Michael Noonan
Question:8 Mr. Noonan asked the Taoiseach if he will outline the involvement of his Department in the purchase by the State of the Battle of the Boyne site; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20940/01]
Ceisteanna–Questions. - Battle of the Boyne Site.
Ruairí Quinn
Question:9 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the role of his Department in the purchase by the State of the Battle of the Boyne site; his Department's representation on the interdepartmental committee considering the future development of the site; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26417/01]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 8 and 9 together.
The Good Friday Agreement placed 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". It was against this background, therefore, and immediately after the establishment of the institutions on 2 December 1999, that on 5 December 1999 I announced that the Government had agreed in principle to purchase the site of the Battle of the Boyne.
In January 1998 an interdepartmental committee was established 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.
The House considered this issue in considerable detail on 1 May last and, as I indicated to the House in my reply at that time, the Office of Public Works negotiated the purchase of the Oldbridge Estate and funding for the purchase came from the Exchequer through the Vote of 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.
We have been over this ground before. When the Taoiseach answered questions on this matter on 1 May last he categorically assured me that he had not requested the Minister for Foreign Affairs to include this project in the Government's millennium programme. However, material subsequently obtained by the Sunday Independent included a letter from the Taoiseach to the Minister for Foreign Affairs on 17 August 1998 suggesting that they both meet with the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands, Deputy de Valera, and the Minister of State, Deputy Séamus Brennan, with a view to discussing how the project might fit into the millennium programme. Will the Taoiseach take the opportunity to correct the record of the House and state now that the information he gave to me on 1 May last was incorrect? A submission was made by the Taoiseach regarding approaching two Ministers to ensure this project was included in the millennium programme.
If that is the case, that is the case.
It is not a question of "If that is the case, that is the case". It is either the case or it is not the case.
A sum of £500,000 was made available from the millennium fund by the millennium committee for preliminary works on the site. If it was recommended to me that I request people to do that, I obviously did it. If it came out in a freedom of information request, that is obviously the case. As far as I know, that money, which is for some of the preliminary works on the site of the Battle of the Boyne, has not yet been drawn down.
It is the speaking out of two sides of the Taoiseach's mouth that gives the House a bad name.
That is a bit much.
The Taoiseach gave me a categorical assurance on 1 May last that he made no submission to have this project included for consideration for millennium funds. However, it transpired under the Freedom of Information Act request that he made a submission. The Taoiseach should correct the record of the House instead of saying "If that is the case, that is the case". He should make a straight statement on the record of the House setting out the position. Did he or did he not get involved in recommending this project for funding under the millennium programme?
The Deputy stated that it emerged under a freedom of information request that I asked the Minister of State and the Minister to provide funds. On that basis, obviously the answer is "yes". If it is a freedom of information request, my name must be on it so the answer is obviously "yes".
The Taoiseach has the document in front of him.
I do not have it before me. If a letter to that effect was sent, the answer is obviously "yes".
Will the Taoiseach confirm that, when this was subsequently discussed, the Government was split on the purchase of the site and that the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands, Deputy de Valera, who has responsibility for heritage sites, opposed its purchase on the grounds that it was too expensive? The same information secured under the Freedom of Information Act will confirm that for the Taoiseach.
Whatever the freedom of information request states, that definitely is not the case. This matter was brought to the Cabinet and I recall reading a memorandum about it. It was supported by the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands. All the work was done by the Office of Public Works. It issued a report to my Department and the Department of Foreign Affairs. Regardless of what might have happened at official level, the entire purchase was handled by a senior commissioner of the Office of Public Works. The Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands was involved in the historical aspects with regard to Government meetings and the Department of Foreign Affairs brought forward a memorandum. There was no objection by the Minister.
I do not wish to trample over lands that were discussed extensively on the last occasion but I want clarity on the matter. Is the Taoiseach confirming that he had no discussions with Office of Public Works officials or anybody else in relation to the purchase of this site? In relation to the mechanism used to acquire the site, the Comptroller and Auditor General's report, published in September this year, states that the mechanism for acquiring the lands through the purchase of the company was chosen at the behest of the company shareholders, resulting in a tax saving of an estimated £920,000. Why did the Office of Public Works use this mechanism? Has the Taoiseach queried this since the publication of the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General?
To restate my previous comments, I was not personally involved in this matter. Two officials from my Department were involved. One of my senior advisers was involved throughout the process.
Were they reporting to the Taoiseach?
My adviser reported to me and the interdepartmental committee and I was certainly aware of his work on North-South matters. Deputy Noonan's earlier question suggested we should also consider millennium funds in this regard. Clearly if I signed the letter, I signed the letter.
The Office of Public Works dealt with the purchase of this site. While I was not personally involved, one of my advisers would have had some discussions on the development of the site, prior to its sale and following its sale although he was not involved in its purchase. He still takes an interest in this matter which since January 1998 has been dealt with by the interdepartmental committee which is still in place. The original idea about this site did not originate from my Department, rather from civil servants in the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Foreign Affairs with whom it was raised by the Northern authorities. I outlined previously the groups involved – the Orange Order, the Apprentice Boys, Archbishop Eames etc.
On the issue of how the sale was dealt with and the tax aspects thereof, I did not have any involvement in this area which was a matter for the Department of Finance and the Office of Public Works. These issues, with which I am not particularly familiar, were addressed, clarified and supported in the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General.
The committee on which the Taoiseach's adviser sat presumably discussed the acquisition of the site and the mechanisms to be used in its acquisition. Is the Taoiseach saying that neither his adviser nor any other member of the committee reported to him on the mechanism for acquisition, the beneficial ownership of the site or any matters relating to costings?
The Deputy and I appear to be talking about two different people. My Department is represented on the committee at assistant principal level. I did not have any discussions whatsoever with the departmental official who sits on the committee. My adviser, who is not a member of the committee but has a particular interest in this site, particularly its North-South aspects, advised me throughout the process but did not play any part in the terms of the purchase price or any other details.
Did he discuss that matter with the assistant principal representing the Taoiseach's Department on the committee?
Not to my knowledge. The matter was dealt with by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and his officials, the Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Cullen, and the company of solicitors acting for the vendors.
The vendors of this site made a profit of approximately £5 million. The Taoiseach stated previously that he thought the site was good value for the taxpayer although some people may take a different view. Even though the Taoiseach has always stated the site's purchase arose from the Good Friday Agreement and was part of the programme to establish good cross-Border relations, strong claims are made that this site was being considered for purchase well in advance of the signing of the Good Friday Agreement. It is also claimed this site was being considered for purchase well in advance of the purchase of the site by the consortium which profited from its sale to the State. Will the Taoiseach comment on that?
The interdepartmental committee was established by officials in the Department of Foreign Affairs at the beginning of 1998. I understand they issued a statement on 8 January 1998 because the matter had certainly been raised with them in the preceding months. Archbishop Eames raised the matter with the Department directly in October-November 1997 during the multi-party talks. I also understand the site, which is the subject of one of the tribunals, was raised over many years by a number of historical groups, although when I asked for correspondence on this matter, none was available. I am, however, informed that historical groups in the North and in the Meath-Louth area were interested in the site.
The press statement issued by the then Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Andrews, in January 1998 did not refer to the possible purchase of the site. Following from what happened on the site at Messines and what was happening in relation to the commemoration of the 1798 Rebellion, it was felt the site would constitute another means of fostering peace and reconciliation and good North-South relations because of its historical importance. A great deal of correspondence on its historical importance is in the public domain following FOI requests. The Department of Foreign Affairs was at that stage examining the possibility of improving the site, building offices on it, conducting tours etc. It was not until later that year, towards the very end of 1998, that the solicitors for the owners who purchased the site in 1997 indicated their willingness to sell the site. Negotiations commenced at that stage. My Department was approached in the first instance as there was an awareness that one of my advisers had a historical interest in the matter and the issue was subsequently referred to the Office of Public Works and the Department of Foreign Affairs. All of this information, which is on file, has been forwarded to the tribunal.
The time for Taoiseach's Questions has expired. I will allow Deputy Noonan to ask a further very brief supplementary.
I am not alleging anything here.
I accept that.
I am simply asking whether the Taoiseach can see the implications of a situation in which the purchase of the site was being discussed far in advance of the Good Friday Agreement and in advance of its purchase by the vendors. Does the Taoiseach understand the suggestion that those who bought the site did so in anticipation of its being sold on to the State, from which they subsequently made a profit of £5 million? It is unfortunate that one of the people involved was an adviser in the Taoiseach's Department. That, in a nutshell, is the nub of the problem. Will the Taoiseach address this issue before we leave the matter?
I would be very happy to do so. I understand the site, which was sold on a number of occasions by previous owners, was bought in 1997 although I am not sure of the precise date. The Department of Foreign Affairs issued its first statement on 8 January 1998, which statement did not refer to the purchase of the site. It was at the end of 1998 that solicitors representing the owners of the site came forward to state that this site of historical value could be bought. I accept that the Deputy is not making any allegations and that he raised this matter in a fair manner. Those who bring up this matter are adding one and one to get 11 just because I know somebody who worked for the company that ultimately bought the site. I am aware that is the issue and I am glad that it is being dealt with.
I welcome the opportunity to put on the record once more that I had no knowledge of what was happening to the site until my adviser brought it to my attention that the solicitor representing the owners wished to engage with the State. I had no part in the sale as the matter was referred to the Office of Public Works and the Department of Foreign Affairs. The record and the officials concerned will show that I was not very enthusiastic about the issue, but another forum will look ultimately at that. I appreciate that Deputy Noonan is showing concern, but he has raised the question of my involvement and that of those for whom I am responsible. I had very little involvement and the involvement of others commenced after the sale of the site. I did not know at the time that somebody I have known quite well for many years was associated with the owners of the site. It was with some shock that I discovered much later this man's involvement because I understand how these matters operate.