I move:
That Seanad Éireann disapproves of the proposal to transfer University College, Dublin, from its existing site at Earlsfort Terrace, and is of opinion that the substantial cost involved in any such proposal would be more usefully expended in (a) expansion and improvement of the existing University buildings and facilities at Earlsfort Terrace, (b) expansion and improvement of the existing University buildings and facilities at Cork and Galway, and (c) the provision of new constituent Colleges at other provincial centres of population throughout the country.
I should like to begin by pointing out that this motion has been on the Order Paper of the House for over 12 months. Actually, it was put down by me on 11th November, 1959. What I have to say tonight with regard to the motion must, of necessity, take into account the fact that since it was put down, the Government have actually sanctioned, in a very offhand way, I think, on a £10 estimate, the projection of new university buildings at the Belfield site, thereby giving at least tacit approval to the project against which the motion proposes to raise and state the objections and opinions of this House.
That decision was taken by the Government, apparently after due deliberation and in full cognisance of the fact that the motion as well as their deliberate decision still awaited debate and a ruling in Seanad Éireann. To say the least of it, that decision and action on the part of the Government appear to me, at any rate, to indicate a certain indifference, a disregard for the opinions and views of this House. I shall be anxious to hear the Minister, in what he has to say, explain precisely why it was necessary for the Government to go ahead and give official sanction and approval to this widely controversial project at Belfield, while the subject matter of this motion awaited debate and decision by this House.
I am not accusing the Government of having acted with any undue haste in deciding to give sanction for the Belfield project; goodness knows, this problem of the University accommodation has been neglected already for too long. In view of the fact, however, that this motion has also been on the Order Paper of the Seanad for so long, and in view of the controversy which the proposals for Belfield have aroused in so many sections and cross-sections of our people, it would not have been too much to ask or to expect that the Government should have come to the House and asked us to make up our minds on this question by disposing of this motion—one way or the other— before committing themselves and both Houses of the Oireachtas to sanctioning finally the Belfield project.
Much more could be said about that action, and decision, on the Government's part but I do not wish to make a bad position worse or to drag into further controversy the simple purpose for which I put down this motion in the first instance. I do, however, want to hear the Minister on that aspect of the problem and I hope he will be candid and frank in explaining to the House why, after so many years of discussion and delay, it was necessary for the Government to go ahead with this project, while this House was awaiting an opportunity of debating it.
I am concerned also to note that the Government's decision is selective, inasmuch as the Government have not given their approval or sanction to the implementation of all the recommendations made by the Commission which sat on this question. They have sanctioned, apparently, only the implementation of that part of these recommendations—to go ahead with the Belfield plan. They have not sanctioned or given any indication of their readiness to implement the recommendations of the Commission, either for Cork or Galway constituent Colleges, as far as I am aware. I am anxious therefore to hear the Minister on these aspects of the matter also.
In moving this motion, I wish at the outset to emphasise that I have been prompted to do so by considerations which are solely and most definitely personal to myself and to no other interest or interests. I have not been asked or encouraged to do so by any party, or group, or on behalf of any person or persons, some of whom may, for all I know, indeed be as interested as I am in a discussion of this problem. I wish to begin, therefore, by stressing, as emphatically as I can, that any views I have to express on the subject are my own— mine alone—and they are not prompted by—even if they happen to reflect—the views of any other party or parties who may well share my personal concern for, and my interest in, the same problem.
I was prompted to put this motion down solely by my personal interest in directing public attention to the necessity for promoting a well-considered policy of decentralisation in this country. By decentralisation, I mean a wider dispersal of industry, of administrative control, of our educational facilities, and of all other amenities which would help to secure a wider dispersal of our population, and thereby, contribute in a very practical way towards arresting the wider and more serious problems of emigration and the constant drift of people from the land. Some five or six years ago I put down a motion on this subject for debate in this House, in the course of which I endeavoured to direct public attention to the implications of the then proposals to transfer U.C.D. from Earlsfort Terrace to an entirely new site some three or four miles south of Dublin at an estimated initial cost of some £6,000,000. The ultimate cost of the project must eventually run to many multiples of that figure.
If that is anything like an accurate estimate—and, indeed, I have heard many people who were in a position to express an opinion on it say it would not be anything like the ultimate cost—I am of opinion that expenditure of that order would be better directed at the present time to an effort to provide university education for a wider section of our young people nearer their homes throughout the provinces rather than to aggravate the existing problem of overcrowding in Dublin by the construction of a new university town on the outskirts of Dublin City.
I do not accept the contention that the decision to transfer U.C.D. to the Belfield site is the best proposition available to deal with the urgent problem of inadequate and unsuitable accommodation at Earlsfort Terrace. I am well aware that the existing conditions at Earlsfort Terrace are bad, indeed deplorably bad. I am aware that they are so bad that they are a disgrace to a community which has a tradition of culture and education to live up to. I am aware that these conditions urgently call for a drastic and immediate overhaul and expansion of the buildings and facilities at present available at Earlsfort Terrace, and I am satisfied that the responsibility devolves on the Government to end the chaotic conditions of overcrowding and discomfort at Earlsfort Terrace immediately.
I am not satisfied, however, that the proposal to initiate a long-term scheme to establish a new university town on the outskirts of Dublin at an immediate cost of some £6,000,000—and an ultimate cost of unpredictable magnitude —is either the best method or the best approach to a solution of this urgent problem, taking all the circumstances and the many other problems facing our people into full account. Finally, on this aspect of the problem, I want to say that even if a strong case exists for building a new university, I personally am absolutely convinced that Dublin is not the place to build it.
One of the most serious problems confronting our people and our country as a whole for many years past is the drift of population from the provinces and rural areas to Dublin and places further away. I am convinced that the provision of better facilities at each of the constituent colleges at Dublin, Cork, and Galway would help at least to arrest the trend of so many students who are attracted to Dublin at the moment, even from the areas which can or could be better served by the existing facilities at Cork and Galway. I am told that the original foundations, walls, etc., of the buildings at Earlsfort Terrace, erected only 50 years ago, were specially designed to facilitate and permit considerable expansion upwards, at least, if not in other directions. I can see no valid reason why that possibility should not even now be further examined in seeking an immediate solution to the overcrowding which we all know is a feature of life at the university there at the moment.
Anyone who has ever visited the university buildings at Cork or Galway will not disagree with me when I say that ample facilities appear to exist at both of these fine colleges for substantial improvement and expansion. Why not utilise the facilities which already exist, therefore, at all three colleges to ease the pressing demand for more accommodation at Earlsfort Terrace? I am convinced that, apart even from the very important consideration of lesser cost, an extension of the facilities already available, by renovation, reconstruction, and reequipment of the existing buildings, and, if necessary, the erection of new buildings on the available sites, would be an approach to this problem which would be welcomed by a majority of our people, while it would also provide a badly-needed revitalising tonic to the social and economic health—if that is the correct term—of two of our major provincial centres of population. I need not elaborate on the numerous benefits which would flow from having better educational facilities made readily available, at a fraction of the cost involved both to the State and to the parents concerned, to a much wider section of our children.
In the same context, we cannot ignore the strong current claim which has been made for the provision of a constituent college at Limerick. Indeed, I feel, having read and listened to some of the arguments which have been advanced in support of this proposal, that an unanswerable case has been made, at least, against the proposal to launch the Belfield Plan until such time as the legitimate demands of the people of Limerick have been fully and very carefully considered. I admire and congratulate the people of Limerick on their forthright initiative and on their determination to demand the consideration to which they are entitled in that respect. As far as it lies within my power to do so, I shall support their demand, at least, to that extent.
I deliberately refrained from quoting from the voluminous statistics which can be produced in support of this motion, because I believe that the question it poses now is one which can best be answered by the logic of common sense. Nobody has to be convinced that the city and surburbs of Dublin are already over-populated, while the rest of the country is being slowly, but surely, drained of its population—particularly, the young men and women who should be building a balanced economy on the land or from the produce of the land at its source. Surely, then, we should be slow to encourage—in my view we should be loud in our condemnation of—any proposal which would even tend to attract still more people away from their homes in the country to the bright lights of Dublin, like moths to an all-consuming flame. I welcome the recent pronouncement of the Minister for Lands that he intends to take effective steps in the near future to have this unhealthy trend reversed as far as his Department is concerned. I hope that this House will, by its support of this motion, fully endorse a wider application of the same policy on the part of the Government as a whole.
I cannot conclude this statement without paying what I consider to be due tribute to the excellent case made by the young group, known as Tuairim, against this proposal to move U.C.D. from Earlsfort Terrace. I cannot do better than to refer those who need to be convinced to the conclusive proof, which has been published by this body, of the utter absence of any real necessity to transfer the University from Earlsfort Terrace. I congratulate and compliment the young members of Tuairim on their production. By their painstaking care and great labour in extracting all the relevant facts and figures, without any expectation of personal gain or favour, they have made an invaluable contribution to a clear and factual presentation of all the factors involved in this important question to the Irish people.
Despite what I have already said, it may be still thought by some people that I have a personal axe to grind in moving this motion. I want to say, in conclusion, that in doing so I am probably speaking, if not actually working, against my own personal interest in this matter. One of my children is at the moment attending lectures at Earlsfort Terrace and I am only too painfully aware personally of the handicaps under which he and all the students there have to work. Two of my younger children will, I hope, be ready and eligible to complete their studies at the University within the next few years. It happens that I reside, with my family, within a mile of the proposed site for the University at Belfield, so that, from a selfish personal point of view, nothing would suit my interests better than to see a new University built at Belfield almost at my doorstep as soon as possible.
I do not think I am here to legislate for what suits me. My function is to legislate for what is best and most conducive to the interests of our people as a whole. I hope that every member of the House will likewise speak to this motion without prejudice or without regard to any personal interest which some of them may have in the proposal contained in the motion. I hope that all members of the House will contribute their individual views to a vigorous and effective debate on the motion. I hope that such a debate will be both helpful and useful to the Government and the people of the country as a whole. Even though we must regard the purpose of this motion as being negatived by the Government's decision to proceed with the project, I feel that every member of this House should express a view or considered opinion in this very important matter. I commend the motion to the support of the House.
