Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

329. To ask the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the position in respect of the sale of an estate (details supplied) in County Cork; the steps taken by him to safeguard the property interests of the State in such transactions; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28475/15]

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Under Section 28 (2) of the State Property Act 1954, the Minister for Finance assumes responsibility for all personal property and land vested in or held in trust for a body corporate (other than personal property or land held by such body in trust for another person) immediately prior to its dissolution. Upon the dissolution of the body corporate, such property becomes State property. The effect of Section 28 is that the Minister does not hold the assets of dissolved companies as beneficial owner. He holds them in trust. The title which the Minister acquires under this Section has been described as a defeasible title since, if the dissolved company is restored to the Register of Companies within twenty years of the date of its dissolution, its property is automatically restored to it. The State Property Act also includes, in Section 31, a power for the Minister to waive the interest acquired under Section 28 of the Act.  The relevant functions under the State Property Act transferred in 2011 to the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform. 

It is understood that the property which is the subject of the current question was held within a company which was struck off the Register of Companies in September, 1972 for failure to file annual returns with the Companies Office. The beneficial owner of the property applied to the Department of Finance for a waiver of the interest acquired by the Minister for Finance under the provisions of the State Property Act and that waiver, in respect of which the consideration was £160, was completed in October, 1986. The effect of the waiver, which was not a sale by the State, would have been to allow the beneficial owner to complete the process of assembling a satisfactory title. The waiver itself would have formed only a limited element in the establishment of that title and the transaction was a normal exercise of Departmental functions.  The price which the beneficial owner may have secured in a subsequent sale was not a matter for consideration in the context of the waiver and, accordingly, would not merit enquiry by me at this juncture.   This issue has been the subject of previous voluminous correspondence and I understand that the Office of the Chief State Solicitor wrote to an individual in 2013 concerning the transaction which set out the legal position.

I am advised that all applications for waiver of property falling within the scope of Section 28 of the State Property Act are referred to the Office of the Chief State Solicitor for legal advice and that any policy issues that may arise in particular cases are given full consideration on their merits.