On the motion for the Adjournment, Deputy Bartley gave notice that he would raise the subject matter of Question No. 36 on the Order Paper.

When I asked my first supplementary on this question to-day the Minister shot out at me that I was trying to make mischief. He did that with some bitterness and a show of indignation. It seemed to me that his indignation was a little more cynical than righteous. We have had experience in regard to happenings in relation to the mining of gold in County Wicklow, dealings in Great Southern Railway shares and attempts to deal in whiskey in Kilbeggan. In one of these cases public property was involved; in another one private property was involved, and the third was of a semi-hybrid nature.

This has no relation to the question.

If I were allowed to put my second supplementary question——

The Deputy will not get away with criticism of the Chair in that fashion. The Chair would have allowed the supplementary question if he thought it was proper.

I just want to say that I could spare the House——

It is criticism of the Chair obviously.

There are certain circumstances surrounding this transaction which require inquiry and a public representative has as much duty to ask a question in the Dáil with regard to dealings in public property when Fianna Fáil is in opposition as when Fianna Fáil was the Government. I refer to the method by which the property of the Irish Tourist Board in Connemara was put up for sale. Most potential purchasers expected this property to be bought in one lot. For that reason, people who had been interested in the lesser parts of it, if they knew they were to be put up for auction separately, would have attended and bid. The principal reason for which I put down this question is that before the 15th of this month, on which the result of the consideration of the offers was published, it came to my notice that one potential purchaser, who would have been able to spend from £2,000 to £2,500, would have bid for this Glendalough property if it were put up to auction, but his remark was that he did not think that an offer of that kind would be worth putting in privately for property that was generally estimated to be worth about £5,000.

Is the Deputy prepared to give the name?

I do not know the name because I did not meet the person myself. What the Minister said to-day is quite true, that an announcement was made that if the auction proved abortive offers would be received privately within a period of ten days. I contend that such an arrangement was not calculated to produce the competition which undoubtedly would have been forthcoming if an auction had been advertised in the ordinary way and people who could afford to buy parts of this property had a chance of bidding at it. Take the case of the man who was prepared to spend from £2,000 to £2,500 and would not put in a private offer. If that man had been at the auction he certainly would have made his bid.

I should like to give particulars of two parts of this property. One of them is known as Inagh, on which there are 216 acres of land with fishing and shooting over 9,000 acres as well as some furniture, according to the local paper. That realised £6,100. Glendalough has attached to it 147 acres of land with fishing and furniture and shooting over 14,700 acres. That was sold for £1,675.

With regard to the circumstances surrounding this case with which the public are concerned and on which they have been commenting, I should like to say to the Minister that, if he had not changed the chairmanship of the Irish Tourist Board as summarily as he did, this transaction possibly might not have been the subject of the comments I have heard.

Or would not be raised here.

And might not be raised here——

Exactly. Now we are hearing the truth of the story.

——because the bona fides of the transaction would not be so open to question. What do we find? The Minister appointed three people to handle this matter who were wellknown supporters or members of his own Party—a solicitor, an auctioneer and the chairman of the Tourist Board. The purchaser being a member of his own Party, he is presumed by the public, in any event, in view of the comments I have heard, to have had the dice loaded in his favour.

That is a pretty scandalous statement.

I am not challenging the statement which the Minister made to-day, that there were five or six offers for this property and that they accepted the highest offer. I am not in a position to challenge it, because I have not got any information other than that statement of the Minister. I suggest to the Minister, however, that he made more scandalous use, to use his own expression now, of circumstances in relation to the matters which I have already mentioned no more suspicious than are surrounding this particular transaction and he was quite well able to "give it" to Fianna Fáil on these occasions, but he is not now able to "take it". I want to tell the Minister that, without going outside County Galway, if it were thought that this property, estimated to be worth anything up to £5,000, would be on the market for a sum between that for which it was sold and £3,000, there would have been very keen competition for it at an auction.

Why did they not tender?

I have already pointed out that the method of inviting private offers was not attended by sufficient publicity; that an auction advertised in the same way as the original auction had been advertised to sell these various properties separately would have produced much better results than have been produced in this particular case.

Does the Deputy never read auction lists? Does he not know that that is the normal method?

The Deputy should allow Deputy Bartley to make his case.

I am waiting to hear him make a case.

Would the Minister at least do this much? If he does not think that the circumstances surrounding this particular transaction demand the holding of an inquiry, will he at least publish the names of the people who made the offers which he referred to to-day and the amount which they offered?

Will the Deputy——

Will Deputy Sweetman allow Deputy Bartley to make his case?

I have already stated that it is because of information conveyed to me with regard to a potential purchaser, about whose identity I am unaware, that I put down this question in the first instance. I do know from other remarks I have heard that if it were put up for public auction, as I have said, there would have been keen competition for it. The fact that a member of the Minister's Party has succeeded in purchasing the property at one-third of its value, in view of the other circumstances I have mentioned, has caused a considerable amount of suspicion in the public mind, and I think I am as free here, and I have as much duty on me as a public representative for the area in which this property is located, as people who formerly occupied these benches had to ventilate and to create scandal about circumstances not nearly so suspicious.

We are dealing with a particular property in this discussion.

All right. I will finish up. All I can say about it is that, from the comments I have heard about it, Mr. Cooney has nothing on Mr. Quinlan and Mr. Maximoe has nothing on Mr. Mongan.

Is that last remark of the Deputy in order?

Surely it is in keeping with everything the Deputy has said from the moment he started.

And his general habits.

I said to-day in answer to one of the Deputy's questions that the purpose behind this question, the purpose behind the supplementary questions, was both mean and contemptible. I am 27 years in this House. I have heard many questions asked and many speeches made in this House. I have listened to many adjournment debates but nothing more low or more contemptible or more dishonest than the speech which has been made here to-night, was ever made in this House since the first day the door was opened.

Read your own speeches when you were in opposition.

This is raised to try to create the impression that a colleague of his own in the representation of that constituency purchased this property and that it was given to him deliberately.

That is the opinion.

It is not the opinion.

It is the general opinion.

What do you know about it?

I heard.

Who told you?

Let me make this clear. No part of this property was bought by a colleague of mine. No part of this property was bought by a member of this House. Deputy Bartley knows quite well that Glendalough House was in possession of the lady who bought it since 1942. Deputy Bartley knows that that lady held that property under lease since 1942 and that she was there under lease at the time the Tourist Board bought it. The Deputy said if it were advertised, if there had been an auction, there would have been keener competition. Let Deputies be fair. Let Deputies even try to be fair. This Ballinahinch property got more publicity than any other of the properties which were offered. It was advertised not merely in Ireland and in Great Britain but also in America, in an effort to secure the highest possible price for it. The Deputy said people were misled. Let me quote from the advertisement: "Should the property not reach the reserved price in one lot it will immediately be re-offered for sale in three lots on the same date." That was in the advertisement which appeared in every paper in Galway and in every daily paper in the country week after week for five or six weeks. The auction was well attended. The property was offered in one lot. There was free competition and the bidding opened up at £10,000. The maximum offered for the entire property in one lot was £18,000. The auctioneer withdrew the property and said it would not be sold at that price, as the reserve price had not been reached. It was offered then in three separate lots, and for this valuable property, which the Deputy says has been sold for one-third of its value, when it was offered in three separate lots, there was a bid of £11,000 for Ballinahinch, £3,000 for Inagh, and £1,000 for Glendalough. This was open, public auction, held by a reputable firm of auctioneers, and if it is any news to the Deputy, I know nothing about the auctioneers and never met anybody connected with that particular firm. Deputy Beegan does not believe that. Whether he does or not it is quite true.

I accept your word.

This is the truth. We wanted to get the highest possible price for that property as we wanted to get for every one of these properties. We selected the outstanding firm of auctioneers in Galway, the firm which had been dealing with this property for nearly 50 years and which had sold it to the Tourist Board and had sold it to the person who sold it to the Tourist Board, the firm that had all the plans and maps and knew every inch of the property. It was a public auction, free for everybody. £15,000 was offered for the property in three separate lots as against £18,000 for the entire property. The Deputy's mind is so warped——

I am afraid it is not.

And he is feeding on such rotten suspicion——

There must be many warped minds outside, if that is the case.

I do not believe that there are and I do not believe for one moment that there is a single person in the City of Galway who has the suspicion of the Deputy.

I have it.

At least listen to the case. I want to challenge Deputies opposite to tell me what other method should I have adopted to sell this property. Should I have invited private tenders? Is not public auction the proper way?

Yes, and that is what I wanted.

I will make it clear. I know a little more than the Deputy. The property was withdrawn at a public auction. It was there and then announced that tenders would be received in respect of the property in one lot or in three separate lots or any lot over a period of ten days, to give everybody the fullest possible opportunity of putting in bids. There was no such thing as giving anybody a short knock and no such thing as depriving anybody of the opportunity of bidding for it or of acquiring the property if they wanted it. I challenge any Deputy who knows anything at all about auctioneering or salesmanship, any Deputy who was ever at an auction, to deny that that is the way any well-conducted sale is carried out.

I do not think so.

The Deputy does not know anything about it.

Why was it not offered by public auction to be bid for separately?

It was. Have I not read the advertisement?

Is it in order to refer to a Deputy as a jackass?

I did not hear the expression being used.

The Deputy is accepting his colleague's statement. The fact is, and the Deputy can check it in any newspaper, that it was stated explicitly in the advertisement that, in the event of the reserve price not being reached for one lot, it would be offered in three lots. It was offered in three lots.

Not by public auction.

Yes.

No, it was not.

If the Deputy has been informed that it was not offered by public auction in three separate lots, he has been very badly misinformed. It was.

You are evading the point I made.

I am not evading any point, because there is no point in what the Deputy said, except the point of poison.

That is your opinion.

It is the greatest pity in the world that the Deputy did not show the same concern when this property was being acquired as he is now exhibiting—when thousands of pounds were being squandered on it. Let me remind the Deputy of what this property cost the taxpayers. Let me give him evidence of the consideration and concern shown to see that it was bought at the right price for the taxpayers.

What did it cost?

I will tell you. The acquisition of it cost £35,900; reconstruction, £17,880; and the fees paid were £290. The furnishing—and the Deputy has admitted that Inagh was not furnished—of Ballinahinch, this magnificent hotel, which contains 24 guest bedrooms, cost £16,601.

What did is cost in 1912?

The maintenance of it amounted to £2,284 and the total cost of it to the taxpayers, excluding interest due by the Tourist Board in respect of repayable advances made to the board, was £72,955.

Did the Minister say the purchase price was £35,000?

Yes.

Does the Minister know it cost over £30,000 40 years ago?

I know it cost us £72,000.

Why did you sell it?

I sold it for this reason, that there was not the remotest possible hope of making it pay. They lost money on it every year.

How many thousand acres were attached to it?

Twenty-four guest bedrooms—£17,000 to furnish it.

How many acres were attached to it?

£17,000 for the reconstruction of a property which had already cost £35,000. If the Deputies were dealing with their own money instead of the taxpayers' money, they would be much more careful about the expenditure.

What is the whole story. What is it based on? Deputy Bartley comes in here and says that somebody told him that some man whom he never met and whom he does not know would have given £2,000 or £3,000 for Glendalough.

Will the Minister deny that Deputy Mongan advised the Tourist Board to buy it?

I do not know whether he did or not and, whether he did or not, I am quite sure that Deputy Mongan was not responsible for the expenditure of £72,000 on it.

Does the Minister deny that it went for £32,000 40 years ago?

I do not care what it cost 40 years ago. I am telling the Deputy that it was not worth £72,000 to the taxpayers of this country.

Not when you sold it for that price.

I sold it to the highest bidder, for the highest price that could be got in the open market, and I probably would have got much more for it were it not for the fact that Deputy Bartley set out from the very beginning——

That is a lie.

——to secure by his speeches here and in Galway that it would not be bought or bid for.

That is a lie.

It is not; it is the truth.

Deputy Bartley will withdraw his statement that what the Minister said was a lie.

I withdraw the expression and I substitute the statement that it is not in accordance with truth.

In any case, here is the position. This place was offered at public auction after having been fully advertised inside and outside this country. The auction was very largely attended and there were several people bidding for each lot. The lot which the Deputy says was sold under its value was bid for by five different people. I am prepared to supply the Deputy with the names and addresses of each of the five and the amounts which each of them bid. Not only that, but each of the other lots was bid for by various people, and I am prepared to supply the Deputy, or to ask the Tourist Board to supply the Deputy, with the names and addresses and the amount of the bids by each. Remember that each of the three lots was sold to the highest bidder after full competition. Not only was there one auction, but, in effect, there were two auctions of the property.

The Deputy may disabuse his mind that there was anything suspicious about this sale. If ever there was a sale conducted in this country, either privately or publicly, of either a private or public property, that was open and above-board in every possible way, it is this sale, which was conducted in a way which, in my opinion, brings credit on everybody concerned with it. May I further inform the Deputy that, in order to ensure that we would get the highest possible price, I asked the Tourist Board, before the property was advertised at all, to have a conference with the Department of Fisheries, the solicitors and the auctioneers? In conference with officials of the Department of Fisheries, they were to determine what was the better way of disposing of this property in order to realise the highest price we could for it. I must confess that I find it hard to understand what was the Deputy's reason for raising this matter here. He has not got a leg to stand on and he knows it.

He is voicing the opinions of the public.

I do not believe that for one moment. I have a far higher opinion of the people of the Deputy's native city and county than apparently he himself has.

You will probably find out that what I am saying is true.

The Dáil adjourned at 12 midnight until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 21st July.