asked the Minister for Finance if in view of the further information available he will now consider making a preservation order in respect of Frascati House, Blackrock, County Dublin.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Frascati House.
60.
I would refer the Deputy to the reply which I gave on 24th March, 1971. I am satisfied that the making of a preservation order in respect of Frascati House, under the National Monuments Acts, would not be warranted.
Arising out of that reply, is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that since he gave the reply last year a good deal of evidence has come to light and, in fact, the developers themselves have admitted they do not propose to demolish the house at the moment and, perhaps, the Parliamentary Secretary would consider making a preservation order or discussing the matter with his colleague, the Minister for Local Government, who will have the matter before him by way of appeal?
I should like to put on the record of the House the information available to me. In the case of Frascati House, the historical connection with the Fitzgerald family is not important in the national context. The house was not one of the principal seats of the family. Neither was it the scene of any significant historical event. The architectural quality of the house is not outstanding. Apart from the absence of any mention of it in the Georgian histories, this house does not feature in the study of amenity planning issues in Dublin and Dún Laoghaire published by An Taisce in 1967 and, as already stated, it is not listed for preservation by the planning authority. Even if it were decided to expand considerably the protection of monuments, as defined in the National Monuments Act, Frascati House would have a low priority in comparison with many other important monuments which are at present unprotected.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary say if An Taisce have not had the matter before them for further consideration since the matter was originally raised here almost a year ago? Possibly they have revised their opinion on it.
This may be a matter to be dealt with through the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963, but certainly not in the context of national monuments, as understood by the Office of Public Works.
May I ask the Minister what authoritative advice was given to him or could he quote the advice he received which so dismissively obliterates Frascati House from the prospects of a preservation order?
I think I have made it clear why the Office of Public Works came to this conclusion.
Who gave the advice to the Office of Public Works?
We have been administering the national monuments programme for a long number of years, since 1930 in fact.
An Taisce have had a very considerable change of mind in a relation to a decision—not so much a decision as a non-observation in 1967, five years ago—and would the Parliamentary Secretary not agree that the local planning authority has had a very considerable change of mind as well in relation to its failure to have a preservation order imposed and, in that context, could he please state who in the national monuments section has decided that the home of the Irish patriot, Lord Edward Fitzgerald, is not worthy of preservation?
The Deputy's question is so long that I forget what it is.
Who gave the Parliamentary Secretary this advice? From what source did he get is?
As I pointed out already in reply to Deputy Cosgrave, the house was not one of the principal seats of the family or the scene of any significant historical event. As regards why the decision was taken, I accept that responsibility fully myself.
May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary, in view of the statement he has made that Frascati House was not the scene of any significant historical event, what advice the Board of Works obtained from historians on this subject or does the Board of Works, by some interior divination, know what a significant historical event is?
I will deal with this in some more detail in reply to a question put down by Deputy Tunney as to how we work in these matters. The Deputy might care to wait and take the matter up after I have answered Question No. 61.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary look at a statement in this connection made by Mr. Purcell, the architect, who delivered a paper on the subject I think to An Taisce and certainly to a meeting in Blackrock? Perhaps he might reconsider the matter in the light of that statement?
I am not prepared so to do.
Arising from the Parliamentary Secretary's reply——
Acting Chairman
This is the last supplementary on this question.
My supplementary question arises because of the reference to the listing that was done by An Taisce in 1967 and to the fact that Frascati was not included in that listing. Surely the Parliamentary Secretary is aware that An Taisce is a voluntary organisation, that it subsists on a shoe string and has been carried on for many years by dedicated people who are volunteers except for a very small number of professional people employed by them and therefore does the Parliamentary Secretary not agree that it is unreasonable to permit the destruction of anything which was not listed by a voluntary organisation five years ago and does he not further think that it is unreasonable to bring forward the failure of such listing as a validation of the decision to permit destruction?
That is not right.
That is what you have done.
The interjection by the Parliamentary Secretary, with respect, was why did they not think of it five years ago. He said that about the An Taisce listing. That seemed to me to give it a validity which I do not think An Taisce itself would claim and which I do not think it is right to give to it.
I am very pleased to say that the working relationships between the Office of Public Works and An Taisce are excellent and that we have very good communication with each other. What I am trying to say is that in the case of Frascati House it is my view and the view of the Commissioners of Public Works that if there is a preservation order to be put on this house it is a matter to be done by the local authority and not by the National Monuments Section of my Department.
One further question——
Acting Chairman
The Chair must insist. Question No. 61.
Surely the Parliamentary Secretary is aware of the fact that the local authority had in fact changed its mind and now wishes to see the matter cleared?
They can deal with it under the Local Authority Acts.