Deputy Declan Costello has given notice that he wishes to raise, on the Adjournment of the House, the subject matter of Questions Nos. 8, 9, 10 and 11.
Committee on Finance. - Adjournment Debate—Demolition of Dublin Buildings.
This afternoon, I raised the question of the demolition which is at present in progress of Nos. 2 and 3 Kildare Place, in order to find out from the Minister the estimated cost of avoiding the demolition of those premises and also to make inquiries as to whether the Minister had received any representations with regard to these premises from the Advisory Council set up under the National Monuments Act and also from the Arts Council. It has transpired from the replies which I obtained from the Parliamentary Secretary this afternoon, that the estimated cost of preserving the buildings would be upwards of £20,000. It also transpired from questions which the Parliamentary Secretary replied to this afternoon that representations had been made from the Arts Council and from the Advisory Council set up under the National Monuments Act.
It seems to me very clear from the answers received this afternoon that it is physically possible to maintain these buildings, even though it may be done at a price which might be regarded as a considerable cost. It is very important to appreciate that it is physically possible to maintain these buildings, in view of the advice the Minister has obtained from the Arts Council and from the Advisory Council.
I do not profess to be in any way an expert on architecture or on Georgian architecture. The people who are experts have given their views on it. People who are experts in the architectural, historical and traditional aspects of Dublin have stated that these two buildings do constitute national monuments and should be preserved in the interests of our traditions here in Dublin.
I may refer the Parliamentary Secretary just briefly to the statements in Maurice Craig's book on Dublin, published recently, in which he describes these two houses as "beautiful early houses in Kildare Place" and refers to them as giving "a dominant tone to the whole quarter". The fact that the Arts Council has given its opinion on them should, I think, weigh very heavily with the Minister and with the Commissioners of Public Works. Of even perhaps greater weight are the views of the Advisory Council. I should like to remind Deputies that the Advisory Council, which is set up under the National Monuments Act, consists of the Keeper of the Irish Antiquities in the National Museum, a representative from the Royal Irish Academy, a representative from the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland and a representative from the Royal Institute of Architects, among others. It seems to me that these people should know whether buildings should be regarded as national monuments or not.
The section of the National Monuments Act dealing with that describes a national monument as one "the preservation of which is a matter of national importance by reason of the historical, architectural, traditional, artistic or archaeological interest attaching thereto." Who is to decide that these premises at Kildare Place are of national importance? Is it the Commissioners of Public Works or the Minister for Finance or the Parliamentary Secretary? Do these people consider themselves adequate to decide that matter? I should think it would be a rather rare thing to find a Minister or Parliamentary Secretary, or even Commissioners of Public Works, who would arrogate to themselves the rather difficult task of deciding that.
For that reason, there has been put into the Act a provision that they are to get the advice of their Advisory Council. What is the Advisory Council for but to advise the Minister and Parliamentary Secretary and the commissioners on such matters? These members of the Advisory Council are expert; and these people, in regard to Nos. 2 and 3 Kildare Place, have advised that it is a matter of national importance, by reason of their historical, architectural and, I presume, traditional associations and interests, that these two premises be maintained.
I gathered from the reply which was given this afternoon that the whole approach the commissioners and the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary were taking to these two properties was that they were inadequate as offices in their present condition and that it would be very expensive to maintain them as offices. I am sure the architects in the Board of Works have gone into this aspect very fully, but there is another point of view which has been put forward by very eminent architects in this city, that these buildings are in fact capable of being maintained even as offices. The Parliamentary Secretary would, of course, have to put great weight on the views of the officials in the Board of Works who advise on these matters.
There is another aspect in relation to these two buildings to which, I think, judging by the reply given this afternoon, sufficient attention has not been given. The Advisory Council and the Arts Council believe that these are works of national importance which should be preserved. They have so recommended to the Minister. It seems to me it would be possible to maintain these buildings as a museum. It has been suggested by a person of very high authority in the artistic world in both this country and England that it should be possible to exhibit some of the very fine examples of Georgian furniture and Waterford glass which are at present in the National Museum, where space is very limited, in Kildare Place as an annexe to the National Museum.
To my mind, we are, indeed, very backward with regard to the showing of our very fine works of art. It is admitted by all that the National Museum is overcrowded. Even if these premises are not suitable for offices any more, it should be found possible to preserve them as a museum. Other countries have maintained old buildings of traditional or architectural interest and have used them as national museums. It is not unusual to preserve buildings in that fashion. If it is purely the economics of the situation we are considering, let us decide whether we consider it worth spending £20,000 on these premises as an annexe to our National Museum.
I believe the Department has approached this whole matter in what I might describe as a much too practical manner, having regard purely to the economics of it. That is demonstrated by the fact that they have ignored the advice of the Advisory Council and of the Arts Council. I do not know where this is going to stop. Is every old Georgian building to be destroyed; will the Minister in future exercise the powers given to him under the National Monuments Act, or will the Commissioners of Public Works cooperate in making preservation Orders? Will such Orders be made in respect of any Georgian buildings at all in future?
It looks very much as if no such preservation Orders will in future be made. It looks as if, when such buildings reach the end of their lives as habitable offices or houses, no effort will be made to preserve them. That is a pity and a mistake, particularly in this case. I should like to know what will be done with the site. It certainly will be an extraordinary eye-sore when these buildings have been pulled down. There is a large grey chimney stack at the back which will become visible. I do not know whether the Commissioners of Public Works propose to erect another building thereon. If they do, of course the costs of demolition and of the erection of a new building will be far greater than the £20,000 involved in preserving this building.
I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to reconsider the decision that has been taken. I fully appreciate that the officials in the Board of Works are most able people, that they are very experienced. I think their advice with regard to the safety of buildings must be taken. However, I do not think the matter stops there. It does appear to me that, where buildings are no longer suitable as offices, where they have finished their usefulness as buildings, the question of their demolition is not merely an automatic one—that because the technical advice is that they should be demolished, no Order will be made for their preservation.
When an Act such as the National Monuments Act sets up an Advisory Council, the Minister should accept the advice of that council. When you have highly skilled experts, such as the representatives of the Arts Council, giving their advice, I think the Minister should accept that also, or at least give it his attention. Those two bodies have made it very clear that these are buildings of national importance and I think it is a great disservice to the City of Dublin that their advice has not been taken and that these two buildings are to be demolished.
Deputies D. Costello and M.J. O'Higgins had questions on the Order Paper to-day in respect of the two buildings concerned. I believe I gave them a very full answer as to the reasons why the Commissioners of Public Works decided to have the buildings demolished. A great deal of publicity has been given to this by way of letters to the Press, and it has been almost implied that the Commissioners of Public Works and their architects are out to commit acts of deliberate vandalism.
I never suggested that.
A lot has been suggested and implied in letters and articles in the Press in regard to this. I want to assure the Deputy and the other members of the House that the Commissioners of Public Works have always given very careful consideration to ideas advanced by learned individuals and by learned bodies such as the Arts Council, the National Monuments Advisory Council, the Royal Institute of Architects of Ireland and other such bodies. However, this thing has been developing for a considerable time. The buildings were examined in 1946 and it was found then that there were defects.
They have been examined on various occasions since and each time further defects came to light. I am advised that, in 1955, the Fisheries Branch, owing to the dangerous nature of the buildings, was evacuated from there and transferred to offices in Cathal Brugha Street. There were other examinations since then and the Commissioners of Public Works, on the advice of their architects, decided on demolition, provided such action was sanctioned. All the facts were put before the Minister for Finance in the previous Government and, while I might accuse Deputy Sweetman of many indiscretions in political speeches at crossroads and so forth, I would not charge him with coming to any rash or hasty decision in a matter like this. He was aware of the position; I feel sure he went into it thoroughly before he gave sanction for the demolition of the buildings.
While arguments may be advanced to have the buildings preserved, a considerable amount of work would have to be done to preserve them and would be of such a nature as to give them a very freakish Georgian appearance. It is all very well for such bodies as the Arts Council and others to advise on having them repaired and kept in their present condition, but when the architect in the Board of Works advised the commissioners that they are a danger to the public and a danger to children attending a school nearby, the responsibility rests not on the Arts Council or on the National Monuments Advisory Council but on the Commissioners of Public Works. If the buildings collapsed and anybody was injured, it would be no excuse for the commissioners to say that they were coerced by the opinions of these learned bodies or by the publicity campaign that has been carried on to allow the dangerous buildings to remain.
Is it not physically possible to stop them from collapsing and to render them safe?
It would be physically possible to stop them from collapsing, but the argument that is put forward is that their architectural appearance should be preserved. Deputy Costello gave us the definition from the Act of a national monument and its national importance and it was only in respect of the architectural design of these buildings that any case can be made, because they have no historical or traditional background whatsoever. In consequence of that, I do not think the Commissioners of Public Works, in view of the advice tendered to them and submitted on more occasions than one, would be justified in taking that risk.
The contract for the demolition has been placed and the work has begun. Therefore, I do not see what I or even the Minister for Finance could do to undo the business. As I said, this has been going on for a very long time and I can assure the Deputy that it was in no lighthearted manner that the commissioners came to this decision. They were very keen to have the buildings preserved, if they could possibly see their way to do so. I can assure the Deputy and others concerned that neither the commissioners nor, I am sure, the previous Minister for Finance, nor the present Minister for Finance have been actuated by any motive other than to do what is right and proper and not take a risk where there is a danger to human life.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary say when the Advisory Council and when the Arts Council advised that the buildings should be preserved?
It was quite recently. I have not the exact date.
Within the last few months?
Yes, it was in the last few months.
That was after Deputy Sweetman's decision was taken in December.
That is so, but I am not offering an excuse for the Minister. I believe that if he had been in office at the time Deputy Sweetman was in office, the strong case then made would have been equally proved to him and he certainly would not take it on himself to go against the opinions put forward.
The Dáil adjourned at 8.45 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 3rd July, 1957.