Vol. 535 No. 1
3 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will list the representatives of his Department on the interdepartmental committee with responsibility for the development of the Battle of the Boyne site; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10630/01]
4 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the role his Department played in the State's purchase of the Battle of the Boyne site; the funding which was provided for the purchase from within the resources of his Department for the purchase of the site; if he has satisfied himself that the purchase price represented value for money; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10631/01]
5 Mr. Noonan asked the Taoiseach his Department's involvement in the purchase by the State of the Battle of the Boyne site; the costs incurred in respect of this purchase; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11684/01]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 3, 4 and 5 together.
On 8 January 1998 the then Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Andrews, announced that he had asked officials to examine how best to encourage and facilitate an understanding of the Battle of the Boyne and an appreciation of the environment in which it took place. An interdepartmental committee, made up of representatives of the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Department of the Taoiseach, the Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands, the Department of the Environment and Local Government as well as the Office of Public Works and Bord Fáilte was established and held its first meeting on 12 March 1998.
The mandate of the committee was to examine how best to develop the historic site of the Battle of the Boyne. The committee, which is chaired by a senior official from the Department of Foreign Affairs, has met on a regular basis for the past three years. My Department is represented on the committee at assistant principal level. Very importantly, the archivist of the Orange Order participated fully in meetings of the committee from an early date. Consultants have been appointed to carry out a planning study of the site. Advertisements were placed in newspapers, North and South, inviting individuals and groups to make submissions to the consultants regarding the study, the final draft of which will be completed shortly. The study will form the basis for the interdepartmental committee's recommendations to Government for the long-term development of the site.
The condition of the site has been a concern for some time to Unionist and Protestant people and to organisations in Northern Ireland for whom the battle has a particular significance. In the context of consolidation of peace and reconciliation, as a cultural heritage and tourism project in its own right, and having become aware that the owners of the Oldbridge estate were interested in selling the property, the Office of Public Works was asked to explore the possible acquisition of part or all of the estate with a view to providing greatly improved visitor facilities. The estate forms a substantial part of the battle site and was offered to the State on commercial terms. A number of site visits were made to the estate by the Minister of State, Deputy Cullen, who is responsible for public works, by the chairman of the Office of Public Works and by members of my office.
The Good Friday Agreement places a formal commitment on the Government "to continue to take further steps to demonstrate its respect for the different traditions on the island of Ireland". Against this background, immediately after the establishment of the institutions on 2 December 1999, I announced on 5 December 1999 that the Government had agreed in principle to purchase the site of the Battle of the Boyne. The Office of Public Works negotiated the purchase of the Oldbridge estate for £7.85 million, a valuation which it considered fair. Funding for the purchase came from the Exchequer through the Vote for the Office of Public Works, following sanction by the Department of Finance. Neither I nor my officials played any part in the negotiations on the purchase of the site.
Does the Taoiseach think the purchase price of the site, £7.85 million, represented good value, considering the site had been bought for £2.7 million in December 1999? What is the Taoiseach's view on the reasons for an increase of 200% in the value of the land over two years? Was there an independent valuation of the site? Does the Taoiseach accept that such an enormous profit in such a short time, accruing at the expense of the taxpayer, brings back uncomfortable memories of the saga of the Johnston, Mooney and O'Brien site?
The Deputy knows that the property market changed dramatically during the period in question.
Did it move by 200%?
The Office of Public Works believes it got good value for the site.
Does the Taoiseach agree?
The Office of Public Works believes the site is very important. Commercially, the price represented value, as it could have cost an amount similar to the cost of other projects in the area.
As the Deputy will be aware, a great deal has been written about that site. It was approved for a golf course, it was also on the route of the new motorway and it was connected with many other issues. However, the Office of Public Works was quite satisfied with the price. It had examined the matter in great detail and believed it was a good deal and a good buy for the Office of Public Works.
The Taoiseach thinks so too.
I accept the Deputy's point. We do not like it when prices increase over a short period. However, that was the value arrived at and that was the advice on it. It would have been nice if it could have been cheaper but the Office of Public Works believes it got the site at a fair price.
When the independent valuation was being done and being considered by the interdepartmental committee, was the interdepartmental committee, that is, the committee on which, I presume, his Department was represented, aware that a close political associate of the Taoiseach is reported to have been involved and to have an interest in the firm which was selling the site and to have made a £250,000 profit on the deal?
My Department is represented on this committee by an assistant principal, but there were other people. This came out of the proposal of the Good Friday Agreement that we should look at heritage sites. The very first statement by the then Minister, Deputy Andrews, in the beginning of 1998 stated that the focus of the Government was on the creation of lasting peace through negotiation of a comprehensive political settlement but there were other initiatives we could take to assist in the promotion of reconciliation and mutual understanding and, as example of this spirit, it was right for the Government to take steps to mark and celebrate the various aspects of our past and to recognise its traumas. It was on that basis that the site was purchased, and the fact that in the negotiations of the Good Friday Agreement a number of very high level and respected leaders of the Protestant Churches and community raised the issue of the Oldbridge estate and its condition.
That is not the question I asked.
All of the discussions were on that basis. While the negotiations were going on with the Office of Public Works, I was not aware of who owned the site. I was not involved in any of those details. I was not aware that a person who I know outside of politics was involved in it until the deal was concluded and that person at no time took any direct involvement in any of the discussions. The person involved is an individual who works closely with the McCann family who owned the site. Neither did the McCann family take a direct involvement in the negotiations. It was negotiated by their legal representatives.
The one or two individuals in my Department who dealt with this issue were all people who worked on the Northern Ireland side of the issues and were looking at it as a peace and reconciliation issue.
Were they not aware of any such involvement?
The Deputy should not intervene unless the Chair asks.
They were not aware. It was not brought to their attention. Nor was there any connection or representations made to me nor assistance asked by the individual of me or any other contact. I assure the House of that.
A number of suggestions or statements have been made in the newspapers about this site. I am referring in particular to The Irish Times of 18 April this year. Will the Taoiseach tell us whether they are correct?
The first suggestion is the Taoiseach pressed the then Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Andrews, on the point that this site should be developed. The second statement is that a friend and, to borrow Deputy Howlin's phrase, a close political associate of the Taoiseach was one of the beneficiaries who would have shared in the profit of £5 million which was made between the day of purchase and the day of sale of the site, and would have gained £250,000 from it. There is a third suggestion then, that this person was the third person present when the Taoiseach met Mr. Gilmartin. I am simply referring to an article on 18 April 2001, but I would ask the Taoiseach to tell us is this correct or is not?
When I say the individual is a friend of mine, to call him a close political friend would not be a correct interpretation.
The person concerned was a trustee of the Taoiseach's constituency office.
The person concerned is not actively involved in politics, but was a trustee of the office 14 years ago. To answer Deputy Noonan's question, I said in the House that the person concerned was in my office in 1989 when Mr. Gilmartin was there. I stated here sometime ago that the person concerned was not at the meeting, but was in the office. As to the purpose for the use of the site, the initiative came from the Department of—
With regard to my third question, did the Taoiseach request the Minister for Foreign Affairs to include the project in the Government's millennium programme?
No.
The article states categorically that he did.
No, I did not. A grant of £500,000 was given towards the site which has not yet been taken up as the departmental committee has yet to agree how to make use of it. There would have been letters between my Department and one of my advisers who was involved directly in the Northern Ireland negotiations and among others pressed for this development and the development at Messines.
The initiative came from the negotiating body of the Department of Foreign Affairs which was of the view that a fair case had been stated that the site should not be left in the state it was in and that something should be done about it. It was regularly stated to that body by Northern colleagues that if the Battle of the Boyne had gone the other way, it would have been a great memorial, like Gettysburg or Culloden. This was pressed hard by senior figures whom I do not want to name, but whose names are on record. They stated in the negotiations that something should be done about the site.
The Department of Foreign Affairs established the committee on the day the Minister met some of the people concerned in Armagh. He stated that the issue should be looked at. The committee worked on it for almost two years during which it was indicated that it was considering various works. It was discussed at the committee that, perhaps, it should purchase a site. It was indicated by the owners that they understood that it was being examined and that they would be prepared to sell. The initiative came from the Department of Foreign Affairs and it was the subject of discussions. The decision was not made until the end of 1999, until the institutions were established.
There was no interference whatsoever by anybody known to me. The person concerned never discussed the issue with me until the deal was closed and I read about it in a newspaper. Neither would I have talked to the person concerned about any other deals or negotiations in which they were involved. Just because a person is known to me would hardly be a reason he or she could not continue with his or her commercial business.
I am delighted that the tribunal is examining the issue. It seems that is the only way one might obtain clearance or fair play. The tribunal will examine all aspects of the issue and will find that nothing I, the individual concerned or anyone else did was for anything other than a very good reason, to help relationships with Northern Ireland.
I wish to ask three related questions. Can the Taoiseach confirm that less than two months after the previous owners acquired the site the then Minister for Foreign Affairs announced that it would be good if the site was acquired by the State? Is the Taoiseach satisfied that it represents good value for money to acquire a site for £7.85 million yielding a profit of more than £5 million in two years on an investment of this kind? Has the Flood tribunal requested files from the Taoiseach's Department and, if so, have they been handed over?
With regard to the Deputy's question on the value for money aspect, I am aware of sites in this city that would not have been sold a few years ago. One particular site in the Docklands was sold for £9 million—
We are talking about agricultural land, not the docklands.
It was valued at about £1 million a few years earlier. There were many other proposals for the site, which was the reason importance was attached to it and we placed a value on it. I was not interested in it. I am not a valuer and I only concerned myself with the recommendation of the Office of Public Works, which stated the view that this was a fair value. On the second question, about the Minister's statement, the Deputy is incorrect in that regard. I understand that the site was sold in the summer or autumn of 1997. The Minister's first statement asked Department officials to examine, with the assistance of their colleagues in other Departments, ways in which this might best be done, so that detailed proposals could be considered by the Government at an early date. He particularly mentioned what had been done in the museum and he went on to say that further work would be done to preserve and interpret historic sites including, I believe, the site of the Battle of the Boyne.
What date was that?
On 8 January 1998, but he was not raising the purchase of the site at that stage. He issued the statement then because he had a meeting in Armagh with very senior people who had made numerous complaints about the condition in which the site had been left and urged that the State should act to rectify the situation. The people in question have also spoken elsewhere about this issue and I have no doubt they will confirm their strong views on it if asked to do so. It was a long time afterwards that the legal representatives for the site contacted the Government and indicated an interest in selling it. Negotiations then commenced and were eventually completed in August 2000, but had not really been moving very quickly until December 1999. That was just a few days after we had completed the formal signing of the agreement setting up the institutions.
With regard to the Deputy's third question, early this year the Flood Tribunal asked for all of the papers in relation to this matter. The Secretary General of my Department and the officials involved, including one of my advisers who was involved in the Northern Ireland negotiations, have made statements giving all the details available and they will co-operate with the Tribunal.
Can I take it from the Taoiseach's previous reply that an adviser to the Taoiseach made representations on his behalf to the Minister for Foreign Affairs to have this project included in the Government's millennium programme? Is it also true that this associate or acquaintance of the Taoiseach is the same person whom he proposed for appointment to the inaugural board of Enterprise Ireland?
That is correct and I hope the Deputy has no difficulty with that. I am not sure if the official in my Department dealing with this actually made representations in relation to the millennium programme, but certainly an official of my Department who is a key figure in the negotiations – not the same official who was on the interdepartmental committee – was strongly in favour of the development of this site. Indeed, all members of the negotiating team were equally in favour of it, regardless of what Department they were involved in, including officials of the Department of Foreign Affairs and the leader of the negotiating team who instigated the proposal. I do not wish to mention his name but he has made it quite clear that he is quite prepared to give the full history to anybody who is interested. My adviser and the senior official concerned and the negotiating team were in favour of the development of the site initially and when the opportunity to purchase it arose, they were also supportive of it.
What proposals does the Government now have for the site?
The interdepartmental group advertised and also spoke to a number of people. The archivists of the Orange Order, and also the Orange Order groups in the North and the Unionists, have been extremely enthusiastic in commending the State for buying this site.
They have put forward submissions which will be taken into account and the final draft of the study will be completed and published shortly.
