In the very limited time available to me I wish to raise this evening the sale of 141 acres of prime land at Clogheen, Cork, which borders the city and county. The land was sold for £290,000, which works out at an average of £2,000 per acre. The land was sold in five lots. The sale of lot five — 1.6 acres — for £16,000 was sanctioned by a Southern Health Board meeting held in May 1988, and the proposals to sell lots one to four were rejected by a majority decision of the board at that meeting.
Amazingly, the Southern Health Board members reversed that decision at their meeting the following month. A major influence in this respect were reports from the county manager and a letter which indicated that the land in the county area was in a green belt zone. That statement was made despite the fact that the green belt concept had been broken on at least 40 occasions in that area and Cork County Council had sold a site just in excess of one acre for £31,000 in the same year and allowed a two-storey development there. They were further influenced by a report of the valuation officer of the Department of Finance who valued the land at agricultural prices, even though the officer concerned had never visited Cork but based his judgement on information supplied by health board officers.
The members of the Southern Health Board were also influenced very much by a report from auctioneers, Hamilton, Osborne and King which was seriously defective and inaccurate, and was, in my opinion, a misleading report. I am most critical of the performance of those auctioneers in this episode. The decision to sell the land at the basic agricultural price of £2,000 an acre was taken despite receipt of a letter from Mr. Tom Rice, City Manager, indicating that part of the land, which lay within the city, was suitable for low-density development.
If time allowed I would quote that letter. More seriously, the health board meeting of May 1988 was not informed that there were higher tenders in for the 1.6 acres which went for £16,000. I can now disclose that there were two other tenders, one for £36,000 and another for £26,000, both submitted on condition that outline planning permission would be received for the 1.6 acres. These offers were rejected and the unconditional offer of £16,000 accepted. Amazingly, the person who bought for £16,000 had obtained outline planning permission for the land before he had paid the Southern Health Board for it. Since then he has received planning permission for 14 four-bedroomed simi-detached and detached houses at present being built at a cost of £65,000 per house.
Furthermore, the Southern Health Board meeting of June 1988 — which had agreed to sell lot No. 4 of 21 acres for £49,000 — was not informed that higher bids had been received, one for £62,000. I have documentation to prove that the bidder was quite prepared to make an unconditional offer far in excess of the £49,000 eventually received by the Southern Health Board. In fact the individual who got the land for £49,000 had originally bid £45,000 only and was allowed a second chance whereas the higher bidder was not afforded the same opportunity. That land now has outline planning permission for five detached bungalows which sites are going at a conservative estimate of £20,000 to £30,000 per acre. Also there is an outline planning applicatin lodged for a filling station on that land.
There are serious irregularities and discrepancies in relation to the tendering processes involved. There has been a total rip-off of a valuable public asset with a consequent loss to the taxpayer, to say the least, occasioned by grave mismanagement on the part of officials of the Southern Health Board.
In the limited time available I can only summarise the whole episode by saying that the taxpayer has been the victim of a serious case of gross mismanagement and incompetence on the part of the management of the Southern Health Board; second, the taxpayer has been the victim of serious irregularities in the tendering process; and, third, the taxpayer is also a victim of the incompetence of the valuation officer of the Department of Finance who valued the land without ever visiting Cork.
Serious questions have been raised about the involvement of a senior health board official in the land purchase transactions. Questions posed by me to the chief executive officer of the Southern Health Board seeking an assurance to members that no health board official was involved were met with silence on two occasions. Despite approaches to the Minister for Health, the Minister consented to the sale of the five lots in late September 1988 and the legal formalities for the transfer of the land were put in train.
These lands are now in the ownership of private individuals with a consequent loss to the taxpayer. Serious questions have been raised by this land transaction. I want the Minister to agree to the establishment of an independent inquiry to establish whether health board officials were involved in the land transactions; second, whether political influence was used to gain advantage in the land transactions, and, third, in order to judge the level of mismanagement involved. Tragically, if a development plan was undertaken for this land I believe that, at a minimum, the price would have quadrupled. There has been a major loss to the taxpayer and serious issues raised which have not been answered. I believe the Southern Health Board senior management at least were guilty of gross incompetence involving substantial loss to the taxpayer.
I am asking the Minister to agree to an independent inquiry and to take immediate action to initiate steps to bring about the resignation of the senior officials of the Southern Health Board involved in this deal. The Ministers for Health and Finance are the Ministers responsible for this appalling scandal. I call on both Ministers to establish an independent inquiry into all the circumstances relating to this deal which stinks of incompetence and irregularities.
