I dtosach báire, is dóigh liom gur cóir cúpla focal a rá as Gaeilge i dtaobh na ceiste seo chun a chur in iúl don Teach seo agus don Aire Leasa Shoisialaigh nach bhfuil na daoine atá i bhfábha shóbháil na dtithe seo i Sráid Mhic Liam i gcoinne aithbheochaint na Gaeilge.
I suppose I should have said “merci” to the Minister for Transport and Power, particularly when referring to remarks of the Minister for Social Welfare who loves to boast of the fact that he is a philistine. But it would appear that the Minister for Transport and Power would be most anxious to disown his colleague, the Minister for Local Government, in relation to the vandalism about to be wrought upon the houses in Fitzwilliam Street. I take it also that he may even during this discussion disown the Minister for Social Welfare and go on record as not wishing to be associated with the remarks of the Minister for Social Welfare who regards those who are in favour of maintaining, as an example to future generations, the skill of 18th century craftsmen in this country and who want to preserve the richness of Irish architecture as being enemies of things Irish and of the Irish language.
It seems to me an extraordinary degree of madness that a Minister of State is unable to justify the butchery of 18th century architecture on any other argument than that of damaging people by putting them in such company. That is the only explanation for the abuse of the Minister for Social Welfare. I have seen from the reports that the Minister for Local Government resorted again yesterday, in reply to a question by Deputy Byrne, to passing the national buck. He, in a manner reminiscent of Pontius Pilate, seems to wash his hands of all responsibility. That is the phrase I use advisedly, with a certain amount of reluctance, in view of the undue amount of unseemly accusations which have been thrown in public life over the past few months and which have been a matter of controversy elsewhere.
One cannot find any apt description for the behaviour of the Minister for Local Government in this House yesterday. He hastened to divest himself of all responsibility for the destruction of 18th century architecture in Fitzwilliam Street, Dublin. He castigated Deputy Byrne for even hinting at the possibility that he might have been even remotely blameworthy for the destruction of the 18th century architecture in Fitzwilliam Street. He endeavoured to throw all the blame on to the Dublin Corporation.
As I pointed out last night, Dublin Corporation were told by their legal advisers that they were powerless in the matter of granting general permission for rebuilding Lower Fitzwilliam Street, that they had no function in the matter at all, that it was a Ministerial function and that even the Manager had no option but to grant permission. Because of the condition of the buildings, it was a necessary prerequisite for the re-establishment of some buildings there to grant permission for re-development. In that situation, I think it is irresponsible, unfair and contemptible for the Minister for Local Government to come into this House and try to pass the blame on to the Dublin Corporation. As a matter of fact, in law, they were utterly powerless in the matter.
The Minister for Transport and Power resorted to the same disreputable tactic in the course of his remarks on this Bill. He said that the initial permission to rid Lower Fitzwilliam Street of these 16 houses from 18th century Dublin lay with the Dublin Corporation, although, again, he must know—certainly, if he does not know, he has been very badly advised—that Dublin Corporation were utterly powerless in the matter. The Minister said that Dublin Corporation could, in any event, have added a rider that if it were possible to do so, an 18th century facade should be preserved on the building. The Minister knows well that the ESB, even if the Corporation had power to do so, were under no obligation, good, bad or indifferent, to accept such a rider, if it were added. We have seen from their conduct that they never at any time had any real intention of preserving the buildings but rather they deliberately went about destroying them 20 or 30 years ago. It is suggested to Dáil Éireann and to the nation that if Dublin Corporation had pleaded with the ESB to maintain the Georgian facade they would have done so. That is a puerile argument and is in keeping with the futile remarks of the Minister for Social Welfare who endeavours to link up the opposition to the cultural revival of this nation with the efforts to maintain 18th century architectural excellence.
It is a pity that Deputy Dunne and others have sought to dovetail this issue into one relating to the provision of housing for the working people of Dublin. I do not think there is any connection. It may be with an eye on the gallery that Deputy Dunne said that. I do not think these houses are suitable for the type of people Deputy Dunne has in mind. Dublin Corporation have shown that they intended well. They did some work on Seán MacDermott Street and thereabouts, but these houses require to be well used if they are to look well. I think they have a residential purpose but it is not the residential purpose Deputy Dunne indicated to this House. Perhaps he had other residential purposes in mind. Certainly there is a sufficient demand in Dublin at the present time for flat accommodation to ensure that if these houses were put on the market as residential flats, they would be so used.