Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 16 May 2000

Vol. 519 No. 2

Adjournment Debate. - Property Sale.

(Carlow-Kilkenny): The story of David and Goliath is alive and well and has been re-enacted of late in Carlow. The Irish Society for Autism was made aware in October-November 1999 that a property, Ionad Folláin, in Myshall, County Carlow was for sale. It expressed an interest and in January-February 2000 members of the board of directors visited Ionad Folláin, stayed there to check it out properly and concluded that, subject to price, the property was suitable for developing as a centre for people with autism. The expected purchase price was in the region of £650,000 to £700,000. Before making a definite offer the society negotiated a loan of £400,000 from a building society and the remainder was to be raised in other ways from the society's resources.

Ionad Folláin is an 18th century Glebe house surrounded by six acres of mature gardens. It has substantial out buildings which provide accommodation for up to 30 people in single and twin-bedded rooms. Clearly it was ideal as a home for persons suffering from autism. Imagine the shock which the Irish Society for Autism got when it discovered that the Office of Public Works moved in, paid over £300,000 above the price it had been negotiating and purchased the building to house refugees. Why did the price jump by £300,000? Why did nobody ever mention that a voluntary body was raising funds to purchase the building?

The Irish Society for Autism took the initiative to set up a treatment centre because of the absence of proper activity by the Department of Health and Children in the provision of facilities for treating autism. The village of Myshall would have gained employment for about 30 people. Instead the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform is talking about housing refugees in an area where there is no public transport, no source of employment and none of the facilities normally found in towns and cities. Even at this late stage I ask the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform to step back from out-bidding a voluntary body. If the contract is signed I ask the Department to hand over the building to the Irish Society for Autism who cannot compete with a Department flush with money.

The Irish Society for Autism was not aware of the Office of Public Works's interest in purchasing the property until it read about it in the newspaper. Immediately afterwards the owners contacted the Irish Society for Autism to ascertain if it still had an interest in acquiring the property. I quote the answer, "We were and still are but we are unable to match the purchase price".

The Irish Society for Autism is not in a position to become involved in negotiating with each health board individually on the need for services for children and adults with autism. The need is there. Health boards must become proactive in the development of specialised provisions for people with autism. The alternative is misplacement and possible life-long institutional care. This is unacceptable in the Ireland of today. It is unacceptable that a Department would gazump a voluntary body. The Department must have known because the owners contacted the Irish autism group to ask if it was still interested. Given that a bid was taking place, it is unbelievable that anyone would ask if anybody was interested in the property. This property was on sale since October-November 1999. It is unacceptable that the Department outbid a voluntary body which was raising funds to acquire the property.

I propose to deal specifically with the matter raised by the Deputy concerning the property in Myshall. The Deputy raised many other issues. I shall set out in brief detail the chronology of events in relation to this matter so as to give some necessary background to this entire issue. I dealt with this matter in recent parliamentary questions.

The property in Myshall was initially offered to my Department by the proprietors following the advertisement which was run in the national media earlier this year seeking suitable accommodation for asylum seekers. An architectural inspection of the property was undertaken, as is normal. The report arising from this inspection was favourable. The directorate for asylum support services, after inspecting the property, instructed my office to pursue the acquisition of Ionad Folláin for use as an accommodation centre for asylum seekers. The Myshall property is capable of accommodating up to 40 people immediately.

I come now to the issue of the Irish Society for Autism and the inference that in some fashion the Office of Public Works deprived it of the property. The Irish Society for Autism did not advise the Office of Public Works directly at any time of its interest in the property prior to the conclusion of the sale negotiations. It would have been difficult, therefore, for the Office of Public Works to have wilfully taken a decision to take the property from the society. We did not know anything about it from the Irish Society for Autism. I am putting the facts on the record.

(Carlow-Kilkenny): The owner contacted the society.

With hindsight the Deputy is suggesting that the society—

(Carlow-Kilkenny): The owners contacted—

The society never made us aware until the sale was concluded. We advertised seeking property, and this property was submitted by the proprietors. I suggest if the Irish Society for Autism has any difficulty it may be in its negotiations with the proprietors, but it is certainly not with the Office of Public Works for the reasons outlined. My office treated the proprietors of the property generally on the basis of the valuation which they had been advised was appropriate by their professional valuation team. It was not my office that put the valuation on the property but rather the proprietor. There can be no question, therefore, that my officials used their position to artificially inflate the price beyond what any party competing for the property could pay. I am advised that the capital cost of this property compares favourably with the cost of developing similar accommodation elsewhere. Those are the facts of this case so far as my office is concerned.

Top
Share