land Commission reach their decision?

Mr. R. Ryan

I will try and locate that information for the Deputy.

Mr. Wyse

When was the decision of the Land Commission conveyed to the authorities concerned?

An Ceann Comhairle

Members will appreciate that the Minister in possession is not the Minister for Lands.

Mr. R. Ryan

I will endeavour to locate the information for the Deputies later.

On 26th November I again met the delegation and we further discussed the matter. I ought to have said, of course, that when I met the group in July I made it clear at that stage, in case there was doubt in anybody's mind, that the State could not see itself involved financially in this project. But I said that if there were any services of any Departments of State or agencies which could assist the local authorities in the matter, in relation to advice and so on, that that would be forthcoming.

In November, when again I had the privilege of meeting the deputation, together with the Minister for Lands, he —if the group had not known it earlier —at that time made the group aware of the unwillingness of the Land Commission to be involved in the acquisition. We had a plan before us then which was, as I pointed out earlier, quite different from the original proposals—it was a plan that the State should maintain the property, not that it should acquire it. The Minister for Lands understood the problems of the farmers of the area who want to acquire land and accepted also that the local authority felt that they did not need all the land on the island, 780 acres, as a local amenity and that some of it could be usefully sold off to farmers. However, the local authority did not have the machinery necessary to recycle the land and they were wondering on that account whether the Land Commission would make their machinery available in order to have the land broken up and distributed amongst farmers in the area who required it. The Minister for Lands therefore undertook again to refer to the Land Commission for investigation and sympathetic consideration the possibility of acquiring the agricultural land in the estate for Land Commission purposes. To this date the Land Commission have not expressed their willingness to be involved in this matter.

On that occasion also, in November, I confirmed that in the event of the property being acquired by the local authorities, which at that time was their intention, the Office of Public Works would be prepared to provide technical advice in the preparation of a policy for the management and maintenance of the estate. I wrote to the county secretary on 22nd November confirming what took place at the meeting and stating once again that it would not be appropriate for the State to accept financial responsibility for the maintenance of a property which was primarily a local amenity.

We in Government have set out very clearly what we consider to be the priorities in these difficult times. Priorities require, if they are to be respected, that other matters be put aside and left in abeyance. It may suit some people to shout in triumph that the resources are not there to do something which they desire. I do not regard that as a disgraceful admission. Indeed "admission" suggests some feeling of guilt. I do not feel it. We have said again and again, in Government, over the last year or more that the resources available to the State were not sufficient to meet existing urgent needs, but that when those resources were limited we considered that the prime claim on them was the maintenance of employment and the preservation of existing standards and that observance of those priorities would involve the postponement of some projects which did not conform to those priorities. This project of Fota happens to be one of those which is less essential than the priority of maintaining employment. I do not think there is any Deputy opposite who would disagree with that. If there is any Deputy opposite who disagrees with it I should like him to say so. As things stand at present if the priorities are to be respected and observed then we will have to spend every penny we have on the preservation of employment.

At present, as Deputy Lynch pointed out, a number of bids have been made and apparently negotiations are going on, the vendors hoping, no doubt, for a higher price. It seems to me that this is the most difficult and awkward of all times, therefore, for a debate of this kind, except that it allows me to say once again in public, to put beyond all doubt, that State money will not be involved in this enterprise.

There are on offer to the State, and have been on many occasions in the past, other stately homes and beautiful parklands containing many rare and precious plants. In fact there has been a study made of the stately homes and parklands of the country. Very few of those have ever been acquired by the State and, when the question of acquisition arose, it was usually on terms exceedingly favourable, either by way of a gift or at a cost which was merely a tiny fraction of the whole. It so happens that Fota, beautiful place, as it is, does not come remotely near the top of the list of homes which have been considered worthy of acquisition. That is not a denigration of Fota; it is to say that if the State is to expend money on the acquisition of such places then the proper thing to do, surely, is to acquire those which have a much greater value both from the botanical and architectural points of view.

It is quite clear from the steps the local authorities have already taken that they consider Fota a desirable possession for themselves. I understood from some remarks made here yesterday that apparently the difference now in price between what the local authorities have offered and what the trustees may accept is comparatively small. If that be so, I think it is up to those who see Fota as conferring immense advantage on them as having also an obligation now to make up whatever is that deficit.

An Ceann Comhairle

I intervene to advise the Minister that he has about one minute of the time allotted to him left.

Mr. R. Ryan

During that minute, Sir, I should like to join with all Deputies in this House who have already applauded the public spiritedness of the Smith-Barry family. The fact that they have behaved in this excellent way in the past, however, does not justify the expenditure of the State's funds on the acquisition of a local amenity. That is the essential principle. If Deputies opposite had more of their own supporters, as I said at the beginning from other parts of the country in urging that their money should be spent on this particular acquisition——

Mr. MacSharry

That is real nonsense.

Mr. R. Ryan

——then they might carry some conviction. But they were not able to get their own colleagues to subscribe——

Mr. MacSharry

We will have every single one of them here in a few minutes.

Mr. J. Lynch

That is an untruth which is not justified.

(Interruptions.)

An Ceann Comhairle

Order, please.

Mr. R. Ryan

Out of the 66 Fianna Fáil Members of the Dáil there were nine Members from Cork only who put their names to the motion. That is the absolute proof that this is, in their minds, not a national but a local amenity.

Mr. J. Lynch

Is that the best argument the Minister can make?

(Interruptions.)

An Ceann Comhairle

Order, please.

Mr. French

I agree with speakers from this side of the House in supporting the motion that money should be provided out of public funds for the acquisition of Fota Island so that its amenities can be preserved for the public. I was sorry to learn that the Government consider Fota Island to be a very low priority. I was sorry also to hear the Parliamentary Secretary say last evening that Fota could not be a national park and that it could be a local amenity only. During the debate last evening the Parliamentary Secretary stated that the reason for acquiring Fota Island, as he saw it, or as he was told, was to provide a local amenity for the people of Cork city and county.

Mr. Kenny

The deputation said that.

Mr. French

To the best of my knowledge that has not been said. This was not put forward as the reason for the State acquiring Fota on the occasions on which the Minister met a number of delegations which included members of Cork Corporation and Cork County Council as well as members of other interested bodies. The joint committee was formed for the purpose of exploring every possibility of having the island acquired as a national amenity. When the committee visited the estate they were taken on a conducted tour of it. They met on a number of occasions during the past year and issued a report to their parent bodies. This report was adopted both by Cork Corporation and Cork County Council. The reason given in the report for acquiring the island is that the committee consider the essential objective to be the preservation of the island as a natural heritage to be enjoyed by the citizens of the city and county and of the nation as a whole. This is the case which the delegations and the elected representatives put to the Minister for Finance at all times.

Towards the end of 1973 when it became known that the owners of Fota proposed disposing of the property, public interest was aroused immediately and this concern was reflected in the action of the local representatives in the Cork area. Early in 1974 both Cork County Council and Cork Corporation called on the Government to acquire the property for use as a national amenity. About the middle of last year when the Minister for Finance received a number of delegations he said on each occasion that the State would not purchase Fota. About that time, too, the corporation and county council proposed to the Minister that they would purchase the estate on certain conditions. These were that the State would undertake to maintain the house and arboretum for the benefit of the public.

On each occasion the Minister refused to play his part. Neither Cork Corporation nor Cork County Council have the expertise, the knowledge nor the experience necessary to maintain a property of this kind but they have done everything that is humanly possible to acquire the estate. The State is capable of maintaining the property. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to talk again with the Minister in regard to this matter and I trust that the Minister will view the situation with more enthusiasm than has been the case up to now so that this estate will not be lost to the nation.

Mr. Cronin

From what the Minister has said it is clear that the State has no intention of assisting the people of Cork to acquire this highly desirable amenity. The headlines in this morning's newspapers brought the bad news of the low priority of the Fota issue. We have now had the Minister come in in a rather arrogant mood and adopt the attitude of attack being the best form of defence and washing the State's hands completely of its responsibility in the provision of amenities of the type that could be made available at Fota. The people of Cork have done a national service in bringing this issue so far and now they are seeking some financial assistance to enable them to bring the matter to a just and logical conclusion.

At a time when we are considering social outlets, especially in relation to our young people, the State should make every effort to provide suitable amenities. Fota is ideal in this respect. It has a high educational content. Its availability to the public could go a long way towards solving the social outlet problems of a fast-developing area. Its acquisition would be a major our youth. It is ridiculous to say that contribution by the State in the provision of suitable facilities for the people generally and particularly for the problem is a local one and that the State can disclaim any responsibility so far as Fota is concerned. This island is situated some miles from Cork city. It is on a very important tourist route between Waterford and Cork. The island is visited regularly by many people from other lands. Because of the courtesy of the owners the property has been made available to many charitable organisations for fund-raising activities.

The non-involvement of the Government on this occasion could result in the people being deprived of an amenity which they have been enjoying up to now. Not only will the Government's refusal to acquire this valuable property be a big blow to the people of Cork but it will represent a loss to the entire nation. We will be all the poorer because of the Government's attitude to this issue. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary, himself a country man, is sympathetic to the project but he must try to deal and cope with the Dublin mentality in the present Government. He has my sympathy. I am sure if he had a free hand he would assist Cork in their highly creditable efforts to provide this national amenity.

If Fota is a local problem and a local amenity, it could equally be claimed that the valuable offshore resources could be Cork property. Cork belongs to the nation. The facilities, amenities and resources of Cork belong to the nation.

Mr. Kenny

They belong to Marathon.

Mr. MacSharry

Has the Parliamentary Secretary decided that?

Mr. Kenny

Is the Deputy not talking about oil and gas?

Mr. MacSharry

The Parliamentary Secretary is way behind the times.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Cronin without interruption.

Mr. Cronin

Fota Island is a national issue. I am disappointed the Government have taken this stand and rejected the appeal to provide something worthwhile for the nation. The members of the Government who strongly supported the cause at county council level and in other bodies this evening will support the appeal which this motion embodies. They recognise that the people involved made a great effort and they are sympathetic to their cause. This has been evident at corporation and county council meetings when the project was discussed.

There is also the problem of the south coast which is a fast developing industrial area catering for nationals and non-nationals. It is important for the nation to provide suitable and competent social facilities for the people who come to live and work here. All around the coast there have been developments of various kinds. If a nation can preserve areas of such beauty as Fota Island, it can do a great deal for her image abroad.

All this has been said in support of Fota. I ask the Minister to realise that this is not solely a Cork issue. What is involved here is the preservation of a beauty spot. The local bodies have made every effort in this regard. I ask the Minister to open his heart——

Mr. MacSharry

And his purse.

Mr. Cronin

——and set a headline by assisting the people of Cork. They will remember him if he provides this very essential amenity. This has been a bad week for decisions on amenities by the Government. The Minister for Local Government withdrew the amenity grants. This dealt another crushing blow to people who are looking for social outlets to ensure that community efforts, our values, and places of interest and beauty are preserved.

Again, I strengthen the appeal already made to the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary to take a second look at this project and not let this unique opportunity pass of providing an amenity for the south coast and the nation of which it will be proud.

Mr. Brosnan

As one of the proposers of this motion I deplore and protest against the failure of the Minister for Finance and the Government to take any serious steps to acquire this property for the nation. I say "for the nation" because it is a national and not a local issue as the Minister would have us believe. As a Deputy from the constituency in which Fota is situated, I am very concerned about the problems and I am also conversant with the feelings of the people there and in the city and county of Cork. I can assure the Minister that it is the universal wish of the people of the city and county of Cork that this property be acquired by the Government as a national amenity. That wish was and is shared by my colleagues on the other side of the House from the city and county of Cork.

The strongest possible appeals were made to the Minister and the Government by the corporation and the Cork County Council who represent in the region of 500,000 people. They were supported by urban councils and other bodies and also by national organisations and individuals who were concerned with conserving and preserving the amenities of the countryside. Despite this massive support, which proves the validity and the force of the claim we are making, we met with nothing but cynical indifferences on the part of the Minister for Finance.

He said a moment ago that he made no commitment at any time. I agree that he did not, and that he did not have the slightest intention of paying one farthing to us. This was obvious to me.

The Minister met deputations from Cork comprising members of the corporation and county council and their officials. It was clear to me and other members of the deputation that he had no intention of making any serious effort to acquire the property. He still allowed us to go through the silly motions on three separate occasions of coming to Dublin to meet him. The members and officials of this deputation made an unanswerable case. They pointed out the unrivalled botanic merits, scenic beauty and other features of the property. They did not leave him under any illusion but that it was unique and eminently suitable as a national park.

Other Deputies have described this sufficiently for the Minister and everyone else to appreciate the point I am trying to make. This island is ideally located, as pointed out by Deputy Cronin. It is easily accessible to the city of Cork which is growing daily in population and industry. It is situated near the towns of Cobh, Midleton and near the area of Little Island, Whitegate and Carrigtwohill which at the moment are being highly industrialised. We all know that there is the prospect in the near future of further very large development in these areas. The island is adjacent to one of the busiest roads in Ireland, the Cork-Youghal road which, with the exception of the Bray road, is the busiest in Ireland. It is on the main tourist route between Rosslare and Killarney, touching on the towns of Midleton, Youghal, Dungarvan, Waterford and so on, and fed by various by-roads which also lead to tourist areas in the south. This island, if preserved, would be a haven for visitors as well as for the people of the area who, in what we hope will be a more affluent era, will require amenities like this in which to spend their increased leisure time.

All these arguments were advanced to the Minister and they seemed to me to be acceptable to him. He made no attempt to refute any of them and the only argument he advanced was that this was only a local amenity, that it was not a national amenity and, therefore, would not justify the expenditure of capital funds. On one of the deputations I pressed the Minister repeatedly for a definition of what he meant by a national amenity as distinct from a local amenity. He did not give me a satisfactory answer. I pressed him again and I asked him by what criteria he decided what was national and what was local and he failed to answer me.

Again I ask by what standards do the Government, the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister for Finance measure national as against local in terms of amenities, or anything else for that matter. What divine right or what inspiration had the Minister for Finance or the Government to decide that Fota is only a local amenity and reduce it to the status of the parish pump? Of course this is typical of the thinking and the conduct of the Coalition Government. This is the kind of thinking that has given rise to the Minister for Education downgrading or trying to downgrade University College, Cork, as well as the Parliamentary Secretary's own Alma Mater, University College, Galway, and trying to reduce it to the level of a technical school.

An Ceann Comhairle

I must intervene to advise the Deputy that I am obliged to call the mover of the motion, who has the right to reply, at 7.15.

Mr. Brosnan

I will finish in a moment. It is typical of the attitude of the Minister for Education in trying to downgrade the national language to the level——

An Ceann Comhairle

That is irrelevant at this stage.

Mr. Brosnan

It is not irrelevant, with respect.

Mr. Crowley

It is absolutely consistent.

Mr. Brosnan

It is typical of the attitude of the Minister for Local Government in trying to downgrade the city of Cork by making it a five-seat constituency and turning every constituency in Dublin into a three-seater. That is pertinent in the context in which I am speaking.

I appeal at this twelfth hour to the Minister to reconsider his attitude to Fota and in conjunction with the University of Cork, and I can assure the House that UCC is interested in Fota——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I must call on Deputy Lynch to conclude.

Mr. Brosnan

I appeal to the Minister to provide this amenity for the city and county of Cork and for the nation.

Mr. J. Lynch

I propose to give way to Deputy Gene Fitzgerald. I hope he will let me in for two or three minutes at the end.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

The Minister tonight mentioned the word "insincerity" at least four times. I have always believed that the man who uses the word "insincerity" is himself insincere and because of that believes other people to be so. There was no insincerity on this side of the House when we submitted this motion on what we believe to be, and on what the members of his party in the Cork area believe to be, a national amenity.

Deputy Liam Burke, who is in the House, will agree that this is the unanimous wish of Cork County Council, which is a National Coalition-controlled body, and also of Cork Corporation. The insincerity of the Minister was evident when he accused us of not having our priorities right, and said that our priority should be the unemployment situation which exists at present.

Surely it is a mockery for a Minister for Finance of the present Government to scoff like that across the House at the Fianna Fáil Party who built up the economy of this country which, under the mismanagement of the present Minister, has deteriorated so much that we now have 100,000 people unemployed. This is the Minister for Finance who before Christmas extorted £27½ million in increased taxation from the people of Ireland, as was done also by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs; by the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, by the removal of the butter subsidy; by the Minister for Health; again by the Minister himself last week. Together they extorted many millions in taxation. Yet the Minister alleges insincerity on our part when we seek a paltry sum from the nation's purse of £1,300 million to assist the local bodies in Cork to purchase a national amenity, Fota Island. Any national amenity will of course be a local amenity, but we must realise the advantage Fota would be to that area and to the country in general if, as we hope, the industrial expansion of our country continues.

I know the Parliamentary Secretary to be a reasonable man. I know he is not tainted with this Dublin——

Mr. Crowley

Bias.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

——bias and superiority complex towards country people.

Mr. Kenny

"Mentality" is the word.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

Knowing him to be imbued with that country partiality, I would correct two points he made last night. He said that pollution, if industrial expansion continues, could be fatal to Fota Island and particularly to the arboretum. In that he was casting a reflection on the planning authority. I firmly believe in industrial expansion. In fact, I would put it first, but with certain safeguards. I would include in that industrial expansion the amenities that Fota Island can provide. If the Parliamentary Secretary were to carry his argument to its logical conclusion and say that by accident or otherwise the arboretum could be destroyed, he is saying that we Corkonians, in the event of such accident, could be wiped out overnight. That is to carry it to a logical conclusion.

Mr. Kenny

What has experience taught the Deputy about the guarantees of non-pollution in Cork? The Deputy should answer that question.

Mr. G. Fitzgerald

I know what the Parliamentary Secretary is referring to and I would answer in greater detail if I had the time. However, I would remind him that our priorities must be right. We must have industrial expansion, we must create more jobs to help solve the present unemployment problem and we must provide for the needs of the future but, within that huge industrial expansion, we must have amenities also. The risk is small. Fota Island must be preserved and, even as a final insurance policy, there would still be a very valuable site on the verge of Cork harbour.

If we do not purchase Fota Island now it will be remembered for us by future generations. The Minister tried to put a fence around Cork county and to say it was a local amenity. Surely we have seen enough partitioning. It is a typical Dublin approach. I would concede the point to him if, in turn, he would concede to us that all the oil, gas and offshore development in the Cork area would be used solely for the economic development of Cork. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to advise the Minister, even at this late stage, to help the local authority to purchase and maintain Fota Island for what it would be—a national amenity.

Mr. J. Lynch

When I opened this debate last evening I said I was doing so on a non-recriminatory basis. I hoped the debate would be conducted in an objective way, that the merits of the case would be examined fairly by the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister. In fairness, the Parliamentary Secretary approached the debate in a reasonable and gentlemanly way. Unfortunately the case he made was rather weak but it was the best case he could make. He started by giving definitions of the requirements of a national park in order to qualify for some definition laid down in an international convention. We never suggested that this area be acquired as a national park but even if we did I do not see why this party or the Government should feel themselves bound to adhere to the word and the letter of an international convention in deciding whether they should acquire a desirable amenity such as Fota Island. I will not go into that but it was obviously because of the weakness of the brief presented to the Parliamentary Secretary by the Minister.

The Minister came into the House today in his usual "fighting cock" attitude and he immediately started to make provocative remarks. He started with a cynical approach about what motivated the members of this party in putting down this motion and, to repeat what Deputy Fitzgerald has said, he accused us of insincerity. He tried to establish that accusation on the ground that only Cork Deputies had put their names to the motion and he asserted we could not find in our party one Deputy from outside Cork to add his name to the motion. One usually starts off a defence—if one has a defence to make—with one of the strongest points of the defence. If that was one of the strongest points the Minister could make, I can only express my regret for the quality and standards this Government have set themselves to maintain and attain.

Any one member of this party could have put down this motion. I put my name to it initially and I invited my Cork colleagues, as I thought it appropriate, to put their names to it also. There would have been no difficulty whatever getting the names of every member of our parliamentary party to this motion. To suggest our insincerity was established by the fact that we could not get other than Cork Deputies to put their names to this motion is a measure of the contemptuous way the Minister for Finance has treated this subject.

To try to suggest, because it appeared on a note taken—as I said last night presumably by a civil servant —that the Cork deputation put this case forward when they met the Minister on the basis of securing a local amenity was completely unjustified. There may have been a note to that effect; in fact, the Parliamentary Secretary read it out last night. I was not a member of the deputation and I am glad I was not because probably I should have lost my temper at the attitude the Minister adopted at that deputation, his attitude that they should go away like good boys, work out their own plan and not bother him. He gave evidence of that tonight by saying that the deputation were only wasting his time because they did not know what plans they were going to put forward. They came to the Minister to ask him to intervene in the acquisition of this desirable property by means of supplementing, if necessary, the price of the property with a contribution from the State. He refused to do that.

As another measure of our alleged insincerity the Minister said we had the temerity to ask him, the Minister for Finance, to make a contribution towards the acquisition of this property when last week we voted against the taxation he was seeking for necessary purposes. We voted against taxation last week because we felt in the circumstances it was not necessary in view of the fact that the Minister was budgeting for a deficit of £120 million. The taxation he raised last week will hardly amount to £35 million, and even on that basis he still has £85 million of a deficit that we did not oppose. It would take a small proportion of only one of these millions of pounds to supply the kind of money needed to ensure that Fota Island be acquired for the State.

I regret very much that the Minister introduced this note of sarcasm and cynicism into the debate because I had hoped notwithstanding a possible refusal by the Parliamentary Secretary last night which we got, and notwithstanding the intransigent position the Minister might adopt—which he did adopt and even exceeded—that still we might find the means whereby the State could join with the local authority in the acquisition of this property.

Last night I traced the history of the island very briefly. I said it went back to Norman times, to the 13th century, when the original Barry—from which Barrymore or Smith-Barry derived— came to Ireland as a Norman adventurer and in one way or another acquired the Fota estate. Ultimately it became the property of the Earl of Barrymore when he was made an earl in the 17th century. He gave it to his youngest son who developed the estate from the early 18th century. He built the fine regency house that now stands on the estate and started the arboretum which has achieved world-wide fame.

In passing I would comment on the suggestion that because of the degree of industrialisation taking place in the Cork harbour area this arboretum is likely to be wiped out overnight, as the Parliamentary Secretary suggested. It was pointed out to him subsequently that there are planning laws and requirements. In a short intervention, I pointed out to him that the bulk of the industrialisation takes place to the east of Fota Island and, with the prevailing south-westerly winds, even if the most damaging air pollution were involved it is unlikely the arboretum would be affected.

There is a notice on one of the main gates leading to Fota Island on the main Cork-Cobh road which says boutez avant. I have no great knowledge of French but I believe it means “clear the way”. I believe the name Buttevant, with which the Barrymore family were associated in the early days, comes from that. If we are now witnessing from the Government a cynical attitude towards the preservation of a property of the historical value and the high amenity value of Fota, if in a £1,000 million budget they cannot afford to allocate some small funds, and the sum would be very small, for the purchase of this island, if this is a measure of the aesthetic thinking of this Government —we know at the present time that the 100,000 people unemployed are a measure of their ability to deal with the economy——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy will appreciate I must now put the motion.

Mr. J. Lynch

——then the people will say to the Government: Boutez avant, clear the way, and let a Government that has real standards come in and do the job.

Question put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 52; Níl, 61.

Tá

• Allen, Lorcan.
• Andrews, David.
• Brady, Philip A.
• Brennan, Joseph.
• Breslin, Cormac.
• Briscoe, Ben.
• Brosnan, Seán.
• Browne, Seán.
• Brugha, Ruairí.
• Burke, Raphael P.
• Callanan, John.
• Calleary, Seán.
• Carter, Frank.
• Colley, George.
• Crinion, Brendan.
• Cronin, Jerry.
• Crowley, Flor.
• Cunningham, Liam.
• Daly, Brendan.
• Dowling, Joe.
• Murphy, Ciarán.
• Noonan, Michael.
• O'Connor, Timothy.
• O'Kennedy, Michael.
• O'Leary, John.
• O'Malley, Desmond.
• Farrell, Joseph.
• Faulkner, Pádraig.
• Fitzgerald, Gene.
• Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin Central).
• French, Seán.
• Gallagher, Denis.
• Gogan, Richard P.
• Healy, Augustine A.
• Hussey, Thomas.
• Kenneally, William.
• Lalor, Patrick J.
• Lemass, Noel T.
• Leonard, James.
• Loughnane, William.
• Lynch, Jack.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• MacSharry, Ray.
• Meaney, Tom.
• Molloy, Robert.
• Moore, Seán.
• Power, Patrick.
• Timmons, Eugene.
• Tunney, Jim.
• Walsh, Seán.
• Wilson, John P.
• Wyse, Pearse.

Níl

• Barry, Peter.
• Barry, Richard.
• Begley, Michael.
• Belton, Luke.
• Belton, Paddy.
• Bermingham, Joseph.
• Bruton, John.
• Burke, Dick.
• Burke, Joan T.
• Burke, Liam.
• Byrne, Hugh.
• Conlan, John F.
• Coogan, Fintan.
• Cooney, Patrick M.
• Corish, Brendan.
• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Costello, Declan.
• Coughlan, Stephen.
• Crotty, Kieran.
• Cruise-O'Brien, Conor.
• Desmond, Barry.
• Desmond, Eileen.
• Dockrell, Maurice.
• Donegan, Patrick S.
• Donnellan, John.
• Dunne, Thomas.
• Enright, Thomas.
• Esmonde, John G.
• Finn, Martin.
• Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan).
• Gilhawley, Eugene.
• Harte, Patrick D.
• Hegarty, Patrick.
• Jones, Denis F.
• Keating, Justin.
• Kelly, John.
• Kenny, Henry.
• Kyne, Thomas A.
• L'Estrange, Gerald.
• Lynch, Gerard.
• McDonald, Charles B.
• McLaughlin, Joseph.
• McMahon, Larry.
• Malone, Patrick.
• Murphy, Michael P.
• O'Brien, Fergus.
• O'Connell, John.
• O'Donnell, Tom.
• O'Sullivan, John L.
• Pattison, Seamus.
• Reynolds, Patrick J.
• Ryan, John J.
• Ryan, Richie.
• Spring, Dan.
• Staunton, Myles.
• Taylor, Frank.
• Thornley, David.
• Timmins, Godfrey.
• Toal, Brendan.
• Tully, James.
• White, James.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Lalor and B rowne; Níl, Deputies Kelly and B. Desmond.

Question declared lost.

Mr. Meaney

A very sad decision and the 30 pieces of silver have paid off again.

Mr. R. Ryan

Your own let you down.

(Interruptions.)