Vol. 413 No. 7
8 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Minister for Health if agreement was given to the sale by the North-Eastern Health Board of a farm at Curraghbeg, Ardee, County Louth to a company (details supplied); if she will give acreage of the farm and the price approved; if the sale was subject to any conditions; the steps she has taken to ensure that any such conditions were complied with; the reason the land was not put out to tender; and if she will make a statement on the matter.
My predecessor gave agreement in October 1988 to the North-Eastern Health Board to dispose of 164 acres of land at Curraghbeg, Ardee, County Louth at a price of £225,000 to the company referred to by the Deputy.
A condition of the sale was that a specific development must progress satisfactorily within a three year period, failing which the board would have the right to reacquire the property at the purchase price.
Compliance with the condition will not become an issue for the health board until after 19 April 1992, the expiry date for the condition. In the meantime, the Minister for Health has no function relating to the implementation of the agreed development on the site.
The arrangements which were made for the sale of the property took particular account of the employment-creating purpose for which it was being acquired. The number of jobs involved was to be approximately 200. The specific provision under which the board may reacquire the land after 19 April 1992 at the original price, in the event of non-compliance with the specified condition, reflects the fact that this sale took account of all the circumstances surrounding the transaction.
The Minister did not answer half the question in so far as I asked why the land was not put out to tender. Is the Minister satisfied that £225,000 for approximately 165 acres was a fair market value of the site at that time?
My information is that the health board made a judgment based on advice taking into account what was presented to them as a potential for employment. The Department took the advice of the health board and in turn decided to put in the proviso that in the event of non-compliance with the three year employment development plan they would have the option to buy it back. The expiry date is next April. It is my information however that nothing has happened on the site in the interim.
Is the Minister aware of how the health board lands came to be chosen of all the land in County Louth? Would she agree that the reason this land was chosen was the political complexion of the health board and that the land could be obtained more cheaply than other land in the area?
I have no knowledge of what the political complexion of the health board was in 1988 but it is my information that the decision was based on local knowledge and that the understandable wish of the local community for job creation was taken into account. In turn, the Department of Health took the precaution of including the proviso that if the employment targets were not realised, which is the case at present, the land would revert back at the original price.
From the information available to her, it is obvious that the Minister is not very optimistic that the project will proceed. But may I take it that the land would revert back at the original price and that the health board would not have to pay out more than what they received when they sold it? Would it then be put up for public tender?
The expiry date is next April and to date there has been no movement. It would appear therefore that that will be the likely outcome. It would revert back to the health board at no extra cost in accordance with the proviso inserted by the Department of Health at that time.
Would it be put up for public sale?
I do not have that information.
I was hoping for a final question. This is a rather specific question relating to a farm at Ardee, County Louth.
My final question is whether the Minister is aware that agreement had been reached that the land would revert back to the health board after 24 months if the land was not developed. Would she tell the House who sought the extension of one year and can she assure us, given the financial difficulties facing the Goodman Group at this point in time——
Please, let us stick to the question.
The question is whether she can guarantee the House that the lands cannot be disposed of by the company who are in financial difficulty to cover their financial losses — in other words, that the lands cannot be disposed of for any other reasons?
We should be careful that we do not infringe on matters which are sub judice.
I am satisfied that under the proviso included by the Department of Health in the agreement the land would revert back to the health board. I understand that this is a legal agreement.
Would the Minister agree that a number of controversies have arisen throughout the country with regard to the procedures adopted by the health boards in disposing of properties? Would she consider issuing a directive to the health boards——
I did direct the attention of the House to the fact that this was a specific question relating to a particular farm in Ardee, County Louth. I cannot and will not permit an extension of the question.
——in connection with this case and would she apply the principle on which her decision was based to all other health boards?
The farm question only.
Would the Minister consider issuing a directive to the health boards indicating that property should be disposed of by public auction? This would not give rise to controversy, which is what has happened in this case and in others with which I am sure the Minister is familiar.
I cannot allow any widening of the question. That should be clear.
I accept your guidance, a Cheann Comhairle. In relation to the question which has been tabled, I am satisfied that the Department of Health acted in the best way by inserting the proviso whereby the land can revert back to the health board if the development project does not proceed within the three year period.
That was not the question I asked.
