I appreciate the answers the Minister gave to some of the questions I raised on Second Stage, but I am having some difficulty understanding exactly what the position is. If I understood the Minister correctly, sporting rights were reserved by the donor originally. The Minister also seemed to me to indicate that the donor's consent was otherwise required as well in some way or another. For example, the Minister indicated that the donor said that sufficient parts of the estate have now been disposed of from the original. I gathered from that that there is some general restriction in the original instrument of transfer with regard to the State or An Foras Talúntais disposing of it. I would be grateful if the Minister would indicate to us what precisely the restriction is.
Johnstown Castle Agricultural College (Amendment) Bill, 1980: Committee and Final Stages.
The Attorney General's advice was that because the sporting rights would be affected as a result of house building on the estate, he felt that it was necessary to get the consent of the donor. Because of restrictions on the transfer, the sporting rights were held by the donor. That consent was forthcoming. For that reason only it was necessary to get the donor's consent — because the sporting rights were being affected.
I accept that there obviously was on the original transfer a reservation of sporting rights to the donor and his heirs, but is that the only restriction? Was that the only restriction in the original deed of transfer? If that is the case I can understand the Attorney General's opinion in those circumstances but I cannot understand, for example, how the original donor could now say that there should not be any further splintering or breaking up of the estate. There seems to be something else behind this that I do not quite understand.
Because the estate was a gift to the nation and because the donor is still alive and he has heirs, two sons alive, the State cannot be seen to be reneging on a gift that was given.
That is the only reason?
Yes.
I know that the Meteorological Office may require portion of the land and for that reason the provision is included that there would be no restriction on the disposal of land to be leased to the State at some time in the future. If that is the only reason, why is it not limited in terms of acreage or something? As I read that at the moment, the State could lease 900 of the 1,000 acres after the passing of this Bill and could then dispose of the land as it suited itself provided it reserved properly the sporting rights of the original owners and their successors.
In the Second Reading speech, the last paragraph explains that the inclusion in section 2 of the general power to lease land from time to time to the State is to avoid the need for future similar legislation. It can lease only, it cannot sell. This is part of the State gift. Once it is a gift to the State it will be a matter for An Foras and they will not allow us to erode it.