Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 5 Oct 1999

Vol. 508 No. 3

Adjournment Debate. - Departmental Properties.

I acknowledge receipt of information sought in my Parliamentary Question No. 401 of 29 September which I received from the Minister for Finance, dated 4 October 1999. I thank the Minister for Finance and the Secretary General of his Department for the assistance, co-operation and courtesy they afforded me with respect to this matter. They have acted with the utmost probity at all times.

However, having examined the information supplied and various correspondence on the matter, I would appreciate it if the Minister of State would address the following points with respect to the file outlining the facts surrounding the disposal of 93 Merrion Square to the Irish Intercontinental Bank in 1987. In a letter to the Minister for Finance from the Minister of State at the Office of Public Works, dated 4 October 1999, Deputy Cullen states in the second paragraph;

I am entirely satisfied that I and my office acted with propriety at all stages. No verbal or written communication was issued to anyone outside appropriate official contacts.

Does this include or exclude the Ireland on Sunday journalist, Mairead Carey, who visited the Office of Public Works at 51, St. Stephen's Green on the afternoon of Friday, 1 October 1999 to read the file on 93 Merrion Square in the presence of two Office of Public Works officials and what definition does the Minister of State's Department give to “appropriate official contacts“? Was there a requirement for Ms Carey, under the Freedom of Information Act, to apply for the information in writing and, if so, was this done and at what time?

With respect to the other matters raised in the correspondence, what was the extent of the information brought to the attention of the Taoiseach's office? Was the relevant file or parts thereof sent to the Taoiseach's office? If so, when was it sent and how long did it remain there? To whom in the Taoiseach's office was the information addressed? How was it delivered and by whom and to whom was it delivered? Who made the media queries to the Department of the Taoiseach? How were these queries made? Who responded to them? Could the Minister of State give the name of the official who responded to them? What was contained in the response?

Most importantly, did the person who gave the briefing feel it necessary, at a later date, to tell that person or persons briefed to go to the Office of Public Works to look at information that they may already have seen somewhere in the Taoiseach's office in order to cover their tracks? Who in the Taoiseach's office was aware of the information? Why was the information involved in this parliamentary question sent to an official who was unfamiliar with the procedure of parliamen tary questions, as stated by the Taoiseach on today's Order of Business?

If the Minister of State cannot answer all my queries this evening, I would be grateful if he would furnish me with the answers at a later date. Does the Minister of State's Department and the Government intend to issue a directive to Members of the Oireachtas and journalists outlining the circumstances when they can have immediate access to Department files and what procedures need to be followed?

I simply wish to get to the truth of this sordid affair.

I thank Deputy Timmins for raising this matter and I welcome the opportunity to deal with it directly in the House. The Deputy raised a number of questions outside the specific question he put down this evening but I will try to deal with them. However, I will answer the specific question first.

The parliamentary question to which the Deputy refers asked the Minister for Finance if his Department disposed of any assets or property with a value of or greater than £200,000 between 1987 and 1992 inclusive, without going to public tender; if so, if the Minister would give details and circumstances of these sales and the reason for the decision not to go to tender.

The reply required information on property and assets. Property information was a matter for the Office of Public Works. The Office of Public Works provided draft material to the Department of Finance which stated that 14 properties with a value in excess of £200,000 had been disposed of by it in the relevant period. All but three of these had been disposed of to other State bodies in accordance with the normal procedures governing disposals between State organisations. These were Chantilly Lands, which was a direct sale to the county council for road development relating to the Shankhill to Bray by-pass and south east motorway, and 73 Lower Baggot Street, a direct sale to the Health Research Board who had been the occupiers of the premises for the previous 20 years.

The remaining disposal was of 93 Merrion Square to the Irish Intercontinental Bank following an approach to the Department of Finance by the bank, which owned the adjoining properties and wished to expand its business with a consequential increase in employment. Having regard to, first, the fact that the bank's offer of £250,000 for the property was £30,000 to £35,000 above our estimation of its market value and, second, the job creating aspect of the proposed acquisition by the bank, Department of Finance sanction was obtained. The material on file shows that the then Minister, Deputy John Bruton, took advice from officials when he decided to allow the sale of the building without it going through the normal tender procedures.

As I said earlier, information on property was a matter for the Office of Public Works. Infor mation on assets was a matter for the Department of Finance. That information could not be assembled in time on 29 September. The Department of Finance decided in the circumstances to issue an interim reply to the parliamentary question.

I wish to put on record that, as I have already stated, both I and the Office of Public Works acted with propriety in handling the reply to Deputy Timmins's parliamentary question. The reply was processed in my office in the normal way. The material was approved, unaltered by me, and sent to the Department of Finance for inclusion in the composite reply. Neither I nor the Office of Public Works was involved in any way in the decision to issue a holding reply.

I will deal with Deputy Timmins's comments. I would have appreciated if he had acknowledged that the Office of Public Works prepared the question. It was ready for issue last week and had been sent for issue. There was no reticence on the part of the Office of Public Works. We issued the question to the Department and that should be acknowledged in the good faith in which it was sent in to the Department of Finance.

On a point of order—

Deputy Timmins, the Minister has one minute remaining.

The Deputy asked me a question about Ireland on Sunday newspaper. A request first came from Mr. Roy Dooney, adviser to Deputy Bruton, to see the file. In the circumstances we deemed that the file could be viewed under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act – this is done quite regularly. We invited him in to see the file immediately and he was allowed to make photocopies of it.

Why did he have to do that?

The Deputy should allow me to answer the question.

On Thursday afternoon, an approach was made to the office by Ireland on Sunday, which seemed to have certain information. The approach was not made to me.

(Carlow-Kilkenny): Where did it get the information?

I am answering Deputy Timmins's question. A decision was taken at that stage by the chairman and me that, as we already had made the file available to Mr. Roy Dooney, it was only fair that if anybody else wanted to see it, he or she would be entitled to do so. On Friday afternoon the file was seen by the person from Ireland on Sunday referred to by the Deputy. No photocopies were made but notes were taken by that person. There was no communication as the file was seen in silence in the presence of two Office of Public Works officials. I have done this on numerous occasions, as members of the media will be aware, most recently in the case of the purchase of Farmleigh House. People are not put through the process of having to make a freedom of information application when something is patently obviously available under it.

No papers of any description whatsoever were sent to the Taoiseach's office. I reiterate, as I did in my letter which the Deputy quoted earlier, there is absolutely no doubt that the Taoiseach's office acted in a bona fide manner in the absolute belief that the information being made available was already in the public domain and, as I understand it—

It was twisted.

What elements of the reply were sent to the Taoiseach's office?

Please, the Minister's time is concluded. We are moving on to No. 4.

It is a paper chase.

There is no doubt that I, my Department and the Taoiseach's office acted in absolute good faith in the certain belief that this information was already in the public domain. The decision to issue an interim reply had absolutely nothing to do with me or my Department.

Barr
Roinn