George Lawlor (Wexford, Labour)

The Labour Party has no difficulty with this motion and will not be opposing it. It is noted that, in July 2022, Slovakia notified the Commission of recent changes to its domestic insolvency laws that introduced a new preventative restructuring procedure and a new type of insolvency practitioner. That notification was followed by notifications from Estonia, Spain, Malta and Italy in September 2022, from Belgium in July 2023 and from Luxembourg in January 2024. All of these related to recent changes to these states' domestic laws, introducing new types of insolvency proceedings or insolvency practitioners. These new types of insolvency proceedings and insolvency practitioners comply with the requirements set out in Regulation (EU) 2015/848.

As I have said, we in the Labour Party fully support this and have no difficulty with it but we must also look at many of our own domestic insolvency issues. A company may choose liquidation when insolvent and unable to meet its financial obligations. Liquidation allows for the orderly sale of assets to repay creditors. A company can be dissolved either through liquidation or the strike-off process. Once a company has been dissolved, the assets of that company become State property.

I will highlight the issue of Hookless Village, Hook Head, County Wexford. The company was declared insolvent and subsequently liquidated in the 2000s. Since that time, the premises has lain empty. It is a derelict and extremely dangerous eyesore. A once modern swimming pool, gym, bar and fully equipped restaurant today resembles something you would find in a deserted ghost town. Around it sit approximately 100 homes that were part of the original holiday resort. These homes are fully used by private owners and a number of Ukrainian families. There are many children and youngsters in the community and this dangerous eyesore forms the perfect adventure playground for them. Who is the owner of this dangerous property? We are. It is owned by the State or, to be more precise, by the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform. In response to a parliamentary question I submitted in March of this year, the Minister of State said:

I am informed by the Commissioners of Public Works (OPW) that Section 28 of the State Property Act 1954 (the Act) provides that property held by a company at the time of its dissolution becomes state property, in the name of the Minister for Public Expenditure; National Plan Delivery and Reform (the Minister), unless it was held on trust for another. The OPW deals with legal/ownership issues arising on real property (land / buildings) that devolves to the Minister under the Act. This provision mainly exists to ensure that land is not ownerless. The OPW, or the Minister, does not occupy or take control of what is a large volume of property that falls under this heading.

The OPW cannot conclusively establish if property which was registered to the company referred to has vested in the Minister. The company has been dissolved since 19th October 2007 and can be restored to the Companies Register up to 20 years after that date. If restored any property it held will revert to the company as if it had never been dissolved. Any interest that may currently be held by the Minister is defeasible by restoration.

The Minister has limited powers under the Act but he can, under Section 31, waive any interest he has to another if appropriate in all of the circumstances. The Minister has in the past waived his interest in properties to Local Authorities and the OPW, on behalf of the Minister, is always willing to engage with any Local Authority to try to resolve issues arising with property of dissolved companies.

In other words, after insolvency and dissolution, the State, despite having ownership of the property which could possibly be salvaged so that someone could make a decent go of it, is not letting it go until after 20 years. We have to wait 20 years before we can do anything and even then, we probably will not bother. Wexford County Council has effectively shown no interest in this property despite the council having spent a deal of money trying to secure it against the perils it comes up against from the youngsters who are invading it. This is simply crazy. How many more of these dissolved and insolvent properties are lying around the country in the ownership of the Minister for public expenditure? We have effectively allowed them to become dangerous derelict sites and eyesores for want of legislation for the common good.

We have no difficulty in supporting the motion before us but let us get our house in order when it comes to insolvent company lands and property in State ownership.

See this speech in context