In connection with this report, there is a certain difficulty as to what the proper form of the motion should be. I think a motion to the effect that the report be adopted would not afford any solution, because the report, in substance, recommends that a certain thing should be done, and that, if it is found that it cannot be done, something else should be done. I think what we would require is a motion specifying what should be done on the report, rather than a motion of agreement.
COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - AN DARA TUARASGABHAIL O'N gCO-CHOISTE AR ARUS SEALADACH DON OIREACHTAS. SECOND REPORT OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE TEMPORARY ACCOMMODATION OF THE OIREACHTAS.
|
1. Do rith an Seanad an Rún so a leanas 1 Bealtaine, 1924:— |
1. The following Resolution was passed by the Seanad, on 1st May, 1924:— |
|
“Gurb é tuairim an tSeanaid náfónfadh sé chun aon dea-chríche Tuarasgabháil an Chó-Choiste ar Arus Sealadach don Oireachtas do chur tharnais chúcha chun alt 3 de mhír 4 d'ath-bhreithniú, ach go mbeartuíd leis seo an Tuarasgabháil do chur tharnais chun ath-bhreithniú generálta do dhéanamh uirthi. Ba mhaith leo, leis, a chur ina luighe ar an Rialtas go bhfuil géar-ghá le h-árus oiriúnach do sholáthar don tSeanad agus dá n-oifigigh”; agus |
“That the Seanad is of opinionthat no useful purpose would be served in referring back the Report of the Joint Committee on Temporary Accommodation for the Oireachtas for reconsideration of section 3 of paragraph 4, but hereby resolves that the Report be referred back for reconsideration generally. They further wish to impress upon the Government the urgent necessity for the provision of suitable accommodation for the Seanad and its officials”; and |
|
Do rith an Dáil an Rún so a leanas 8 Bealtaine, 1924:— |
The following Resolution was passed by the Dáil on 8th May, 1924:— |
|
“Go gcuirtar an Tuarasgabháil tharnais chun an Chó-Choisté chun ath-bhreithniú generálta do dhéanamh uirthi.” |
“That the Report be referred back to the Joint Committee for reconsideration generally.” |
|
Ag géille do sna Rúin sin dóibh, dhin an Có-Choiste lán-ath-bhreithniú ar an ní gur hiarradh ortha Tuarasgabháil do thabhairt air. |
In compliance with these Resolutions the Joint Committee has fully reconsidered the matter upon which it was asked to report. |
|
2. Ní bhfuair an Có-Choiste, a tíolacadh an chéad Thuarasgabháil, uatha, aon chomhairle d'aon tsaghas fhónta ach an chomhairle a thug Liam Thrift, comhairle as a dtiocfadh Tigh Laighean do thréigean ar fad agus foirgintí sealadacha do thógaint ar Fhaithche Laighean no neachtar aca ar thalamh Chearnóg Mhuirbhthean no ar ionad éigin eile a bheadh oiriúnach. Bhí breithniú déanta cheann féin ag an gCó-Choiste ar an tairisgint sin agus bhi diúltuithe acu dhi sa mhéid gur bhain sí le Faithche Laighean amháin ach, ag géille do thuairim an Teachta san, bhreithníodar an tairisgint aris fé mar a chur seisean i bhfuirm i le cúnamh pleananna a sholáthair sé don Chó-Choiste agus a mhínigh se. i bpearsain dóibh. Chonnacthas don Chó-Choiste go raibh na pleananna san tarraicthe go cliste agus ba dheimhin leo go mbeidís oiriúnach, fé mar a bhíodar ceaptha amach, chun árus sealadach a bheadh oiriúnach agus dóthanach do sholáthar don Oireachtas agus dá bhfuirinn agus ina theanta san do sna hAirí agus dá bhfuirinn. Níor hullamhuiodh aon mheastachán ar an gcostas ach do ghlac an Có-Choiste le háireamh Liam Thrift: go bhféadfí na déanmhachtaí do chríochnúlaistigh de bhliain, agus ná raghadh an costas ar fad thar £70,000 agus go mb'fhéidir go mbeadh sé gearaid do £50,000. Níor fhéad an Có-Choiste, áfach, a mhola go nglacfí le haon scéim den tsaghas san. Gan an mhoill agus an costas a bhainfadh léi go cinnte do bhac, ba chóir go seasódh déanmhachtaí, den tsórt atá ceaptha sna pleananna, go ceann deich mblian ar a luíod, ach ba cheart an cheist i dtaobh buan-árus don Oireachtas do shocrú i bhfad roimhe sin agus nuair a bheadh sí socair níor mhór déanmhachtaí sealadacha den tsórt san do scrapáil agus dá dheascaibh sin bheadh costas a dtógála imithe gan mhaith, suim go bhféadfí úsáid ní b'oiriúnaí dhéanamh di mar chúiteamh do Chumann Ríoga Bhaile Atha Cliath in aon airgead a chaillfid siad. |
2. Since the presentation of its former Report it has received no further suggestion of any practical kind save that put forward by Deputy Thrift, which would involve the complete evacuation of Leinster House and the erection of temporary buildings on Leinster Lawn, or as an alternative, on the grounds of Merrion Square or some other available site. The Joint Committee had already considered and rejected this proposal in so far as it was confined to Leinster Lawn, but, in deference to the views of the Deputy, it has again considered the proposal as outlined by him with the assistance of plans which he furnished to the Joint Committee and courteously explained to it in person. These plans appeared to the Joint Committee to be skilfully drawn, and it was satisfied that they would, as designed, provide suitable and adequate accommodation of a temporary character for the housing of the Oireachtas and their staff as well as for Ministers and their officials. No actual estimate of the cost had been prepared, but the Joint Committee accepted Mr. Thrift's calculation that the structures could be completed within a year, and that their inclusive cost should not exceed £70,000, and might possibly approximate to£50,000. The Joint Committee however has been unable to recommend the adoption of any such scheme. Apart from the delay and expense which it would necessarily entail, structures of the character designed by the plans should endure for a period of at least ten years, but the question of the permanent housing of the Oireachtas should be definitely settled at a much earlier date, and, when settled, would involve the scrapping of such temporary structures and the consequent sacrifice of the cost of erection, a sum which could be more appropriately used in compensating the Royal Dublin Society for any pecuniary loss it may sustain. |
|
3. Tugann an Có-Choiste fé ndeara go ndubhairt Uachtarán na hArdChomhairle agus é ag trácht sa Dáil ar an gCéad Thuarasgabháil ón gCóChoiste, nár thug an Có-Choiste mionchuntas ina dTuarasgabháil ar na nithe a bhí acu i gcoinnibh an tOspidéal Ríoga i gCill Mhaighneann d'úsáid, ach do bhraith an Có Choiste, agus braithid fós, nuair a dhineadar achmaireacht ar na nithe sin tré thagairt a dhéanamh don chostas, don mhoill agus don nea chaothúlacht a bhainfadh leis an bplean san, gur thugadar uatha gach colas ba ghá chun a dTuarasgabháil ar an ionad áirithe sin do bhreithniú agus do phlé. |
3. The Joint Committee notices that in discussing its First Report in the Dáil the President of the Executive Council suggested that the Report had not gone into the details of the objections to the use of the Royal Hospital at Kilmainham, but the joint Committee felt and still feels that in summarising them by reference to the expense, delay and inconvenience involved, it had supplied all the essential materials for the proper consideration and discussion of its Report as to this particular site. |
|
4. Dhin an Có-Choiste an scéal go léir d'ath-scrúdú go haireach agus ní bhfuaradar aon réasún chun dul i gcoinnibh an ní a mholadar cheana, eadhon, an t-áitreabh go léir, Tigh Laighean, do thógaint mar árus sealadach don Oireachtas ach an Rialtas do sholáthar áitreibh oiriúnaigh no d'í as áitreabh oiriúnach ina bhféadfí gach cóir taithneamhachta a bhí ag Cumann Ríoga Bhaile Atha Cliath do chimeád réasúnta slán idir an dá linn agus san ar coiníoll go soiléir go bhfágfí Tigh Laighean chó luath is d'fhéadfí árus buan d'fháil don Oireachtas. |
4. Upon a careful review of the whole situation it has found no reason for departing from its previous recommendation, namely, that the entire premises comprised in Leinster House should be taken over for the temporary accommodation of the Oireachtas, subject to the Government providing, or paying for, suitable premises in which the amenities of the Royal Dublin Society could be reasonably preserved in the interval, and upon the distinct understanding that Leinster House would be vacated at the earliest possible date consistent with the acquisition of a permanent home for the Oireachtas. |
|
5. Má diúltuítear don mhola san, isé Caisleán Bhaile Atha Cliath an t-aon áit eile is féidir don Chó-Choiste a mhola mar áit oiriúnach. Tá le rá i bhfabhar do go bhfuil a shuidheamh caothúil agus comhngarach, go bhfuil neart foirgintí ann nách gá a dheisiú agus gurb uiriste é mhéadú no cur leis. De bhárr atharuithe a dineadh air le déanaí tá sé nách mór ullamh ar fad chun dul isteach ann go luath agus ba beag le rá an costas agus an mhoill a bhain fadh le tuille oiriúnuithe dhéanamh air i gcomórtas leis an moill agus leis an gcostas a leanfadh as glaca le haon tairisgintí eile ab fhiú machtnamh ortha dar leis an gCoiste. Staonaid óna mhola o thárla ná fuil aon árus eile ceaptha i gcóir na gCúirt fós ach bíodh go dtuigid go dian-mhaith an cheataí a bhainfadh go cinnte leis na Cúirteanna d'aistriú go hárus sealadach éigin eile isé a dtuairim gur ceataí í sin 'na mbeadh lucht na dlí agus an phuiblíocht ullamh agus 'nar chóir dóibh bheith ullamh ar í fhulang, d'fhonn leasa an Stáit, dá bhfaghdís geallúint ón Rialtas go dtosnófí go luath ar na Ceithre Cúirteanna d'athnuachaint. |
5. In the event of this recommendation being rejected, Dublin Castle is the only location that the Joint Committee can suggest as a suitable alternative. It has, in its favour, convenience of situation and access, ample buildings in excellent repair and capacity for extension. Recent alterations have made it practically available for early occupation so that the expense and delay involved in any further adaptation would be small in comparison with that resulting from the selection of any of the competing proposals which in the opinion of the Committee were worthy of consideration. It refrains from recommending it so long as the question of alternative accommodation for the Courts remains unsettled, but the Committee, while fully alive to the inconvenience that would necessarily result from the transference of the Courts to some other temporary habitation, is of opinion that this is a consequence which the legal profession and the public, would and should, in the interest of the State, be prepared to endure, provided they received an assurance from the Government that the restoration of the Four Courts would be undertaken at an early date. |
|
(Sighnithe) |
|
|
GLENAVY, Cathaoirleach an Choiste. |
|
|
BRYAN COOPER. |
TOMAS DE NOGLA. |
|
DONNCHA O GUAIRE. |
MICHAEL O'DEA. |
|
PEADAR O hAODHA. |
JOHN T. O'FARRELL. |
|
ANDREW JAMESON. |
SIOBHAN BEAN AN PHAORAIGH. |
|
LIAM MAG AONGHUSA. |
5 Meitheamh, 1924. |
Would it not be in order to move that the Dáil agree with the Committee in the report? One alternative is given, and, if the Dáil does not approve, then the alternative should be adopted. I agree that we can do nothing until we know the mind of the Government.
This matter has been long delayed, and I cannot see what result would be obtained by saying that we simply agree with the Committee in this report. I would say we must agree with the Committee in its report, and, for example, state that the Dáil is of opinion that the Executive Council should take the necessary steps to carry out paragraph 4 of the report, or, alternatively, that the Dáil disagrees with paragraph 4 and advises or recommends—whatever the words be— the Executive Council to give effect to paragraph 5.
Would you take a motion that the Dáil recommends paragraph 5 for the consideration of the Government?
I was going to suggest, seeing that the main stress has been put by the Committee on paragraph 4, that the proper course would be to move paragraph 5 as an amendment to the substantive suggestion of the Committee.
I would take a motion on paragraph 4 or 5, and take an amendment, the other way round, in either case.
Would it be in order for any Deputy, except the Government, to move a motion which would involve expenditure of money? Ought we not to consider this matter rather as one of procedure with the object of conveying to the Government the desires of the Oireachtas and stating that the responsibilities for decisions which involve expenditure of money must be the Government's responsibility? In such a case the acceptance of the report would be an intimation to the Government of what the views of the Oireachtas may be.
What I have in writing before me is to the effect that the Dáil agree with the Joint Committee in its report and is of opinion that the Executive Council should take all necessary steps towards carrying out the recómmendations in paragraph 4, or paragraph 5, as may be decided. The Dáil could pass such a motion which would recommend to the Executive that certain money should be expended, and it would leave the Executive Council to decide the other matters. I do not know if Deputy Johnson means that a simple adoption of the report would make our minds clear to the Executive Council.
It is practically a confirmation of an earlier report, and the adoption of the report would convey to the Ministry the view of the Dáil that first preference should be paragraph 4, and that, if they do not accept that, there is this alternative.
I regret that it has not been possible to have this report considered, and I think if the House would agree to postpone it until this day week, we would undertake to have it considered, and either have a motion put down or to have simply an adoption of the report, to have whatever action may be thought necessary taken. A motion could be put down for the purpose of having the House act on it.
I would not like to say how many weeks ago I moved that the Committee be appointed to consider the matter. The Minister for Finance then said that he would only consent to the appointment of a Committee if the decision were taken within six weeks at the outside. I would like now to remind the Minister of that.
Would we be prejudiced by delaying this matter a week? It has been hanging on long enough, but it is important to have a decision before the Recess in order to have any work that may be agreed on carried out during the Recess.
Ordered that the Report be considered on Wednesday, 2nd July.