Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 3 Dec 1980

Vol. 95 No. 4

Johnstown Castle Agricultural College (Amendment) Bill, 1980: Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture (Mr. Allen)

The object of this Bill is a simple one: it is to permit An Foras Talúntais to sell or lease certain portions of the Johnstown Castle estate in Wexford and generally to lease to the State parts of the estate from time to time if required. This is not possible at present because of the existing legal position.

The estate, comprising about £1,000 acres, was donated to the nation as a free gift in 1944 and acceptance was ratified by the Johnstown Castle Agricultural College Act, 1945.

The estate, with the consent of the donors, was transferred to An Foras Talúntais under the Johnstown Castle Agricultural College (Amendment) Act, 1959. The Act precludes An Foras from selling or leasing the estate or any portion of it, but in practice this has proved to be unduly restrictive.

Over the years there have been requests from various interests for portions of the estate, and to accommodate this, an amendment of the existing Acts was contemplated as long ago as 1974. However, because of various complications, such as the amounts of land to be ceded and doubts about the necessity to obtain the donor's consent, amending legislation could not be introduced until now.

The specific areas which An Foras are to be allowed to dispose of have been finally determined and are marked on the map referred to in section 1 of the Bill. The amounts of the areas of land involved are: 13.75 acres to Wexford County Council for housing and road-widening; 4.75 acres to the Meteorological Office; 8 acres to St. Martin's Hurling Club and 11.5 acres for possible future disposal; these being mainly cottages and gardens on the estate, which tenants may wish to buy, and some small sites which will be cut off from the estate by the new roadway.

On the question of the donor's consent, the Attorney General's advice was that this was necessary only in the case of the sale of lands to the county council as the housing development might involve some restriction of the reserved sporting rights. An Foras has obtained that consent.

In all other cases, including the general power to lease to the State mentioned in section 2 of the Bill, the consent of the donor was not required subject to the preservation of the sporting rights and the rights of way.

I should perhaps explain that the inclusion in section 2 of the general power to lease land from time to time to the State — for example in the case of a request for a site like that from the Meteorological Office mentioned earlier — is to avoid the need for future similar legislation. At the same time, the power is sufficiently narrow to ensure that there is no danger of the wholesale erosion of the estate as a single entity. That would, of course, be at variance with the spirit of the donation and acceptance of the lands as a free gift to the nation.

This measure is a non-controversial one and I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Connaughton

It is a non-controversial issue. However, there are a number of points I would like clarified. The estate was donated by a very kindly donor to the State some years ago and we appreciate the great service that Johnstown Castle has given to Irish farming over the years. One hopes that all the fragmentation — however well intentioned it is: I am looking at the map — will be put to good use. What guarantee have we that there will not be more splintering? Under the proposed law it might not be very long until another group comes in looking for something else. What control has the Oireachtas over such a programme developing?

There are about 1,000 acres in the entire estate and as an overall acreage, the amount being taken away is not very large. There are community projects and housing, which are all very commendable, but can the Oireachtas be sure that in the best interests of the nation there will not be too much splintering in the years to come? Would the Minister say if it was necessary to bring in legislation to give those lands to the various agencies, why would it not be necessary to do the same thing again, assuming that we place such great emphasis on an estate of this type? We hope that the day will never arrive when the castle and its surrounding estates will be defaced in such a manner that it would be beyond recognition. Anybody who represents County Wexford would be far more au fait with small nitty-gritty problems but, from a national point of view, that is the only question I wonder about — if we have to go through both Houses of the Oireachtas to legislate for the divisions that are here on the map why do we not have to do the same thing for a similar amount of land? Where do the wishes of the donor come into this? Can the Government of the day overrule those wishes without going through the Oireachtas? Otherwise. I see nothing controversial about it.

The land being taken away will obviously be put to great use. Will the football club be purchasing the land or will it be leased? What is the arrangement as far as they are concerned? I assume that once the football club decide to take it over they will want it to be their property.

Mr. Lanigan

I welcome the Bill. It is an important Bill in the sense that an estate which was taken over by the State is now going back to the people of Wexford. I know Johnstown Castle quite well because, as a young child in school, I walked out to it. The walk around the castle was the highlight of a particular month in school. It has been developed by the State for the purpose of research up to now. It is one of the nicest walks in County Wexford or in any part of Ireland and, as Senator Connaughton said, he would not like to see that particular estate broken up for development if it meant that it was going to be lost to the nation.

The objectives of the Bill are to provide essential services to an area in County Wexford. I hope that in future estates such as this estate which was donated to the nation will be used in the manner in which this estate is now developing, whereby local communities will get the use of particular portions of it, whether for road widening or for provision of football pitches, hurling pitches or whatever. These are the essentials of life in a rural community. Too often we have seen in the past thousands of acres, privately owned and built in penal times with big high walls around them, and if the landlord wanted to let you in you got in and if the landlord did not want to let you in you could not. A lot of these big estates have now been taken over by the State.

I sincerely hope that developments such as this will continue to be made, because it opens up the bigger estates to the people of Ireland. I would hate to see the day when the Irish Government would take over from the landlords of the 19th, 18th or 16th centuries and prevent people from using the facilities and amenities of these big estates, which are handed over to the State, generally for one reason only — that the owners cannot pay the rates. They make a gift to the State and get plenty of publicity for doing that——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Bill is a very small and specific one and it would be appreciated if you would relate your remarks to the contents of the Bill rather than have a very wide-ranging general debate.

Mr. Lanigan

Any estate in the country which is handed over to the nation and which can be used by its people should be mentioned by anyone who is speaking about this legislation. I sincerely hope that what is contained in the legislation will be used in every case where land has been donated to the State. We have estates which are being taken over by the Board of Works and by the Department of Agriculture of up to 30,000 acres in certain areas. I hope that these estates also could be used by the Irish people for purposes for which the Irish people want to use them and that the State does not become landlord in the old term landlord. I hope that what is contained in the Bill will recommend itself to people in other areas and that other estates will be broken up in the manner in which this particular estate is being broken up, for the people of Ireland.

Mr. Molony

I agree with a lot of what Senator Lanigan said but not with his suggestion that people who donated this estate to the State in the forties did so to relieve themselves of rates liability. I do not know whether that was the case but that certainly was the implication of his remark. In fairness to people who donate gifts to the State, and particularly very valuable gifts such as Johnstown Castle Estate, we should be very careful about our reaction, however many decades later. We should place firmly on the record of the House our gracious thanks to them for providing this facility. Perhaps they were burdened by rates but they would certainly have realised more if they had sold the property if their sole motive was a selfish one. They should be thanked for that. The nation has been the recipient of many gifts including land and other artefacts of historical and particularly important interest to this country. I would not like if the Second Stage of the debate were to end with Senator Lanigan's remarks left hanging, as it were, in mid air.

The Minister referred to the donor's consent and said that the Attorney General's advice was that this was necessary only in the case of the sale of land to the county council on the basis that apparently a housing development might involve some restriction on the reserved sporting rights. Would the Minister detail precisely what the original was, whether it was a deed of transfer or whether it was contained in the Act? I presume it was contained in the original Act, that it arose out of some instrument that transferred the property to the State. Could the Minister detail what the restriction is? Is it that there are reserved sporting rights and that the question of consent arises only for that reason or is it that there is some other form of restriction in the original instrument of transfer? Is it the Attorney General's opinion that it would only be exercised or be sought in the case of sporting rights being interfered with?

Senator Connaughton made the very important point that the Minister is apparently being given the right in the future to obtain leases of parts of the property himself. I think I am correct in saying that. If that is the case what restrictions will be on the Minister's disposing of parts of or loss from land he takes on lease subsequently? The Minister's speech does not cover these points. I would be grateful if he could deal with them in his reply.

Mr. Butler

There are a few points I would like to have clarified. The Minister stated that requests had been made by various interests for portion of the estate and to accommodate these an amendment of the existing Act was contemplated as long ago as 1974. That was six years ago. Surely it did not take six years to finalise the transfer of the various interests that existed. I would like to know how it took six years to do that. I have a reason for asking: there are houses on this land and five of them are occupied. I would like to know the condition of those houses. I am asking that also because of the length of time during which the tenants did not know whether they were owners or occupiers or whether they would be in the house within a year after 1974 or three years after 1974. They must not be living in a happy state of mind because of the delay.

I would like to ask that question because I have an interest in the people and in the proper housing of the people. I would like to know what will be done for the five occupiers of the houses if their houses are in a bad state and if that is so because of the long delay in taking them over. Something should be done and they should get some type of grant or subsidy to develop those houses. The families, if there are families, have grown older in those five or six years. Naturally, in that type of situation, the husband would like to develop the house during the time the family were being educated and should be living in proper housing conditions.

Mr. Allen

First, I shall deal with the question of splintering of the estate and say that at this moment nothing else can be disposed of on the estate except for what is marked on the original map that we have, several acres around there. As regards leasing any portion of the estate, we put that in because the Meteorological Office are looking for a site which they will need in a couple of years. They have already indicated that. That is why we included it in the map. One of the conditions is that the Dáil must be notified at all times concerning leasings or sales of any portion of the estate. It is written into the original Act that the donor or his heirs will always have to be notified, and he has made it very plain that he does not wish any more sales or leases of any portions of the estate to be made in the future.

With regard to the sale or lease of land to the football club, that question is totally a matter for the club and An Foras Talúntais to determine, whether they want to lease it or buy it. They said they might buy it. It will no doubt be offered to them to purchase so that they can develop it according to their own ideas.

The road widening is a matter for the county council. The lands are essential for road widening for the by-pass of Wexford town. With the development of Rosslare harbour the town of Wexford has been choked with traffic and it is essential to provide for road widening. One of the reasons for the delay was getting the county council to make up their minds how much ground they wanted. Senator Butler spoke about delays since 1974. It was because of all these things, and the road widening matter probably caused the longest delay. First, there was the question of getting the Attorney General to advise on proper procedure and it also took some time to get the donor's consent. All this took time. Since I went into the Department I speeded matters up, being a Wexford man myself.

Mr. Connaughton

That would have nothing to do with it.

Mr. Allen

I helped to have it speeded up somewhat. Senator Lanigan mentioned the matter of developing this estate, but there is no question of such development or of it being thrown open holus-bolus, because it is protected under the previous Act. With regard to Senator Molony's remark about Senator Lanigan accusing people of giving over these estates to the country so that they will not have to pay rates, I do not think he really meant it in that way. The sporting rights are reserved by the donor and his heirs and that is why consent had to be got from the donor in this connection. That is written in the original Act.

Concerning the houses, there are five of those occupied and they will be offered to the tenants who are in them. I think there are about 13 houses altogether on the estate and they will be offered for sale either by public auction or by tender.

Mr. Butler

May I ask what conditions are the houses in?

Mr. Allen

Not good.

Mr. Butler

The long delay in taking over the houses — the five years — did not help the situation. I would like to ask what help can be given by the State to those people now who are living in those bad conditions?

Mr. Allen

They will be offered the houses. I do not know of any outside persons who would buy a house where you have a tenant. It is a rare advantage, as I know myself, being a former auctioneer.

Mr. Butler

I accept that, but still there is an onus on the State to bring those houses up to such a standard that families could live in comfort in them. The Minister said the houses are in a bad condition and I think the onus is on the State to make them comfortable houses, because of the long delay.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take remaining Stages today.