The motion, of which I gave notice this afternoon, bears upon a question which arises out of the recently published decision of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs to locate the central national Post Office on a site known familiarly in Dublin as the old G.P.O. When, some days ago, there appeared in the Dublin Press an account of the Minister's interview with certain representatives of the Dublin Chamber of Commerce, we were not aware that the decision then published was anything more than a pious opinion or an expression of the desire of an External Minister. It is only to-day, on the occasion of my giving notice of this motion, that we have the public announcement that it is the policy of the Government to carry out the plan which the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs has conceived. The issue that I raise is one of principle, and I venture to claim that it is a very important question of principle. I am anxious that it should be well understood that there is no personal matter involved, no question of personal dignity or hurt pride, or offended vanity, or any of these things which, to the ordinary observer of disputations of this kind, lend themselves by way of creators of suspicion. The Dáil will recollect that when the Local Government Bill was first introduced, several Deputies, of whom I was one, pleaded that the question of the national capital was a separate and distinct question of Local Government and should not be dealt with as merely an item in the larger whole. In answer to our representations, as you will have seen, the City of Dublin and the County of Dublin were specially withdrawn from the operation of the Bill for a period.
Now, I dwell upon that for a special reason. Everyone in Dublin is aware that for quite a long time past there was a movement, very active, for the promotion of town planning, as it is called, in the Capital of Ireland. The body of citizens most closely identified with that movement took the title of the Greater Dublin Reconstruction Movement and numbered amongst them several members of the Seanad and members of this House. For quite a considerable time sketches and plans indicative of what, in their view, the future city might become, were on view at one period in a portion of the Museum, and for a longer period down near the site of the old G.P.O. Members of that movement were not committed to those schemes of town planning by way of approval. Not through egotism, but by way of illustration, I might mention that I, in the last Parliament and in the present Parliament, was actively opposed to one item of that scheme—the location of the Parliament House at Kilmainham—so that the Vice-President of the movement was at full liberty, in accordance with the policy of the Committee, to advocate other schemes of location. That Committee went before the Minister for Local Government in or about the same time as we moved in this House to have the question of the city taken out of the application of the projected Local Government Bill. In reply to that interview, the Minister was good enough to set up a Commission of Inquiry into the whole question. In the interval this afternoon, I furnished myself, by the courtesy of the Secretary of that Commission, with the Terms of its Reference and the statement that, as Chairman of it, I made on the occasion of its first public sitting. The Terms of Reference were:—
"To examine the several laws and the practice affecting the administration of local and public utility services, including local representative and local taxation throughout the Capital City of Dublin and the County (including the urban districts) of Dublin, and to recommend such changes as may be desirable."
At subsequent public meetings of that Commission, the Town Clerk of Dublin was examined, and only a few days ago the Chief Commissioner of Police tendered very valuable evidence on the question of transit and of traffic. While that Commission, appointed by the Local Government Minister, was sitting and taking evidence publicly, this decision is taken by another External Minister and announced in the public Press, and, so far as any of us could learn, without consultation with the Minister for Local Government, without consultation with the Commissioner of Police—the traffic authority at the moment—and without any reference to any scheme of town planning, but simply, according to his own statement —at least so far as that statement can be relied upon as given in reports— upon the communications of his own staff.
Now it is idle to pretend that there is not evidence of serious dislocation exhibited in this occurrence. What was the policy of the Government a little while ago on this question of the reconstruction of the capital city? On the 11th June, 1923, the President wrote a letter to the Chairman of the Greater Dublin Reconstruction Movement which, amongst other things, contained these passages:—
"There are many points of difference on some matters."
No one was committed to this item of the plan or that item of the plan, but merely to support of the view that town-planning and reconstruction of the capital city on a scale worthy of its position as the national capital, should be promoted.
"There are many points of difference on some matters, but we are, I think, unanimous on one point, that definite well-defined steps should now be taken to mark the development of the city on well-ordered principles and on a sound economic basis."
I would ask particular attention to this:—
"Your first business would be to have expert opinion on the present Dublin and how far it is possible to remedy its defects in conformity with future requirements."
That is the President's very kindly and very exhilarating encouragement to the members of that movement:—
"Your first business would be to have expert opinion on the present Dublin, and how far it is possible to remedy its defects in conformity with future requirements, development or expansion. Should it be considered that great changes are desirable, efforts should be made to train all further improvements in that direction."
That is not a speech made on the spur of the moment, without due and precise consideration of the exact force of the language used, but a well-considered letter. And here is an extract from a speech of the Minister for Finance of the following day:—
"The question of Dublin's development is now more important for the nation than ever it was, and in the interests of the State the Government must have a policy with regard to making Dublin all it ought to be. I can promise those associated with the Greater Dublin Movement that their proposals will have the most sympathetic consideration. As I have already said, in the preparation of these plans they have done public constructive service of the very best kind. We are now at a time when this whole question of Town Planning, and development of the city, will need a great deal of care."
On the occasion of our first public sitting, I thought it advisable, as Chairman, to make a statement of the course we intended to follow, and of the interpretaion we put upon the very ample Terms of Reference. I said:—
"We seek the solution of manifold "civic problems that are of "peculiar complexity. We bespeak "therefore for our arduous work "the patience of the public, and we "solicit the active, helpful co-opera"tion of all our countrymen, who "are sensible of the value that must "attach to the right issue of our "Inquiry."
The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs was not willing to give our work any measure of patience, or to give active, helpful co-operation to his fellow-countrymen, sensible of the value that must attach to the right issue of the Inquiry. Many of us who have to work very hard, as most of the Deputies here are aware, undertook this very arduous task, inspired by the appeal of the President, to give whatever we could give of thought and helpful consideration to make out of the ruins of Dublin a great capital. No sooner had we instituted this Inquiry than the whole thing is burked—deliberately burked—by the isolated and single action of an External Minister without consultation. We invited the co-operation of the Minister of Works; we asked for evidence in support of our Inquiry. Our letter was not acknowledged.
Now, it will be said I am speaking in my capacity as a promoter of the Greater Dublin Movement. I wish to say, most emphatically, that that is not so. In the statement, from which I quoted already, I made this announcement:—
"Three of our members—Deputy "Alton, Deputy Byrne and I—have "felt bound to retire from the "Greater Dublin Movement to preserve a position of detachment."
I am not making any complaint, though I might, of the way in which we have been flouted, and treated with absolute contempt. I rather try to take a higher level on the question, and look at it as a matter of principle. When we were in the last Parliament, discussing the Articles of the Constitution, I never lost an opportunity of denouncing this fantastic scheme of External Ministers. I had a further opportunity, recently, of referring to them as the one blot upon an otherwise excellent Constitution. Here we have Ministers responsible only to the Dáil, and other Ministers with collective responsibility — the Executive — all viewed as the Government. Yet one of them can take action, and can precipitate by the action he takes, a total change of Government policy in regard to a matter on which the Dáil itself has, by implication at least, expressed an opinion.
No later than yesterday, the second section of the Local Government Bill was passed in Committee:—"The following portions of this Act"—and then in detail they are specified—"shall not apply to the county or city of Dublin." Why not? Because the Dáil was aware—as the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs must have been aware—that the question of Local Government for the city and county of Dublin was already sub judice; that it was being considered by a Committee, not indeed appointed by the Dáil, but appointed by a Minister, with a membership exclusively confined to members of the Oireachtas. There is no one on this Committee who is not a member either of the Dáil or the Seanad. Now, observe how ludicrous we must have appeared to any thoughtful man. When I say “we” I do not mean the members of our Committee of Inquiry, but I mean all those concerned in Parliamentary Government. One External Minister, who is not regarded as an integral element of the Government proper, can take such action, after consultation exclusively with the staff of his own Department, as will bring about a complete change of front on the part of responsible Executive Ministers, and we become aware of that new policy of the Government in this regard only from his utterance as given to a deputation.
Surely that reduces, if not to a farce, at least to something closely approaching a fiasco, anything in the nature of stability of public confidence in declared policies. I added to my motion that it was in the interest of maintaining public confidence in the policy of referring matters to commissions of inquiry. Once it becomes known, I contend, that important matters are referred to a Commission of Inquiry, and while the commission is notoriously engaged in taking evidence preparatory to giving a report, that someone can take a decision regardless of that fact, and have the whole thing res judicata, a decided matter, how much will the public believe in any future Commission of Inquiry that is set up? At the present moment there is an attitude of suspicion towards Commissions of Inquiry; that is an inheritance from the old régime, because it was a constant practice of the old Government to put off difficult questions by appointing Royal Commissions, and by the time the Royal Commissions had reported everyone had forgotten what the matter in question really was, or some new agitation had taken its place and supplanted it in public interest.
Here we are solemnly to declare that a Commission of Inquiry, undertaking inquiries of such importance that a clause is specially introduced in a Bill to take note of the fact, may yet be so ineffective that items that are essential to its report having any value whatsoever, can be dealt with in this irresponsible fashion. It may be asked: Is all this about the placing of the G.P.O? I know very well what a popular case can be made on the hustings to a mob, especially if they are unfortunate unemployed, in favour of this hasty decision. It makes work. Is there no other way to make work that will not spoil the whole town-planning scheme for the capital of Ireland? Is there no other work on which those men could be profitably employed? It was testified by the Chief Commissioner of Police, who is the authority on traffic, that traffic will become an insoluble problem if the Central General Post Office is located with one exit in Prince's Street and the other in Henry Street. He said that this is one of the most congested districts in the whole city, even under present conditions. What would be the conditions of congestion, in view of the regulation recently made by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs that all telegrams to be delivered within a certain radius of the centre of the city are to be sent out, not as heretofore, but with swift delivery by boys on motor bicycles? You can imagine what traffic control in the main thoroughfare, O'Connell Street, would become with motor bicycles darting across it at right angles at every moment of the day.
