asked the Minister for Finance if he will state in relation to each of the buildings 1, 2, 18 and 19 Hume Street and 44, 45, 46, 47, 48 and 49 St. Stephen's Green, Dublin (a) whether it has been owned or leased by the Government within the past five years; and, if leased, on what terms and up to what date the lease ran, (b) whether the ownership or leasehold interest has been disposed of within this period, and, if so, to whom and (c) if the building is still owned or leased by the Government, if so, if any proposals exist for disposing of it; whether any negotiations have taken place for its disposal; and, if so, with whom.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Dublin Planning Permission.
65.
While no decision has been taken about the future of the two properties in which the State has a saleable interest they are, in their present condition, unsuitable for continued occupation. If it is decided to dispose of them the normal procedure of offering them for sale by open competition will be followed.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary say which of these properties are held by the Government and on what terms?
No. 1 Hume Street is held by the State for ever subject to a rent of £64 12s 4d a year. No. 46 St. Stephen's Green is held by the State on lease for 21 years from the 30th May, 1959.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary agree to ensure if the State decides to dispose of them that a condition would be attached that the facade be preserved?
That is not a matter for my Department.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary say why it is not a matter for his Department?
As far back as 1963 my Department was considering the disposal of these properties because they had been found to be in a dangerous condition and in 1965 it was necessary to transfer some staff to Hawkins House. Subsequently, we ascertained the market value of these properties but on account of the delay by the Green property plan the question of disposing of the premises was shelved for the time being. Now the question will have to be reconsidered again, in view of the decision of the Department of Local Government——
In what way would it not be a function of the Parliamentary Secretary to impose such a condition on the sale if he is responsible for the sale?
Planning and preservation are not matters for my Department in this connection.
If the Parliamentary Secretary is responsible for the sale, must he not be responsible for the conditions attaching to the sale?
No.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary say whether any interest has, as yet, been indicated by any group in the eventual purchase of these buildings?
Interest was expressed some time ago by the Green Property Company. If these buildings are sold they will be sold, as is customary, by public open competition. They will be advertised and the highest bidder can get them.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary stand over his predecessor's assurance that they will not be sold, if, as is the case, Dublin Corporation wish them to be maintained?
I would refer the Deputy to the Parliamentary Secretary's statement of 24th December, 1966, when he gave an assurance that all valid opinions would be taken into consideration. These will be taken into consideration but a decision has not been reached. I cannot help the Deputy until a decision is made.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary give us the full text of his predecessor's assurance relating to Dublin Corporation's position?
No, but it was made on 24th December, 1966.