Private Members' Business. - Electricity Supply (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 1963—Second Stage. – Dáil Éireann (17th Dáil) – Tuesday, 3 Nov 1964

Private Members' Business. - Electricity Supply (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 1963—Second Stage.

Mr. S. Dunne

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. It is a very short Bill consisting only of three sections. Its purpose is contained in the brief section 2 which reads:

The Board shall not, in the exercise of their powers and functions, demolish Georgian houses in the city of Dublin unless authorised in writing by the Minister to do so, after a resolution so authorising the Minister has been passed by each House of the Oireachtas.

This Bill relates to what I can only describe as the vandal plan of the ESB to level an historic street of houses in the city of Dublin. The Bill seeks to curb the swollen arrogance of semi-anonymous rulers by decree and to make one of their major activities subject to the scrutiny and approval of Dáil Éireann. It affords me personally the opportunity of condemning the impudence of a State body—there is nothing "semi" about this body: it can be described as a State body practically in the full sense of the word— in seeking to destroy repairable and liveable houses at a time of severe housing shortage which affects many thousands of Dubliners. The Bill also is an attempt to save a handsome part of Dublin for the continued use and enjoyment of Dubliners, of the nation and, indeed, of the world.

I want to ask the Minister, as the Departmental head responsible for the activities of the ESB, this question : What compelling need is there for the headquarters of the ESB to be concentrated in this district at all? Are we not all only too keenly aware of the undesirable concentration of large-scale business activity in central city areas which entails the office employment of large numbers of people? Are we not all only too well aware that this trend, which has gone unchecked, to concentrate large-scale business activity in central city areas, for no arguable reason, is having a very serious effect on our economy generally and also upon the traffic problem as it relates to the centre of Dublin? What interests have been consulted in this matter apart from the convenience of the members of the Board of the ESB?

I want to know why the ESB will not build their new headquarters outside the city area in a suburban district or even in a county area such as Santry or Clondalkin or Lucan or Blanchardstown or, indeed, any other city fringe district where there is ample room for extension and development and where there is obvious need for the introduction of this kind of large scale employment in order to help the economy of the villages or towns or districts concerned in the urban or suburban area. Why have the ESB chosen, in their autocratic fashion and in defiance of the expressed wishes, I would say, of the vast majority of the citizens of Dublin and in spite of the objections of the elected representatives of the people in the City Hall— the Corporation—to defy public opinion in this matter and to proceed now in collaboration with the Minister for Local Government with their proposal to raze to the ground 18 or 19 houses in Fitzwilliam Street? I am not an architect and I profess to have no knowledge of architecture, unlike some of the so-called architects going around. However, not being an architect, these houses appear to me to be perfectly sound, at least from the outside. In fact, they have been the subject of expert scrutiny within recent years by a highly qualified world authority on this kind of architecture and the houses have been pronounced capable of preservation.

It may be asked why we bother to preserve these houses. The first point is the housing need. If these houses were made available for ordinary occupancy by people who need places to live in there would be 100 applications for every vacancy in these houses in this city immediately and economic rents would be forthcoming for them. Another consideration is that those of us who are Dubliners or, let us say, naturalised Dubliners—those of us who have lived most of our lives in Dublin—may be said to have a sentimental attachment to this city and its topography and its appearance but we also have a very sincere regard for it.

If you walk on a Sunday morning from Holles Street Hospital towards the top of that Georgian prospect and see the Dublin mountains at the end, if the sun is right, you cannot but feel that what you are looking at here is Dublin, uniquely Dublin, and that Dublin is a unique city; that you are looking at the city, not of George II or George I—if they were ever here, I do not know—but at the city of Grattan, of Napper Tandy, of Theobald Wolfe Tone and Robert Emmet and, coming down to later days, of mighty literary figures, Irish people who went out and stormed the literary citadels of the world and made us proud of the name of this city. That is the kind of thing you think, or at least the average intelligent Dubliner —and that applies to 99 per cent of the population of Dublin—thinks when he walks in the shadow of these houses.

Houses have been falling as we know, houses which I suppose could be described as Georgian; but these are houses of a different character from those we are discussing here. The houses that have been falling with such disastrous results in parts of the city because their life span has obviously come to an end are houses which were acquired by some landlords in many cases one hundred or more years ago for exploitation and for letting to the working people of the city who lived in such houses in conditions which, as we know, were not only appalling but which, according to the inquiry into the housing of Dublin working classes in 1913, were comparable only with the conditions of the natives of Calcutta, India, and no other city in the world had such overcrowding, squalor and poverty.

That was at the time, as we know, of the great James Larkin and the other gentleman who opposed him, whose name I do not consider worthy to mention here. These were houses of a different kind from those I am discussing now. It could be said that literally armies of tenants and families lived out their lifetimes and passed through these houses, that the houses were neglected by the owners, that no money was spent on them and they were allowed to run down, to become rotten and rat-infested in every sense of the word.

The other houses, those in Fitzwilliam Street have been occupied for almost the past 40 years by the ESB who have maintained the houses as State companies must maintain their property. Before that, these houses were occupied by a few—possibly one or two—families since they were built. They were at all times well maintained and were in no way comparable with the ratpits of houses we now see falling and which come under the heading of Georgian. The Fitzwilliam Street houses seem to me to be perfectly capable of being put into such condition that they will afford accommodation to people urgently needing it.

If there is any doubt about the housing crisis in Dublin at present I think one facet of it can be brought clearly before the Dáil by an extract which I shall give from the Irish Times of Tuesday, October 7th, on page 7. In columns 9 and 10, there appears the following:

ENTRANCE TO HADES

Late last week as gangs of workmen put up the first strings of coloured lights in Grafton Street a fire was lit in the cavernous room at Griffith Barracks where some 25 mothers and their children eat three times a day. It was the first fire to be lit there this winter. This part of the barracks, opened about a year ago to provide emergency accommodation for homeless families, is segregated from the Army's quarters by a substantial wire fence. As well as the canteen block (which also serves as a recreation room), there is a dormitory block. This is clean and centrally heated but undeniably crowded——

It is not. The Minister would like to have it declared out of date. It is a wonder the Chair does not oblige the Minister. Nobody at the time the Bill was lodged envisaged the possibility that the Minister for Local Government would say here in this House that, in so far as town planning is concerned, he would be guided by the wishes of local authorities. He said that no later than the occasion of the last Town Planning Act. He said on that occasion that he would be guided in his decision affecting town planning —and this is a case in point—by officials of local authorities. Yet, he decided to flout the expressed opinion of Dublin Corporation in this matter, to defy them and to allow the appeal to this group of people who want to knock down these houses.

There is substance in the worthy suggestion of Deputy Byrne in these circumstances, if not tonight, certainly during the course of this debate as it develops, possibly tomorrow evening or next week if it goes to that time, that the Minister for Local Government might come in and give us the benefit of his views. I have a feeling about the business of the Custom House vis-á-vis Dublin city and the country. I have had experience of Ministers of all kinds. When I say “all kinds”, I mean all political kinds in residence in the Custom House. I hope I will be forgiven by many of my rural colleagues for mentioning this but I have sensed a kind of communal slight or bias against Dublin on the part of nearly all of them. That should not apply on the part of Ministers. It is true and there are members of the Government Party in this House who are just as aware of it as I am. That should not be the case. There is no real reason why that should be so. We have all a common interest. We are all living in one country and none of us should fall into the trap of forgetting himself and trying to create bad feeling between the country and the city. It is Smithish-Goldwaterism as expressed here in this country but it is there and the Minister for Local Government might come in and give us the benefit of his views as to why he chose to defy the Dublin Corporation in this matter.

Mr. Childers

The Deputy might get the record straight. Dublin Corporation gave permission to the ESB to demolish the houses.

Mr. S. Dunne

The Minister is wrong. Dublin Corporation did not give permission and I shall prove it now. In a letter dated 5th February, 1962, the Principal Officer of the Engineering and Town Planning Department said as follows:

In a letter dated 5th December, 1961, the Electricity Supply Board indicated their intention to build as soon as possible at Lower Fitzwilliam Street and made formal application to proceed under the Town Planning Acts. In response to an inquiry from the Corporation the Board stated that what they sought was General Permission in respect of the site on which houses 13/28 Lower Fitzwilliam Street stand. An Order was made on 17th ultimo granting permission in the following terms:—

General Permission granted under the Town and Regional Planning Acts, 1934 and 1939 subject to the condition that the Board submits for the Corporation's consideration detailed plans illustrating their proposals before any work of a constructional nature is put in hands.

It says "before any work of a constructional nature is put in hands". Mr. Doran, the engineer of Town Planning in the Corporation, elicited the following definitions:

I refer to your letter of the 9th ultimo requesting clarification of the terms of the permission granted to the Electricity Supply Board in respect of the above premises.

(a) The "Corporation's consideration" means a decision by the Corporation as to the grant (conditional or unconditional) or refusal of a Special Permission.

(b) In the definition both of a "general permission" and a "special permission" the words "construction" and "demolition" are, inter alia, included as separate and distinct types of work, and ordinarily “work of a constructional nature” would not include demolition as an isolated act in itself.

The Minister is wrong when he says Dublin Corporation gave the ESB permission to demolish houses. Subsequently, as the Minister is aware, when the plans were submitted they were considered by the Corporation and the ESB was specifically notified by the City Manager that the Corporation did not propose to give permission for the destruction of these houses. If that were so and if the Minister was right in what he said, what is the point of appealing to the Minister for Local Government? When the Corporation turned down the application by the ESB to destroy these houses the ESB then proceeded to appeal, under the Town Planning Act, to the Minister for Local Government.

My major concern in this matter is to prevent houses being destroyed when they are urgently needed for living accommodation in Dublin. This other feeling which is abroad amongst large numbers of people who are not in need of houses is an aesthetic sense which prompts them to try to prevent what they consider to be things of beauty and of age being destroyed. Mind you, it is not confined to any small section of the population. A former President of Ireland was a signatory to the main petition presented on behalf of the people who were protesting against the proposed demolition. He was a very eminent and very much respected former President of this country. Members of the Government Party, and leading supporters of the Government, are among the long list of people who have publicly expressed themselves as saying that at least there should be an impartial investigation of this matter by some kind of unbiased commission, and the question of the destruction or demolition of the houses should not be left to be dealt with by a small group of people consisting of the ESB directorate and the Minister for Local Government and his advisers, but that some efforts should be made to meet the wishes of the ordinary Dubliners in this matter.

This letter was sent to the Taoiseach in connection therewith in May of this year. The letter reads :

Sir, The widespread public interest in the future of the facades of the ESB houses in Lower Fitzwilliam St., Dublin, the sustained controversy, the existence of widely differing points of view, all suggest that the solution of this problem is a matter of national concern.

We the undersigned are convinced that the best hope of arriving at the right solution would be the setting up by you of an ad hoc Commission which would consider the matter impartially, take evidence and report on every aspect of the case : the practical needs of the ESB, the historical, the cultural, economic, tourist and civic aspects, and finally in its relation to European civilisation.

We wish to emphasise that in making this proposal we, as individuals, do not necessarily hold the same or indeed any definite views on the final solution of the problem. We are all agreed, however, that the setting up of such a Commission is warranted and is the best procedure in all the circumstances.

Might we hope that you would consider the suggestion that the Commission be presided over by the Chief Justice if he would consent to act, and if not, by another member of the judiciary?

Where would you meet with a more reasonable submission than that? But it was met with, as I have described before, the impudence and the insolence of office. That is not my phrase but somebody else's. It was a familiar one. This act of the ESB, to my mind, is just another example of the ever-increasing incidence of the theft of the rights and privileges of Dáil Éireann, which is the only barrier the citizen has against the creeping and often brazen contempt which some far from civil public servants are frequently seen to develop in relation to the ordinary citizen. That matter, as I say, was couched in language which could not hurt the susceptibilities of the most jejune member of a Party.

Mr. P.J. Burke

That is a new one.

Mr. S. Dunne

If you consult the appropriate authorities you will find that the spelling is right, whatever about the pronunciation.

Mr. Corish

You would want to get Maurice Chevalier to pronounce that for you.

Mr. S. Dunne

I want to draw attention to the fact that this proposal was examined by the Dublin City Architect, who no doubt made a report on it. It has not been possible for the ordinary citizen to get a copy of his report. No doubt this matter was also made the subject of a report, or reports, by the Minister's departmental advisers. I am talking about the present Minister and the departmental advisers of the Minister for Local Government. These reports have not become available for public inspection. They are the preserve of the Civil Service, where apparently the ordinary human being is not permitted to intrude. I should like to have them placed on the Table of the Dáil for inspection because we have a right to do this. That is what we are here for. I want to know what reports these people made and on what basis decisions were taken by the Minister for Local Government—no doubt with the collusion of the Minister for Transport and Power and of the Government. On what basis did they decide to proceed with what they intend to do?

I should like to ask, too, whether it is not a fact that the ESB had the option of a separate site adequate for their needs at Donnybrook, and that they maintained their rights to that option until they received the order from the Minister for Local Government intimating his decision to let them go ahead with their vandalism. That option was relinquished only after they heard of the Minister's decision. I should like to ask why that option was not made use of? Donnybrook is congested enough, I will admit, so far as traffic is concerned, but it does not present anything like the problems that arise in and about the streets at the back of the House, going beyond Merrion Square and out towards the canal.

Everybody knows that if you want to park around that area, it is impossible. You just cannot get parking. You take a chance and park and go into an office and then you find that some of the very efficient gardaí have taken action. There is no immunity for members of the Dáil, despite what many people imagine. In fact, the reverse is the case, especially with the younger gardaí.

There has been a lot of talk about the condition of these houses and that they were falling asunder from dry rot. That is strange because they were all completely re-roofed in 1950—the whole lot of them. There was an army of carpenters employed on the job. The slates were stripped off completely and all the timber work was replaced in that whole street on all the houses concerned at that time. I do not know how fast woodworm is supposed to work, but it must have done a lot of work in 14 years on those houses because all that timber was new then. Whether it works fast or slow, we all know now—and all those engaged in the business of building and reconstruction know much more than I do— woodworm is not beyond treatment if it is attended to before it does too much damage.

I am told the amount of dry rot was not such as would prevent preservation and I am also told, and I accept it because I have had a look for myself, that there is at the back of these houses space upon which the ESB could build if they set their minds to it. There were suggestions as to how that might be done by no less a person than Sir Albert Richardson who was invited here by interested parties, who should have been invited by the Government. He is a far more capable person, it seems to those who know him, than the man the ESB brought over, and I am not to be taken as decrying that gentleman's ability.

Sir Albert Richardson is known as perhaps the outstanding authority in these islands on restoration generally but particularly on restoration of houses of this age. He came here and in the course of an address to a meeting in Dublin, had a number of pertinent things to say on the Fitzwilliam Street houses. I should like to say that Sir Albert has been coming to Dublin for 60 years, whereas Sir John Summerson, invited by the ESB, had come for the first time. Sir Albert had this, among other things, to say:

Many will think that this is not the occasion to describe the public buildings of Dublin which, beginning with the Parliament House, give the capital a style of its own. I feel that it is important to give credit to the men who designed these fine works because they established the crafts of building as never before. The outcome of this was the existence of Lower Fitzwilliam Street. In the second half of the eighteenth century, Dublin rivalled other capital cities in Europe.

He goes on to describe the Irish craftsman and his ability. Anyone who goes around these houses can see the evidence for himself. This House would be nearly contemporaneous with those houses but does anybody seriously suggest we should level this House? There is serious need of accommodation here. If we were to have sufficient accommodation for Deputies, Senators, staff and visitors, we would have a building extending from Kildare Street out to the far railings in Merrion Square and it would still hardly be big enough. But does anybody suggest that we knock down Leinster House?

Is not the logical end of this precedent sought by the ESB that we would give way to the Philistines, that we would build into the sea in Dublin and have an exact replica of some American city, a mass of concrete, glass and chrome? On all sides our architectural societies would be delighted about our utilitarian skyline but the historical feeling the rest of us have for our city would not be there any more. I am not now to be taken as being against modern architecture, modern development. What I am against is the unnecessary and useless destruction of buildings which are perfectly viable. I am sorry to have to use that word but it is the only one convenient to my train of thought.

Sir Albert Richardson also had this to say, and I trust I shall be forgiven for quoting him again. I should, at this point, say something about his qualifications. He has done very considerable work in post-war Britain on the reconstruction of houses which suffered bomb damage. He is a practising architect whereas Sir John Summerson, who came here at the invitation of the ESB and whose expenses were no doubt paid by the ESB, is not a practising architect. He is, in fact, the curator of a museum. The man I am about to quote is an architect of international reputation. He quotes Michaelangelo: "Trifles make perfection and perfection is no trifle," and then goes on:

This is a truism most fully borne out by the compelling vista of Lower Fitzwilliam Street. The various facades are unified by their individual simplicity and slight differences of fenestration. Take, for example, the skyline of the whole range, slightly varied in level and punctuated by chimney stacks just where they are required. The stone quoins at the two salient angles of the first house bond the whole perspective sequence of brickwork. Then you have the circular headed doorways with their gracious fanlights, entrances of charm peculiar to Dublin alone. Another compelling note is the subtle stepping of the first group of two with the adjoining group of six; then there is the steadying effect of the remaining group of eight. But above everything else there is the benevolent appearance of the sashed windows denoting the importance and subordination of the interior apartments at certain levels.

He goes on to observe:

It was the stone masons, the bricklayers, the carpenters and the glaziers of the Dublin of the grand period who endowed the terraced houses of Lower Fitzwilliam Street with such aristocratic expression. If you allow these houses to go you will banish the spirit of a great age forever. Those familiar with Malton's aquatinted views of the eighteenth century buildings and streets of the Dublin familiar to Wolfe Tone and Napper Tandy realise how much has survived.

If the ESB and the Minister get their way, very little will survive. Sir Albert also says that the threat to demolish the 16 houses is indicative of the modern tendency to destroy without thought. How true that is. One suggestion with which most of the citizens agree is that the ESB should move outside the city and the question is asked : why do they not go out there where there is plenty of room for them? Answer came there none. I do not suppose we will get one to it.

I shall not try to sum up what Sir Albert Richardson had to say after he had inspected these houses. Let me emphasise once again that Sir Albert Richardson is a far greater authority than others who may have been consulted in matters such as this and is a specialist. He said that there is sufficient space at the rear of the ESB premises in Lower Fitzwilliam Street to erect a building to meet requirements. Sir Albert praised the modern office block built by the ESB some years ago and said that there was no need to vacate the site, that the requirements could be provided by the erection of an octagonal or hexagonal tower building with light on all sides and lift shafts in the centre, all being linked to the office block by bridges.

As a matter of fact, in all the most recently built corporation schemes of flats, that very idea is carried out. Instead of the old type staircase running around in terraces, they have towers which afford entry to the upper flats. Obviously, Sir Albert had something similar in mind here. He pointed out that this building could be modern and high as desired. He suggests that it might be topped by a gilded statue of Mercury or such, which would glisten in the sun and could be illuminated at night and seen from all over the city. In my view, every exposure of the ESB tends to make our citizens more and more irate. They would not be wise to draw more attention to themselves. That is already being done by their so-called competitive charges.

Sir Albert said that the Lower Fitzwilliam Street houses are in a reasonable state of repair, that signs of dry rot are few and that the houses have been well cared for. He stated categorically that there is no need to demolish them. He made the comment that the ESB might use one or two of the houses in Lower Fitzwilliam Street while at the same time building at the back of the existing houses on sites which they already have. He says that the remaining houses should be returned to their former use— private dwellings and consulting rooms. Apparently these were the purposes for which they privately used before they were acquired by the ESB. Incidentally, it is said that all these houses were acquired by the ESB in 1927 for something like £4,000. That gives an idea of the change in values. Sir Albert says that in his view these houses could be converted and repaired at a sum of approximately £6,000 per house. He suggested that each house should be converted vertically; the ground floor planned as a residential flat, private office or consulting rooms, and the first and second floors planned as one flat or maisonette with its own internal staircase; that the top floors throughout could be flats which could be made available at lower rates to the many thousands of applicants that can be found for them.

What had Sir John Summerson to say? He is the man who is curator of a museum. He said it was just one damned house after another. He described them as rubbish, a sloppy uneven series. A sloppy, uneven series? If that is not symmetry, I do not know what is.

Mr. T. Lynch

Of what museum is he curator?

Mr. S. Dunne

The Soame.

Mr. T. Lynch

The Sir John Soame Museum. That is an early Georgian House

Mr. Tully

However, whether that is true or not of the Minister, the fact of the matter is that the late, great, never to be forgotten Irishman, John Kennedy, had something to say about the preservation of buildings. In a letter which he wrote to Mr. Bernard L. Boutin, Administrator of General Services, in connection with the preservation of an area surrounding Lafayette Square and Pennsylvania Avenue, which has the same relationship to the White House as these buildings and these streets have to Leinster House, the late John Kennedy said:

I have been reflecting on the significance of this work, not only in the terms of the importance of it to the environs of the White House and our capital, but to what it means in a broader sense to other cities and communities throughout America.

He might well have said the world.

As you know, I am fully cognisant of the progress made by American Architects and Planners in their contribution to our country in contemporary design. This coupled with equal progress made in our cities by their respective governing bodies in forging ahead with vast programmes of urban renewal and redevelopment leads me to comment on the manner in which these plans are actually carried out. There are throughout our land specific areas and specific buildings of historical significance or architectural excellence that are threatened by this onward march of progress. I believe that the importance of Lafayette Square lies in the fact that we were not willing to destroy our cultural and historic heritage but that we were willing to find means of preserving it while still meeting the requirements of growth in government. I hope that the same can be done in other parts of our country.

I am particularly pleased that in this case you and the architects were able to express in the new buildings the architecture of our times in a contemporary manner that harmonises with the historic buildings.

What he meant is amply illustrated in the photographs which I have here and which show that the old houses, like those in Fitzwilliam Street, which occupy Pennslyvania Avenue and the surrounding areas of the White House were in fact preserved, while new office accommodation was provided behind them and in such a manner as to create a complete artistic plan which would not be offensive in any way.

That is the kind of thought which I would imagine should be developed in this country in so far as building is concerned instead of destruction. Such native genius as we have in this direction should be applied to the preservation of what is there and the creation of something new; the mind should be exercised in the creation of something which will inspire, at which people can look and say : "That is something which shows imagination, which shows that the people in this line of activity are very much alive to modern needs and at the same time are not blind to the influences of history."

We do not see much evidence of that. Recent modern buildings do not inspire. Some of them depress. They do not seem to call for any more than drawing a square box, filling in lots of glass and lots of concrete, lifts going at a thousand miles an hour.

Mr. Tully

Ten.

Mr. S. Dunne

Some of my colleagues and I were in lifts in some of these buildings on the continent and they certainly did not go at ten miles an hour. The suggestion made by Sir Albert Richardson that there should be vertical as opposed to horizontal development seems to be sound. There must be a lot of time lost and efficiency dissipated by virtue of the traffic from one office to another when it entails going through quite a number of houses from one end to the other. Vertical development in office structure, apart from its aesthetic value and looked at purely from its use value, has been seen to be more efficient for inter-office communication than horizontal development. However, that is a point I shall leave to the architect.

The Arts Council were likewise against this destruction. They submitted:

That the space behind a number of houses in Upper Mount St., immediately adjoining the ESB property should be acquired or made available for the erection of a new office block, linked by bridges over East James's St. to the existing modern office block at the rere of the Fitzwilliam Street houses, and that this block should be built on piers to make the maximum site area available for parking. A number of the houses in Upper Mount St. referred to already belonged to Government or semi-state organisations.

Which should make their acquisition, if not easy, certainly less difficult.

That is the burden of my case as to why the ESB should not be permitted to go ahead with this destruction without the approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas and thereafter the approval of the Minister, the approval of the Minister being dependent upon the approval of both Houses of the Oireachtas. I have tried to approach this matter in as temperate a manner as I can, despite all the provocative observations made earlier. I feel very strongly about this. Particularly do I feel strongly about the whole notion of knocking down houses which appear to be perfectly capable of being lived in while people are clamouring for houses. Every member of Dublin Corporation of Dublin County Council who is a representative in the Dáil has countless applications for houses. The thing is abhorrent and it should not happen. It is a perfect example of bureaucratic vandalism with complete disregard for the people just for the sake of convenience for a few gentlemen.

It is hard to be temperate about this but I am going to ask the Minister and the Leader of the main Opposition Party to permit a free vote on this issue, on which defeat or victory will not rock the Government to their foundations, or indeed impinge very greatly upon their policies. However, it is one of principle as far as the citizens of Dublin are concerned and certainly as far as I am concerned. I urge most strongly that consideration be given to that. Let us show we are a democracy. Let us show that we can act in a mature manner, that we can come in here and argue sensibly, finally deciding in a free, democratic manner the way in which we will vote, without having the Whips running here and there in order to put down Deputy Dunne's or anybody else's Bill. Let us behave with maturity. It is for the sake of maturity that I ask for a free vote. I have nothing further to say at the moment but I am sure more will occur to me when the time comes to reply to the debate.

Mr. M.E. Dockrell

I should like to pay tribute to the excellent way in which Deputy Dunne introduced this Bill. He has introduced it so thoroughly that there is not a great deal left for anyone else to say. He has been very moderate in his language. He has gone to an immense amount of trouble to gather his facts. However, that does not mean that the rest of us, who support the views he expressed as strongly as he does himself, have just nothing to say. Even if we should repeat what Deputy Dunne has said, it is for the sole purpose of emphasising the whole matter.

I feel very strongly in this matter. This is something that is taking place in the very heart of my own constituency. As a Dubliner, I am against this proposed demolition on many grounds, but there are three principal grounds for objection. The first is aesthetic because of the beauty of these particular buildings. At first view, these building look almost severe but, then, a great deal of Georgian and 18th century building has that severity until one takes into account the exquisite proportions and the detail which enlightens the whole structure. These buildings are very typical of their kind. They show these features in a very marked degree. They are an integral part of 18th century Dublin. I hope that we have long since passed beyond being worried about names, though I find some people who seem to be worried by the use of the word "Georgian". These buildings, as Deputy Dunne pointed out, had nothing to do with the different Georges, I, II, III and IV. They were built during the reign of one of them but they were designed by Irishmen and they were carried into effect by Irish workmen and generations have paid tribute to the work of those Irishmen.

The view from Holles Street, referred to by the previous speaker, is one of the most famous views in Europe because it is the last of the 18th century views. I remember during the war years, when there were almost no motor cars on the road; if one stood with one's back to Holles Street Hospital and looked up Merrion Square and Fitzwilliam Street right on to the mountains, had a sedan chair suddenly come around the corner, it would have been in perfect harmony with the buildings. Happily, that view is still there, but it is being threatened by this proposed demolition. Now, if that style of architecture ceases to remain a feature of the Dublin landscape in that particular area, Dublin will cease to be the finest 18th century capital in the world.

The aesthetic objections are linked with the fact that our Georgian city, which is the only Georgian capital in the world, is a tremendous tourist attraction. We could make far more of the beauties of these 18th century buildings. I am afraid we shall not have many of them for very long more because many of them have fallen into a state of decay which renders it impracticable to repair them. But these particular buildings are easily repairable. It is not true to say that they are far gone. They are not far gone. The roofs were repaired very thoroughly at considerable expense in the last few years. Money was spent on the interiors.

Those of us who cherish these Georgian buildings feel that the ESB could go elsewhere and build there something worthy of the ESB instead of trying to fit in an appropriate building in this very cramped space. If these houses are pulled down, and that is the idea apparently, all one can erect in their place is a building limited to the site. The site is not a particularly big one. It is long but it is not deep. At best, all one could erect is a long, narrow building. It is not an ideal site for a modern building. An architect will be hemmed in on every side. I like modern buildings and I know that this site would not give an architect a real opportunity of showing his skill, the sort of opportunity he would have in the suburbs where he would have ample room to design a building of a shape and size sufficient to house ESB workers in the way that modern business demands.

These are some of the objections. Another reason on what I call practical grounds is that those houses could be turned into flats and certainly could be made pay. The ESB are certainly not short of capital and they could very easily maintain the old facade and transform the whole building at the back into flats, and make money from them in the process. The ideal solution would be to erect a building, perfectly designed, outside Dublin and which would not, as Deputy Dunne pointed out, add to the congestion in the centre of the city.

Those are the aesthetic, practical grounds. The argument in regard to tourist attraction—the last one I come to—is that Dublin is quite unique as an 18th century city. It attracts people who come here not because they want to see our modern buildings but because they want to see our older and 18th century buildings. If we leave ourselves with none of these buildings, we may find that our tourist trade will be hit very much. Mark you, the face of Dublin is going to change very much inside the next five to ten years. Already we can see around the Christ Church Cathedral area that the houses are coming down very rapidly. None of the people who objected on aesthetic grounds to the demolition of the Fitzwilliam Street houses objected to the demolition of houses which is taking place around Christ Church Place, roughly in an area on the south bank of the Liffey. Nobody objected because those buildings have long ceased to live their lives and many of them are dangerous.

I should like both the Minister for Transport and Power and the Minister for Local Government to realise and to remember that Dublin Corporation will rapidly be altering the appearance of Dublin and old areas will become very precious to us. Inevitably Dublin will be altered out of all recognition by the eradication of rat-infested areas and slum areas. All those areas have to go. Some of them indeed were once as beautiful as and perhaps more beautiful than Fitzwilliam Street but there is no hope of saving them and it would not be practicable to save them. However, it is practicable to save these houses in Lower Fitzwilliam Street and they will become doubly precious to us because at the end of this demolition period, we will have only very small areas of the Dublin which we knew and admired so much in the past.

So much for the south side. On the north side of the city, I would remind the House that one of the great estates is falling to Dublin Corporation and in three or four years, Dublin Corporation will be the owners of a great deal of property on the north side of the Liffey, roughly between Capel Street and O'Connell Street. It is a vast area and a great deal of it consists of a very poor type of property. All of that property will have to come down and modern buildings will go up so that our architects will have ample scope for their designs, without having to turn to an area which could be preserved, and indeed should be preserved from many points of view.

When speaking about the ESB Deputy Dunne referred to Dublin Corporation and, very rightly, to the City Architect who, after all, is the chief architect for the whole of the Corporation. As far as we can judge, he was against the demolition of these houses on aesthetic and, perhaps, practical grounds. The Town Planning Section of Dublin Corporation was also against it. A tremendous amount of feeling was engendered and the ESB, who are a semi-State body, who have enjoyed a great deal of help, and indeed were founded by the State and owe their whole being to various Acts which this House has enacted both in the matter of finance and of giving it power to provide light and heat as cheaply as possible for the citizens of the country—and they are certainly doing a very fine job even though we may complain about the prices we have to pay, as we complain about coal and gas or anything else—were not given their powers in order to demolish buildings which in the opinion of many people should be maintained.

When I say "many people", the fact is that you will find very few people among the artistic or literary sections in Dublin—in other words, among people who value the beauty of Dublin—who do not feel strongly on this question of maintaining the past and maintaining beauty. I do not for a moment mean that the proposed building would not in itself be a good building but certainly it could not be a building which would fit in with its surroundings. No matter how it was designed, it would only at best be a sort of fake 18th century building, or if it were not that, it would blatantly be a new building in a setting of 18th century houses and therefore would be bound to be somewhat incongruous. I see that the Taoiseach has come in now and I trust he is——

Dáil Éireann debate - Tuesday, 3 Nov 1964

Private Members' Business. - Electricity Supply (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 1963—Second Stage.

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 3 Nov 1964