Ireland's political and cultural magazine
Peter Casey (66): Irish entrepreneur, former Rank Xerox Asian Sales Manager of the Year, CEO of Claddagh Resources recruitment company, former panellist on Dragons’ Den, candidate for Irish President in 2018 – one of three Dragons, coming second after attacking travellers, and in 2019 and 2024 for the European Parliament in Midlands-North-West; and racist fool.
Renters across the country continue to be compelled to share bedrooms with strangers despite calls from housing organisations to introduce legislation that prevents the “warehousing” of tenants. By Conor O’Carroll New analysis by Village Magazine of rental listings has found the practice of multiplying the number of occupants in a room remains widespread, forcing many to share rooms with strangers. Over 100 ads for shared rooms were found across property website Daft.ie and Facebook, including several rooms with two bunk beds crammed together. Prices for these shared rooms range from €350 a month up to almost €900 in some cases. One ad features a property in Galway with four rooms filled with multiple beds. For between €600 and €660 a month, it is available five days a week, with the property also listed on Airbnb. Another property listed for €500 a month in Ballyfermot, Dublin, features a cramped room with two bunk beds and little personal space, while another double bunk-bed room in East Wall for €580 a month is accompanied by the following description: “If you don’t mind sharing a large bunk bedded room with 3 men then this will suit very well” [sic]. Some of the ads were also written in Spanish or Portuguese, specifically targeting international students. A report from the Irish Council for International Students published late last year found that “almost a third of students studying in higher education share a room with at least one other person”. A report from the Irish Council for International Students published late last year found that “almost a third of students studying in higher education share a room with at least one other person”. H, a 22-year-old student at NUIG who wished to remain anonymous, was one of those left with no choice but to share a room. He told Village the search for suitable accommodation was an arduous process, made more difficult when with the number of scams he encountered. H admitted that he came close to following through with one scam, to the point of sending a copy of his passport before realising all was not right and backing out before he lost any money. This experience led to H becoming demotivated with the process. He would spend days going through rental listings and dialling numbers looking to find accommodation only to not find anything. And having arrived in Ireland from Dubai without accommodation, he was desperate for anything. A €720 per month shared room in Knocknacarra, Galway, quickly became his only option. With roughly one metre of personal space for belongings, H was shocked, calling the standard of accommodation for students “a joke”. Before coming to Ireland, he said he was aware of the housing crisis, but believed it was concentrated in Dublin and wasn’t as bad in Galway. He had initially steered clear of NUIG’s student accommodation options, saying they were charging extortionate amounts for what he described as “like a jail cell”. However, “that became reasonable when you couldn’t find anything else”, H said. Two of H’s housemates were even forced to share a double bed, such was the desperation for accommodation. And with 17 other tenants in the house, the shared kitchen quickly became practically unusable. H said that the cramped conditions in the property meant that there was a high turnover of tenants with many people finding it impossible to cook meals and find space for their personal belongings. The conditions were made worse by the fact that for the price he paid for the shared room, H said he could get a studio one-bed apartment back in Dubai. Even with a roof over his head, H told Village that finding other accommodation was not straightforward, particularly with many landlords demanding references. “Being realistic here”, H said, “you come into this country and you can’t really give references for your first rental”. After a few months of trying H eventually found a room to himself in a converted attic, joking that he now has “at least eight metres of personal space”. The current rules on overcrowding are to be found in the 1966 Housing Act, stating that a house may be considered overcrowded a) if two people of the opposite sex aged 10-years or older and not living together as a couple sleep in the same room or b) are such that the free air space in any room used as a sleeping apartment, for any person is less than four hundred cubic feet. Local authorities are responsible for enforcing the legislation and it grants them the power to serve a notice to desist from overcrowding, which if not complied with can result in a fine of €100. However, this law has previously been criticised as “outdated” and “cumbersome” by local authorities, with the need for far stronger penalties. Over 40,000 inspections of private rental dwellings took place in 2022, according to last year’s Local Authority Performance Indicator Report, up from just over 17,500 inspections in 2021. Over 91% of dwellings inspected were found to not be in compliance with minimum standard regulations, though it is unclear how many of these related to overcrowding. The vast majority of inspections took place in Dublin and Cork, with the respective councils making up over half of the total inspections. Galway City Council, where H’s accommodation was situated, conducted the least number of inspections of any local authority with just 133. Responding to the findings, Labour Party leader Ivana Bacik told Village “the fact that so many people are forced to consider sharing a room with a stranger shows just how few homes are available to rent or indeed to buy”, providing “yet more evidence of the Government’s utter failure to deliver on homes for people”. Following an investigation by RTÉ into cases of serious overcrowding in 2020, the government promised to introduce legislation granting further powers to local authorities to inspect suspected cases, with Minister for Housing Darragh O’Brien acknowledging that “the provisions of the [1966] Act are dated”. However, the Residential
As government again removes asylum-seekers and their tents, the notion of ‘a criminal offence in principle’ remains unknown to law and the Canal Act expressly disapplies itself to persons using canal property for less than a week in one place. By Michael Smith. Ten days ago, on 11 May, I asked the Department of the Taoiseach to explain the legality of its removal of tents on the canal. I suggested its statement (about previous similar removals) that it was a criminal offence “in principle” to pitch a tent on public or private land was misleading as the specific Canals Act expressly disapplies itself to “persons using canal property for a period of not more than one week at the same place”. It is an established legal principle that a specific law or byelaw prevails over a more general law or byelaw. It is also the case that trespass is not in principle a criminal offence. As government again removes asylum-seekers and their tents, the notion of ‘a criminal offence in principle’ remains unknown to law and the Canal Act expressly disapplies itself to persons using canal property for less than a week in one place. The Government Press Office reply, issued fully ten days later, is disingenuous and waffly. This is reprehensible in the case of some of the most vulnerable people in the country. My question to the Department of the Taoiseach I note your statement by way of Q and A yesterday https://www.gov.ie/en/press-release/b147d-questions-and-answers-on-mount-street/#:~:text=However%2C%20it%20is%20a%20criminal,refusal%20to%20remove%20the%20tent.: ‘Can International Protection Applicants be prosecuted if they did not take up the offer of IPAS accommodation in Crooksling or Citywest? No. However, it is a criminal offence, in principle, for a person to pitch a tent on public land, or on private land without consent. Depending on the circumstances, for example, the person may be moved on, requested to remove their tent or the tent may be seized if there is a refusal to remove the tent. Each case would be considered on their own set of facts on the question of a prosecution’. In fact the following section of bye-laws under the Canals Act is relevant and it expressly, in Section (3), the only section dealing with persons — like the asylum-seekers — “using canal property for a period of not more than one week at the same place” exempts pitching of a tent for less than a week https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1988/si/247/made/en/print#article30: ’30. (1) No person shall place or use any structure, tent, caravan or vehicle as a dwelling on canal property, except with the written permission of the Commissioners. (2) Any such structure, tent, caravan or vehicle placed or used on canal property in contravention of this Bye-law may be removed and stored by, or on the authority of, the Commissioners. (3) This Bye-law shall not apply to persons using canal property for a period of not more than one week at the same place’. In view of the apparent illegality, described above, of the removal of vulnerable people and the tents in which they have been compelled to seek refuge along the Grand Canal, can your office please state precisely what Act or Bye-law justified the actions affecting asylum-seekers perpetrated by government agencies on 9 May described in the following article https://www.irishtimes.com/crime-law/2024/05/09/asylum-seekers-warned-by-government-of-possible-prosecutions-for-failure-to-move/ and mandated by a government information leaflet?”. The Government Press Office reply, issued fully ten days later, is disingenuous and waffly. This is reprehensible in the case of some of the most vulnerable people in the country. The government’s reply The Government is working intensively to source additional accommodation, with the focus currently on sourcing State land where tented accommodation can be provided, or vacant State-owned buildings. That work is ongoing within departments and agencies. Once viable sites are identified they will be operationalised as soon as possible. There remains a serious concern for the health and safety of people staying in tents by the canal, and about the impact of the lack of sanitation facilities. Whilst temporary barriers have been erected as a mitigation measure, access to the towpath and footpath adjacent to the canal is unimpeded. It is a criminal offence, in principle, for a person to pitch a tent on public land, or on private land without consent under the Roads Act 1993 and the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994, taking into account the specific set of facts and circumstances that may be engaged. All departments and agencies will continue to work in the best interests of all concerned. It is a criminal offence, in principle, for a person to pitch a tent on public land, or on private land without consent under the Roads Act 1993 and the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994, taking into account the specific set of facts and circumstances that may be engaged.
Although the Department of Enterprise originally did not disclose the number, it has now revealed that all 18 of the 18 applications reviewed in the audit of the Immigrant Investment Programme were found to be deficient. By J Vivian Cooke. Further details have emerged about the Department of Justice’s 2019 internal audit of the Immigrant Investment Programme, (IIP), the contents of which were first revealed in Village Magazine’s February/March issue. Even in the redacted form, the previously unpublished document outlined the serious defects in the operation of the programme. In the judgement of the auditors, the IIP’S ‘Overall Risk Rating’ was “Medium/High Risk” which indicated that, among other things, the governance of the scheme, its compliance and monitoring checks and the unit’s management controls were inadequate to ensure the effective operation of the scheme. FILLING IN THE BLANKS However, the specific results of the audit methodology which were withheld by the Department have now been released. Shockingly, although the Department originally did not disclose that number, it has now revealed that all 18 of the 18 applications reviewed in the audit were found to be deficient in some respect. Furthermore, 11 of the 18 files failed to establish that THE funds to be invested were legitimate. Similarly, 12 of those cases did not contain sufficient evidence of background checks performed on the individuals. Almost two thirds of the files sampled by the audit were shown to be seriously delinquent in as much as they did not comply with the most basic qualifying requirements of the programme. Original redacted version of the 2019 audit report obtained by Village in February 2024. Although closed to new applicants in February 2023 because the department was overwhelmed by the deluge of application from China, pressure from international oversight bodies such as the OECD, Financial Action Task Force and the EU had been mounting for years. These bodies found schemes such as the IIP were open to abuse leading to high risks of money laundering and tax evasion. One EU report found of the residency by investment programmes examined “Cyprus presents the highest risk, followed by Ireland, and Malta” of abuse. The report also noted: “In Ireland, a previous CBI – [Citizenship By Investment] – programme attracted wide criticism and was halted in the 1990s, including on the grounds of inadequate checks on the applicants. Criteria for the granting of Irish nationality by investment were not always met by the applicants, fuelling allegations of corruption and favouritism by the government”. So much for Ireland’s dismal track record with such wheezes. More concerning is the fact that the outstanding applications will be assessed by the IIP Unit of the Immigration Delivery Service using processes and systems that have been consistently and repeatedly found to be utterly deficient. As established by Village Magazine in February, key requirements that were the basis of the criticism of both reports remain unimplemented to this day. The Evaluation Committee responsible for assessing investment proposals was operating without Terms of Reference – the IIP Unit has still not adopted them. In the absence of Terms of Reference, the functions of the Evaluation Committee cannot be extended to include oversight of the scheme – a key recommendation to improve delivery. The programme continues to operate without having a Risk Management Framework document, the adoption of which was identified as an essential element to the proper conduct of the scheme. Monitoring and following up of both applicants and their investments continues to be unsatisfactory, as it has always been for the duration of the scheme. The Department makes it clear that the extent of its responsibility is purely to screen applicants and approve proposed investments insofar as they comply with the scheme’s requirements. After approval, the only monitoring that the Department conducts is to ensure that the money promised is transferred to the appropriate Irish bank account. Anything after that is a matter for someone else. “The IIP Unit is not responsible for managing or overseeing the individual projects themselves…An applicant’s investment in a particular project is a private business transaction between the investor and the project”. This situation was unacceptable when it was first identified in 2019 and it remain unacceptable today.
Conclusive proof of ‘Black Diaries’ forgery, finally. By Paul Hyde. Among the diaries attributed to Roger Casement there is a cash ledger for 1911 which is also part diary. This has been scrutinised by several authors, most closely by Jeffrey Dudgeon, the Belfast researcher who is today the leading forgery denier. In 2002 Dudgeon published the first edition of his book bearing the title ‘Roger Casement: The Black Diaries – with a study of his background, sexuality and Irish political life’. This substantial volume purported to add rich detail and colour to the already widely established view that the diaries were authentic. Dudgeon was able to present much information about the north of Ireland in relation to Casement and also to provide something missing from other studies – what it was like to be an active homosexual in the North (and elsewhere) a hundred years ago. Dudgeon’s history recipe freely mixes fact with speculation and ‘in-the-know’ innuendo to promote his desired conclusions of authenticity which are guided more by an obvious bias than by impartial analysis. His book, although stylistically challenging and idiosyncratic, has gathered both attention and praise. A certain sentence on page 285/6 had disappeared. Dudgeon has never doubted the diaries are genuine and he no doubt believes he has demonstrated their authenticity to the highest degree possible. As the years passed his reputation grew as a veteran crusader who knew ‘the inside story’ and he became an influential expert consulted by authors, academics, journalists, guest speaking at conferences and appearing on the media. Such a success story that by the centenary year of 2016, he produced a second edition to meet steady demand. Then, only two years later in early 2019, he produced a third edition. There was however one small difference in this third edition. A certain sentence on page 285/6 had disappeared. The 27-word sentence, apparently insignificant, had been in print for 17 years but was deleted in 2019. To discover the motive for this unexplained deletion is also to discover its significance for the entire controversy about the diaries. The devil is in the detail we are told so let us look at the detail to find the devil. The detail concerns an alleged affair between Casement and a young Belfast bank clerk called Millar; Casement did indeed know Millar and his mother through shared friends and acquaintances in Antrim but they had little in common politically. Readers of ‘Anatomy of a lie’ will recall that the widely-believed story fabricated by MI5 agent Major Frank Hall and promoted by Dudgeon is logically demonstrated to be manufactured evidence. The alleged affair features in the 1910 diary and in the 1911 ledger with events located in Belfast and environs. The story also involves a motorcycle owned by Millar in 1911 which vehicle was identified by Hall in 1915 along with the full name of its owner, Joseph Millar Gordon. Hall passed this information to the cabinet meeting on 2 August 1916 to overcome lingering doubts about the expediency of an execution next morning. Hall’s tactic succeeded. § In the ledger the following appears dated 3 June: “Cyril Corbally and his motor bike for Millar £25.0.0″. Cyril Corbally was a noted croquet player from County Dublin who in 1910 worked at Bishop’s Stortford Golf Club in Essex. In 1910 he acquired a second-hand Triumph motor cycle registered with Essex County Council. In 1911 Corbally sold the machine and in July Millar registered ownership with the same Council. The sentence is understood to mean that the diarist is paying £25 to Corbally to purchase his motorcycle for Millar. Research has confirmed that £25 is a realistic price in 1911 for a three-year-old Triumph motorcycle; a new machine in 1908 cost around £50. However, as a simple record of a purchase the sentence is suspect because it contains four items of information when two would have been sufficient. It was not necessary to record the vendor’s name, the item bought, the purpose of the transaction and the sum paid. The vendor’s name and the price would have been enough to record the purchase. The extra information – purpose and item bought – is superfluous unless intended for third parties who the diarist knows will read the ledger. In short, the sentence is an artifice. There are two further references to the alleged transaction in the ledger: on June 8 which reads ‘Carriage of motorbike to dear Millar. 18/3’ and at the end of June ‘Epitome of June A/C Present etc. to others Cyril Corbally…25.0.0.’ Outside the ledger there is no evidence that Casement ever contacted Corbally; nor is there any reference to the purchase of a motorcycle. § Here is the sentence which Dudgeon deleted from his third edition of 2019. “It is possible that Millar bought the motor bike from Corbally and that Casement was repaying him as a separate note listing expenditure simply reads ‘Millar 25.0.0′”. This sentence published by Dudgeon from 2002 to 2019 fatally compromises his overall endeavour to persuade us of authenticity. It signifies serious confusion; he does not know who paid for Millar’s motorcycle. It also signifies that he admits the possibility that Casement did not pay Corbally as alleged in the ledger which therefore would be a forgery. This confusion signals that Dudgeon is unable to make sense of the ledger and consequently has lost faith in his project. He cannot explain why if Millar paid Corbally, the ledger records that Casement also paid Corbally. It is possible that an astute, well-meaning reader alerted Dudgeon to the fatal implications of that sentence but after 17 years it seems improbable that he suddenly discovered the gaffe by himself. That ‘separate note’ is a single handwritten page in the National Library of Ireland (NLI) described as Rough Financial Notes by Roger Casement (MS 15,138/1/12). It is inscribed on both sides with records of outgoing payments. Many of the ten undated payments record substantial amounts so that Millar’s £25 is not exceptional. The NLI
Private-jet travel is up to 14 times more polluting than commercial flights By Conor O’Carroll The government has hired private jets to transport the Taoiseach to foreign engagements and summits despite the availability of commercial options. Over the past twelve months, hundreds of thousands of Euro has been spent hiring private jets due to the unreliability and unavailability of the Learjet. In March, the Irish Times reported that the cost of these flights had surpassed €450,000, which included a two-day trip to the West Balkans in January by former Taoiseach Leo Varadkar and the Tánaiste Micheál Martin’s trip to Israel in November, both of which cost in excess of €100,000. However, updated figures released to Village show that since the start of 2023, almost €650,000 has been spent on hiring private jets, with at least three additional trips not recorded in those figures. In addition to the trip to the Balkans and Israel, where commercial travel would not be feasible, the government has also hired private jets for short-haul flights to Brussels, Paris and Munich. Analysis of historical flights records suggests that on a number of these occasions, commercial flights were available. On at least five occasions in recent months, Village found commercial flights with a scheduled departure time within just over 90 minutes of the departure of the government’s private jet, though it was sometimes far closer. During the Taoiseach’s recent trip to Munich in February for example, a commercial flight with Lufthansa from Dublin left within 45 minutes of the government private jet, while there was a return flight available within an hour and 40 minutes. Instead, the government opted to hire a Bombardier Challenger 350 for €73,000. Private-jet travel is considered to be up to 14 times more polluting than commercial flights, according to European sustainability NGO Transport & Environment. The Taoiseach also visited Paris in February for a special meeting of European leaders to discuss supporting Ukraine. For this, the government chartered two private jets for each leg of the journey, leaving the Air Corps base at Baldonnel for Le Bourget Airport. Flight data shows, however, that Aer Lingus flights between Dublin and Paris were scheduled to depart within an hour of the Taoiseach’s jet, landing and taking off from Charles de Gaulle Airport, which is a 10-minute drive from Le Bourget Airport. The Taoiseach is also a frequent visitor of Brussels, regularly attending EU summits. On at least four occasions since last October, the government has charted a private jet for the two-hour flight. This is despite on three of those occasions, there were once again commercial options available. On the most recent trip to Brussels in March, an Aer Lingus flight from Dublin was scheduled to take off just over 90 minutes before the government’s private jet, while for the return journey, the government’s jet left just 10 minutes before another Aer Lingus flight. The Department of the Taoiseach did not respond to queries regarding the decision to fly private rather than commercially, but did say “the provision of a contingency Ministerial Air Transport Service (MATS) arrangement was procured by the Department of Defence following an open tender competition”. The spokesperson also stated that “the Department of the Taoiseach records, monitors and values the carbon emissions associated with official air travel”, offsetting the emissions annually. Many of the Taoiseach’s staff and security team are able to fly commercially, however, such as the recent trip to Zurich for the World Economic Forum where the Close Protection Officer responsible for ensuring the Taoiseach’s safety flew commercially. The Taoiseach, meanwhile, hired a private jet for the two-hour flight at a cost of over €63,000. By comparison, records show the flights for the Close Protection Officer cost a little over €600. According to flight data, a Swiss Air flight to Zurich took off from Dublin just over an hour before the Taoiseach, and while there was a gap of almost three hours between the government’s private jet taking off on the return journey and any commercial options, it also made a one hour stop in Knock before returning to Baldonnel. Emails released under Freedom of Information legislation also show that the increased traffic of private jets arriving at Baldonnel is causing some consternation at the Air Corps base. After being contacted by the private jet company flying the Taoiseach to Copenhagen in November last year, a Commandant at the base told the Department of Defence it was the “second interaction from an external organisation which we have not been briefed in on and are blind to”. A tender to find the Learjet’s successor was published in November last year, with the government set to spent €45 million on the aircraft. The Department was informed by the Commandant that “numerous things need to be put in place and staffing in order to handle any additional non-military” flights, and that these plans cannot be put in place unless they were provided with the information from the Department. Government officials have previously stated that they had lost “all confidence” in the Learjet, however, an internal Defence Forces report on the future of the aircraft suggests that 2023 may have been “somewhat of an anomaly”, with previous years indicating the Learjet had a “good rate of serviceability”. The Air Corps have thus suggested that the Learjet serve as a backup option for forthcoming Ministerial transport missions, while the government continues to progress in replacing the jet. A tender to find the Learjet’s successor was published in November last year, with the government set to spent €45 million on the aircraft.
Con McCarthy paid €15,000 to walk away from conviction for unprecedented case of suffocating badgers near Citywest. By Donna Mullen. Con McCarthy, a developer, planned to construct a warehouse in Brownsbarn, Citywest, Dublin, and hired an ecologist, Brian Keeley, to conduct a badger survey in February 2022. Brian Keeley found two adult badgers bringing bedding into a sett and presumed that they were breeding. He made the developer aware of the badger sett and was asked to step down from working on the project. Later when he went to see the site, he found that the sett had been destroyed, and a large mound of clay was on the area. It is likely that the badgers were entombed. That Con Mc Carthy…. used, allowed and/or caused to be used a mechanically propelled vehicle to wit, plant machinery to aid the commission of an offence under the Wildlife Acts as amended, to wit, the destruction of a badger sett, in contravention of section 69 (7)(A) of the Wildlife Act 1976 as amended The government’s National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) were immediately called, and the developer said that the sett had been destroyed while a fence was being erected. The case went to the District Court and the developer was convicted on the following charge (1) with reference to charges 2 and 3 below: (1) “Con Mc Carthy, on dates between 1st April 2022 and 25 May 2022, both dates inclusive, at Brownsbarn, County Dublin, wilfully interfered with the breeding or resting place of a protected wild animal to wit, a badger sett, in contravention of Section 23(5)(d) of the Wildlife Act 1976 as amended. Two other charges were taken into consideration. (2) That Con Mc Carthy …did aid abet, procure or counsel the commission of an offence under the Wildlife Acts as amended, to wit, the wilful destruction of a badger sett, in contravention of Section 23(5)(d) and Section 69(1)of the wildlife Act, 1976, as amended. (3) That Con Mc Carthy…. used, allowed and/or caused to be used a mechanically propelled vehicle to wit, plant machinery to aid the commission of an offence under the Wildlife Acts as amended, to wit, the destruction of a badger sett, in contravention of section 69 (7)(A) of the Wildlife Act 1976 as amended. Con Mc Carthy was convicted and fined 5000 euros. On 7 March 7, 2024, Con Mc Carthy appealed the severity of the conviction to the Circuit Court. NPWS District Conservation Officer Kieran Buckley showed photographs in court of a bank of clay on top of the sett, which would have entombed badgers. “The badgers probably would have suffocated from the sheer volume of clay” he said. “I’ve been enforcing the law for 20 years and this is the most wilfully cruel act I’ve seen”. Mr Brian Keeley , ecologist, took the stand “In my opinion, this was premeditated. This is a severe case. I’ve been a consultant since 1996 and haven’t seen this before. They just needed to keep the machinery 30 metres away from the sett. Much of my work involves working with developers to protect setts. I have a farm and we put up fences all the time. We don’t need to level all the ground”, he said. Mr Mc Carthy offered to make a donation to a charity if his criminal prosecution was reduced to having the probation act applied. Concern was raised by the barrister for NPWS that this could be seen as a developer “buying their way out”. He also said that a prosecution was more beneficial, because of the significant time and resources expended by NPWS. However, the judge asked for 15,000 euros to be split between three wildlife charities, and the conviction was not upheld. Instead, the Probation Act, Section 1, was applied. Meanwhile, even though the case has been proven, the NPWS and the whistleblower cannot claim for their costs in this case, and the state pays for the case. The Beatles say that “Money can’t buy you love”. But in Irish courts, it seems it can buy you from the consequences of killing badger cubs.
Government sole bidder on €11 million Dowth Hall estate purchase with millions more to be spent over the next few years. By Conor O’Carroll. The government was the sole bidder on the Dowth Hall estate, which was purchased for €11 million last year, documents released to Village Magazine reveal. The estate in County Meath, including an 18th-century Georgian residence, a Victorian manor and associated lands, was put up for sale in April 2023 across three separate lots, with a guide price of €10 million set for the entire 550-acre estate. This price included a nominal discount of €100,000 in comparison to purchasing each lot separately. A valuation report was prepared by estate agent Lisney Sotheby’s Int. on behalf of the Office of Public Works (OPW), who were liaising with the Department of Housing on the purchase. It stated that the market value of the entire estate fell within the range of €9,475,000 – €10,345,000, however, this report did not include the potential additional cost owing to the government being classified as a special purchaser. A special purchaser, as defined by the RICS Valuation Global Standards, is a buyer “for whom a particular asset has a special value because of advantages arising from its ownership that would not be available to other buyers in a market.” Once the site is opened to the public, the government expects almost €5.3 million in income will be earned from visits to the site over the first decade This means that special purchasers often pay more than the market value of the property due to their “over-riding motivation or business need for the asset”. In the case of Dowth Hall, the estate is of particular value to the State as it and its surrounding lands are situated within a UNESCO World Heritage Site, forming part of the pre-historic Brù na Bòinne site. The business case report for the purchase presented to the Minister for Housing, Darragh O’Brien TD, and released under Freedom of Information to non-profit Right To Know, stated that the purchase of the Dowth estate was a “compelling” and “once-in-a-generation” opportunity to protect one of the “most historic and quite literally magical elements of Irish culture” from any “inappropriate development”. According to the Negotiated Purchase Price report released to Village Magazine, no other offers were made for the entire estate during the negotiations with the government, though an asking price offer of €2.85 million was made for the Victorian-era house, Netterville Manor. However, the agent advised that the vendor’s preference was to sell the entire estate as a single lot, strengthening the government’s position. An updated business case released to Village indicates that the cost for the first five years will be in the region of €23 million, according to a quantity survey conducted by the OPW Initially, an offer of €8 million was discussed verbally with the agent, though this was swiftly rejected with the government told: “an offer in excess of the guide [was required] to remove the property from the market and progress to sale agreed”. Internal emails show that officials at the OPW agreed to submit a formal offer “below or close to bottom end of market value” in June. An offer of €9 million was later submitted, however, again this was rejected, with the agent stating “it falls well short of market value and value of what is available specifically to the state agencies”. The rejection was also accompanied by a counter-offer of €12 million, with the addition of all equipment & machinery and all rights and ownership of the intellectual property related to the research platform at Dowth. These were valued at €1.2 million and €4.3 million respectively by the vendor. They also imposed a completion timeline of ten weeks. At this point, though the Department of Housing was interested in purchasing the additions included in the counter-offer, officials at the OPW urged caution and restraint in making another offer in quick succession as no other offers for the entire estate had been made. The imposed timeline was also considered to be “unrealistic”. The market value of the entire estate fell within the range of €9,475,000 – €10,345,000, however, this report did not include the potential additional cost owing to the government being classified as a special purchaser The equipment & machinery offered by the vendors included the furniture and artefacts from the properties, though it was determined that “none of the contents have any provenance to the house and most seem to need complete restoration”. “We don’t want to be in a situation where we agree to take on items that we have no use for and subsequently incur costs for the storage and/or repair, restoration of same”, an internal OPW email stated. A complete list of the additional items shared with the OPW included the deer fencing surrounding the property, CCTV system and vandal-proof toilets, as well as farm machinery and lab equipment. However, the OPW did not accept that some of these items represented additional value, with internal discussions concluding that many of the items “should be included in a normal sale”. In early July, the government returned with an improved offer of €11 million. This offer included the additional equipment & machinery and intellectual property rights. The furniture and artefacts were not of interest to the government, given their limited connection to property and state of disrepair, and so were not included in the offer. However, a pair of Irish rococo-style gilt mirrors and a pair of Victorian marble-topped pier tables valued at €25,000 were requested. This offer was proposed as the government’s “best and final offer” and just over 24 hours later, it was accepted by the vendors. The final price represents between a 6% and 16% increase over the brokerage advice received, though as the Negotiated Purchase Price report notes, the advice did not include the value of the “unique archaeological heritage of the estate, recent discoveries or consider the benefit of State ownership of a UNESCO Heritage site”. The