(Cavan-Monaghan): It transpired during the course of the debate on this section on the last occasion that it is proposed to operate the Bill through a map referred to in the definition section and other sections. It also transpired that the map had not been circulated with the Bill, that it was tucked away in the Valuation Office or the Ordnance Survey Office but was not available to Members. I pointed out that the Bill without the map was meaningless. The Minister then produced a map which was available to him but not to any other Member. I thanked the Minister for that gesture but pointed out that the map should be circulated to each Member. The Minister told me that he had no intention of circulating the map to each Member but would give the map to those he considered interested in the Bill. Apparently, he had decided that only Members representing the constituency of Wexford had any interest in the Bill and, consequently, a right to a copy of the map. He picked me out for VIP treatment and sent me a copy of the map. He also sent a copy to his three colleagues in the Wexford constituency.

I should like to record in a serious way my view that this is no way to treat this House. The Minister of State, or any Minister, in charge of a Bill does not have a right to decide who is or is not interested in a Bill. The Minister must take it that every Member is interested in what is taking place in the House. If Members are not they are guilty of a dereliction of their duty. I am moving that Committee Stage be adjourned until such time as the map is circulated to all Members. I ask the Chair to rule accordingly. Without the map the Bill is meaningless and unintelligible. Members cannot consider it in a sensible, reasonable or rational way without the map.

The Chair does not have power to rule in that manner. We are dealing with section 2 and this is our second day for considering that provision.

Is there any precedent for a reference to a map in a Bill and the map not being given to Members of Parliament? There is a reference to the map in this Bill, but those who have not got the map do not know what is involved.

It is not a function of the Chair.

I am asking the Minister through the Chair.

When we dealt with a previous Bill which carried maps, the maps were left in the Library.

(Cavan-Monaghan): The Chair is the costodian and guardian of procedure in this House. If Members of the House are to be deprived of this map today, how do we know that next week or the week after we will not be taking the Second Stage of a Bill without the Bill having been circulated? How do we know that on another day the Committee Stage of an 80 or 90 section Bill will not be taken without Deputies having the Bill before them? If I point out to the Chair on the Second Stage of a Bill that Members of the House have not got the Bill, the Chair is bound to take note of that and protect Members of the House. This is no joke. In all seriousness, without the map this Bill is meaningless.

Section 2 provides:

Notwithstanding the provisions of section 9 of the Act of 1959, section 14 (3) of the Agriculture (An Foras Talúntais) Act, 1958, shall apply to—

(a) such part or parts of the Estate as are defined on the deposited map by being coloured green, and

(b) such part or parts of the Estate as may be leased from time to time to the State.

There is the reference to the map. With the best will in the world I could not discuss this Bill without that map. If all Members of the House got the Bill without the map, they might as well have torn it up and thrown it into the waste paper basket.

The question of providing the map is a matter for the Minister, not for the Chair. The Chair has no responsibility in the matter.

We are not suggesting the Chair has responsibility for it. Perhaps he has some responsibility for it, but surely the Minister of State could enlighten us. As Deputy Fitzpatrick said, without the map the Bill is meaningless. Deputies do not know what is involved. They do not know what parts of the land are involved. I was fortunate enough to get a copy of the map. I forget how I got it.

I gave it to the Deputy.

I suggest the Minister should give a copy of the map to every Member of the House. The section says—

(Cavan-Monaghan): I should like a ruling.

The Chair cannot rule on a matter of this kind. The identity of the map is mentioned in section 1. It is up to the Minister whether copies are to be provided. It is not a matter for the Chair.

(Cavan-Monaghan): What I object to is that on the last occasion the Minister of State said he would distribute copies of the map to such people as he saw fit.

That is on the record and in a fit of pique he said: "No, I will not give you any map now." That is the way he said it.

The Chair has no responsibility for what the Minister says so long as it is relevant to the matter before the House. Deputy Corish is in possession. Perhaps we could dispose of the map issue first.

I want to put it on record that, when I moved the Second Stage of this Bill, Deputies who were most interested in it were not in the House.

We are in the House more often than you ever were.

I want to make that point very clear. In introducing the Second Stage I said:

The specific areas which An Foras are to be allowed to dispose of have been finally determined and marked on the map referred to in section 1 of the Bill and this map has been deposited in the Ordnance Survey Office since 22 September last.

Deputies could have read that.

Was there notification to Deputies that it had been deposited.

It was in the Bill.

On what date was the map deposited?

2 September last.

When was the Bill circulated?

I am not sure of the exact date but it was after that.

There was no intimation to Deputies concerned that there was a map.

Section 1 which deals with the actual map has been disposed of. We are now talking about copies of the map.

Deputy Corish asked was there any precedent for maps of this sort. The Curragh of Kildare Bill, 1961, was the most relevant one. A memo, together with maps, was issued to all the Whips of the political parties.

Is the Minister saying copies of the map were given to the Whips of all parties?

Yes, and an explanatory memorandum.

(Cavan-Monaghan): How many?

More were not asked for. If more had been asked for they would have been supplied. I want to put that on the record.

Does Deputy Corish wish to raise something on section 2?

I should like to have more information about the parts of Johnstown Castle which have the various colours on the map. In respect of which of these is there to be an outright purchase, and which are to be leased? I presume that the houses in Redmondstown which are somewhat in disrepair will be sold by private treaty or by auction. I think the Minister said they will be sold by auction. I presume the ones marked in red and described as "access required by county council" will be given over completely to the county council. Getting back to the green part of the map and the Redmondstown houses, could the Minister say what he means by "for posible future disposal"? Why not "for future disposal"? Paragraph (b) refers to such part or parts of the estate as may be leased from time to time to the State. Does that apply to some of the estate now mentioned, or to future plots?

Now mentioned.

I see. Could the Minister say which of these articles are to be disposed of by way of lease?

(Cavan-Monaghan): I did not want to interrupt Deputy Corish but, arising out of what the Minister has said about the map, it is true that one or two copies were sent to each Whip. That is no way to treat the House. I want this dealt with in the interest of the proper conduct of the business of this House. I want a ruling on it and I want the Chair to refer this matter to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.

The Chair will do that. The Chair could give his own feelings on it but it is not up to the Chair.

(Cavan-Monaghan): I would ask the Chair to formally refer this case to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges so as to ensure that abuses do not creep in here and that members are treated properly.

The Deputy has his own way of doing that through representatives on the Committee on Procedure and Privileges and he might raise it with them.

(Cavan-Monaghan): I am asking the Chair to——

The Deputy's comments will be brought to the attention of the Committe.

Will the St. Martin's football pitch be completely sold to the St. Martin's football club and not leased?

To clarify the position, 13.75 acres will go to Wexford County Council for housing and road widening and that will be sold, 4.75 acres will go to the meteorological office and that will possibly be leased in years to come.

It will possibly be leased in years to come. Are there no immediate plans?

They have an option. It is written into the Bill now because they have looked for a site—

It is not written into the Bill; it is written into the map.

Yes, because the Department of Transport have looked for a site for future use. That is why it was embodied in the Bill at this stage. The eight acres can be either sold or leased to St. Martin's football club, whichever they wish.

What do they want? They have made many representations to the Department.

That is a matter for the Agricultural Institute and St. Martin's football club.

So the Minister has nothing to do with the method of disposal?

No.

On section 2——

Just one question. In respect of Redmondstown houses, the green part of the map, it says the "possible" future disposal. Why "possible"?

The tenants will be offered——

There are no tenants.

There are five.

What about the houses that are in disrepair?

They will be disposed of.

By public auction?

Yes. That will be a matter for the board of the Agricultural Institute and not for me. They will have the power to dispose of it.

On section 2 of the Bill I am giving notice that I intend to move an amendment on Report Stage. I handed in the amendment to the Bills Office but it has not yet been circulated. However, as far as I am concerned I have signed it and sent it in, so I will be moving an amendment on Report Stage.

We have not reached Report Stage yet.

I was asked if we could deal with Report Stage today and I agreed if my amendment could be included.

The amendment cannot be circulated until we reach Report Stage.

In relation to the map it has made things very clear and the Minister must accept that it was a mistake that we did not get the map in the first instance. As Deputy Fitzpatrick stated, the Bill is nothing without the map.

In relation to the football pitch for the St. Martin's Club the Minister has stated that it is a matter between An Foras Talúntais and the St. Martin's Football Club. Having a certain amount of experience in dealing with facilities such as football pitches I feel it is only right that we should recommend to An Foras Talúntais that they sell this to St. Martin's because for development purposes it is essential that the club have proper ownership. What will the Minister recommend here? This is marked on the map as a portion for St. Martin's Club but how it will be disposed of is not specified.

The Minister has said that it can be either leased or sold.

It is a matter for negotiation.

Deputy D'Arcy wants the Minister to recommend that it be sold outright.

I have a very deep interest in the matter.

That is not sufficient for us. I want it on the Official Report that the Minister is prepared to recommend the sale of this portion of land to the St. Martin's Football Club rather than the leasing of it.

Once this Bill is passed it is a matter for An Foras Talúntais and St. Martin's Football Club. The Minister has no function in the matter.

I have received several representations recently. Did they ask to buy the portion?

I understand that that is the case.

Will the Minister recommend that?

Yes, certainly.

To An Foras Talúntais?

Yes.

In relation to the green portion here for possible future disposal, the Minister stated that a certain number of these houses have no tenants at the moment.

They are in bad repair.

Do I take it that An Foras Talúntais will offer these houses for sale without carrying out any repairs?

That is a matter for An Foras Talúntais, it has nothing to do with me.

Down through the years they have refused to repair these houses.

The five occupied houses will be offered to the tenants and the other houses will be either sold by private treaty or by auction.

Are they capable of being restored?

(Cavan-Monaghan): Deputy D'Arcy has made the House aware that he intends to introduce an amendment to section 2 on Report Stage. That amendment is necessary on Report Stage because the map we have been talking about was not available on Committee Stage. I do not have to tell the Chair that on a Committee Stage amendment more latitude is given than on a Report Stage amendment.

We will circulate the amendment when we reach Report Stage.

(Cavan-Monaghan): Yes, but there is a procedure for recommitting a section on Report Stage so that Members may enjoy the same privileges in regard to the amendment on Report Stage as they would have had, had it been possible to move the amendment on Committee Stage. Will the Minister agree to recommitting the section?

We will deal with that when we reach it on Report stage and then the House will have to agree as to whether it is recommitted for committee debate on Report Stage.

(Cavan-Monaghan): It is only reasonable that that be done in the circumstances of this case.

During the Second Stage speech the Minister stated that the object of the Bill was a simple one, 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, and that this was not possible at present because of the existing legal position. The only areas are those areas marked on the map, as far as this portion of the speech is concerned. Is that right?

That is correct.

These are the only areas over which the Minister has any power.

If any other part of it is being disposed of do we have to have another Bill? It seems ridiculous.

There is an amendment coming up.

(Cavan-Monaghan): As I understand it, section 2(a) applies the 1959 Act and parts of the 1958 Act to the parts of the estate defined on the map but it also applies to sections mentioned in section 2 to such part or parts of the estate as may be leased from time to time to the State, so what the Minister says, that it only applies to the parts mentioned and coloured on the map, is not correct. It also applies or it is proposed to apply the other Acts to such parts of the estate as may be leased from time to time to the State. Will the Minister agree that that is so?

One could lease but not buy, is that so?

It is very hard to understand the thing the way it is. The Minister stated that it is not possible.

This was fairly well explained in the Second Reading speech.

(Cavan-Monaghan): We are on Committee Stage now.

If the Deputy read my Second Stage speech I would not have to explain it again.

(Cavan-Monaghan): The Minister was not here when the Bill was called. He came in late, does not know what was in the Bill and is being perfectly insolent.

Deputies will ask questions—

(Cavan-Monaghan): The Minister will answer them.

Everything is to be done in a civil and polite way. As far as it is possible to do so, the Chair will ensure that it is done in that way.

By way of explanation, the inclusion in section 2 of a general power in future to make a lease to the State — for example, in the case of a request for a site like that for the meteorological office referred to earlier — is to avoid the need for similar legislation at a later date. 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. Such a development would, of course, be at variance with the spirit of the donation and acceptance of the lands as a free gift to the nation.

Everybody in Johnstown Castle would be very pleased if it was the stated intention of An Foras Talúntais and the Minister that much of it would be sold or leased to the State. Section 2(b) says that it shall apply to such part or parts of the estate as may be leased from time to time to the State. It means therefore that the Bill is giving permission to An Foras Talúntais to lease parts of the site to the State.

Only.

If a small part is to be disposed of to a county council or private individual new legislation would be needed. In other words, if it is sold to the State, no legislation; leased to anyone else, a new Bill. Is that not a cumbersome way of doing it?

Unfortunately the donors still have a say. They have made it very plain they do not want any more of the estate disposed of. There has been a lot of road widening and some was used for housing. They do not want any further erosion of the estate.

(Cavan-Monaghan:) I understand section 2(a) but could the Minister classify what exactly the effect of section 2(b) is and what it enables the Minister to do?

It enabled the Agriculture Institute to lease the portion I have already mentioned for a meteorological office and which the Department do not at present require. It was written into the Bill on this occasion so that it would be available to them when they wanted it.

(Cavan-Monaghan): They can lease it to the State but can the State sell the parts leased to it?

No.

(Cavan-Monaghan): Can the State sell the sections referred to in section 2(a)?

That is referred to in the map.

(Cavan-Monaghan): I understand that the effect of section 2(a) was to enable An Foras Talúntais to sell parts of the estate that are marked in various colours on this map. Is that so?

Yes.

(Cavan-Monaghan): I am clear in my own mind beyond doubt that it can do the very same thing with such parts of the estate as are leased to the State because (b) states:

such part or parts of the Estate as may be leased from time to time to the State

That puts those parts in the same position as the parts coloured green on the map. Notwithstanding what the Minister said, the entire estate can be sold because they may lease parts to the State and the State, having taken a lease, could decide to sell.

Is that correct?

No, I am satisfied that there is nothing about sale in section 2(b).

(Cavan-Monaghan): Would the Minister read section 9 of the 1959 Act and section 14(3) of the 1958 Act?

Section 14(3) of the 1958 Act states:

The Institute may sell or lease any land, offices or premises held by it and no longer required for the performance of its functions.

(Cavan-Monaghan): What is section 9 of the 1959 Act?

It states that subsection (3) of section 14 of The Agriculture (An Foras Talúntais) Act, 1958, shall not apply in respect of the estate. The other section does not apply specifically to Johnstown Castle.

(Cavan-Monaghan): Notwithstanding the provisions of section 9 of the Act of 1959 — that is the section which says the Act shall not apply to Johnstown Castle — section 14(3) of the Agriculture (An Foras Talúntais) Act, 1958, shall apply to the parts coloured on the map and to the parts that may be leased to the State from time to time. There is machinery there to sell the whole estate lock, stock and barrel if An Foras Talúntais and the State between them want to do so. All they would have to do is lease in two or three lots the entire estate to the State and then the 1958 Act would apply and they could sell it off if they did not want it.

I am satisfied that paragraph (b) of section 2 is specific and that section 9 of the Johnstown Castle Agricultural (Amendment) Act, 1959, spells it out that the 1958 Act does not apply to Johnstown Castle.

(Cavan-Monaghan): This Act applies.

To lease only.

To the State.

(Cavan-Monaghan): Such parts of the estate as may be leased to the State from time to time may be sold. There is no doubt about that.

I apologise to the Minister. Our Whip got a copy of the map.

(Cavan-Monaghan): They got one map for 20 Deputies.

What does section 4 mean?

The Johnstown Castle Agricultural College (Amendment) Act, 1959, transferred the estate to the institute. Section 3 of that Act restricts the use of the Estate as follows:

The Estate shall be used exclusively for the purpose of a lay agricultural college ... include the conduct of agricultural research, and for no other purpose whatever...

This section of the Bill removes that restriction from the portions of the estate to be disposed of.

Is there any reference to Johnstown Castle as an amenity area? We would be anxious that that would not be disturbed. It has been accepted by An Foras as an amenity area, a public park.

I referred to the section where it would be disposed of.

The value of Johnstown Castle as an amenity area should be taken into consideration.

(Cavan-Monaghan): The effect of section 4 is to free the Johnstown Castle estate from the restrictions on usure as set out in the Act of 1959, or, more correctly to free the portion mentioned on the map and any portion leased to the State. In effect it is a machinery for freeing the entire estate. There is sufficient machinery in section 4 to release the entire estate from the usures imposed on it in the 1959 Act.

(Cavan-Monaghan): What does section 6 of the 1959 Act do?

Section 6 of the Johnstown Castle Agricultural College (Amendment) Act, 1959, provides:

(1) No further demolition of Johnstown Castle or exterior structural alterations thereof shall be undertaken and no alteration to the crenellated entrances to the Estate shall be made, unless, with the passage of time, it should be found necessary to undertake such demolition or alternations because the maintenance of the structures would be no longer practicable, in which case, no such demolition or alterations shall be made until Maurice Victor Lakin shall have been notified of the proposal to do so and has been afforded an opportunity of making representations.

Who is this man?

Maurice Victor Lakin.

Who will it be in the future.

He has two sons.

Would that provision be given to his sons and any successors?

Yes.

(Cavan-Monaghan): It means that anybody who buys any part of the estate buys it subject to that provision.