I beg to move the adoption of the Report.
TEMPORARY ACCOMMODATION OF THE OIREACHTAS. - REPORT OF JOINT COMMITTEE.
I beg to second.
I propose to ask the Dáil to refer back to the Committee for further consideration this Report, so far as Paragraph 4 (3) is concerned; that is the sub-section which gives the final recommendation of the Committee. Without arguing on the general question, I am quite sure that the Dáil will feel that that recommendation, at least, should not be accepted until every possible alternative has been considered. I think that stage has not yet been arrived at. There has been a good deal of general talk about this amongst the Deputies for the past ten days, and I think, without arguing the matter at full length, there is at least a prima facie case for further consideration of the proposal to erect temporary buildings in Leinster Lawn. I would like to say, in the first place, that I do not blame the Committee in the least for not having considered that proposal further. I am informed they were told that the Board of Works had expressed the view that that was not a practicable proposal.
But I think that view, if expressed, was expressed without very full consideration of what the proposal really involved. The plan of the place was available, and it showed that the ground floor space is available to a really remarkable extent compared with the ground floor space available in Leinster House, its buildings and the place where the Seanad meets. I understand from the Minister of Finance that he is quite ready to submit again a proposal to the Board of Works to erect temporary buildings —and by temporary buildings I mean buildings that would last for an appreciable number of years—for their fuller consideration. I understand from inquiry into the matter that there is really no technical difficulty in the erection of the building at comparatively reasonable cost, which would provide accommodation on a much larger scale than anything we can expect from the proposals recommended by the Joint Committee. I do not wish to speak at length at this stage, because I am inclined to think there may be general agreement to refer this matter back to the Committee. If the Minister for Finance is prepared to give the assurance I indicated, the Committee would be probably ready to have the matter referred back to them, and therefore I make that suggestion, and move an amendment to that effect.
The amendment would be to refer back Paragraph 4, Sub-section (3) for further consideration.
Amendment proposed accordingly.
I need hardly say if there is any desire on the part of the House to have this further considered, the Board of Works will have instructions to go into it most carefully, and give the Committee every assistance in considering all the aspects of the matter.
I may say that the Seanad has adopted this Report. Certain terms of reference were given to a Joint Committee. The Joint Committee reported to both Houses, and one House has adopted that Report. I am not clear as to whether an amendment passed here could compel the Joint Committee to meet to reconsider a particular decision and make a further report to both Houses, and as to what would be the procedure in the other House if a report was presented which would be tantamount to the rescinding of a decision already arrived at in the other House. That is merely a statement of a problem, of course.
The disagreement between both Houses ought to become a matter for the Committee to reconsider, I should think. If Deputy Thrift's motion is in order, I have pleasure in seconding it. I do not think there is any country in the world where Parliament would select one of the progressive national institutions, and assume there was no alternative to practically crushing it out in order to establish a Parliament building. I have much pleasure, if it is in order, in seconding the amendment to refer the Report back to the Committee.
The amendment is perfectly in order.
I suggest that this question of temporary housing of the Oireachtas is being regarded altogether from the foreigner's outlook. The capital of a country ought to be, as the capital of nearly every other country of the world is, in the centre of the country. Dublin is really a foreign town. The streets, as you pass along, speak of the foreigner and of the foreigner's power. The capital of this country should be removed from the atmosphere of Dublin City. The Dublin people are courteous and very nice, but the seat of the Government of this country should be far removed from the atmosphere of Dublin and from the centre of foreign power, and from its foreign mode and method of thought. We have heard a lot in this assembly of the reincarnation of the Gael and of the Gaelic State. The front bench talked about the reincarnation of the Gaelic State; we are going to start from the beginning——
Is the Deputy supporting the amendment?
I think the seat of the Government of this country should not be in Dublin at all.
The Committee can consider that upon the amendment.
I wish they would consider it.
Deputy McBride is supporting the amendment.
I support the amendment because I feel we are not very comfortable here. Every night when I go home I have to put cotton wool around my shins in the same way that you would bandage a horse in preparation for a hurdle race. I do not think that this theatre is a fit place for an assembly of this kind. As I understand it, the suggestion of going to Leinster Lawn is a practical proposition. We could have plenty of room there and accommodation for Committee meetings, and refreshment rooms, and splendid accommodation for seating the public to hear our discussions. So long as it is a practical proposition that will make for more comfortable surroundings, I think the matter ought to be considered.
I should like to refer Deputy McBride to Article 13 of the Constitution: "The Oireachtas shall sit in or near the City of Dublin... as from time to time it may determine." But I really rose for the purpose of stating the point of view of the Committee. I know it is very dangerous to enter into conflict with Deputy Thrift, involving a penalty sometimes of 15 years and 15 strokes of the lash, but on this occasion I am forced to do so, although he said he did not blame the Committee actually, but only by implication for having made an improper suggestion. Other people even suggested that we were ignorant of the Ten Commandments. The fact that Deputy Professor Magennis was on the Committee is sufficient answer to that. But Deputy Thrift's suggestion ought to have been laid before the Committee. That was not done. He ought to have known that the Committee were appointed by the Dáil, that they were given a time limit in which to report, and if the Deputy had detailed suggestions to make he ought to have come before the Committee in the first instance. Secondly, as a matter of fact, owing to a suggestion from Deputy Good, I did ask the Minister for Finance when he came to the Committee if a temporary building of this kind was feasible, and he said he did not think so on a large scale. Now, if he is prepared to give the matter further consideration I have no objection to that. There is no ideal solution of this difficulty. There is not anywhere near Dublin a Parliament House waiting for us to come in suited in every respect. We have got to make the best of a bad job, and our recommendation was in that spirit. There was no other solution. Possibly the solution suggested by Deputy Thrift is a better one, but there is one factor left out. It may be more convenient and cost less, but there is the factor of time.
How long will it take to put up a building of this kind? It is to be a building of the exhibition character, such a kind of building as is being erected at Wembley, but that has taken six months to erect, and it is not finished yet. Time is very much the essence of the problem. I feel we ought to get the Seanad out of the Museum as soon as we can. I am thinking seriously of the number of visitors that will be coming to Dublin very soon. I can never remember whether it is three hundred thousand or three hundred million that want to see the Museum, and it is a pity to prevent them doing so. It is the best we have to show, with its Cross of Cong and Ardagh Chalices, and so on. By neglecting to show these things we will be doing our civilisation a great injustice and unless we go into a temporary building within six or eight months I feel we will be doing Ireland a great injury. I suggest that we request the Seanad to consent to reappoint this Committee. It is unfortunate that the Seanad is now adjourned, because, as I have said, time is one of the essences of the problem. That undoubtedly will make for a certain difficulty, but if we request them they will probably agree to reappoint this Committee. Speaking for myself—some of my colleagues are not here—I should be only too glad if we can find a way out of the difficulty on the lines Deputy Thrift has suggested.
In supporting Deputy Thrift's amendment, I would like to suggest that it be an instruction to the Committee to see if there is not available in the immediate neighbourhood a private house that would meet the requirements of the Oireachtas, or, conversely, of the Royal Dublin Society. I understand such a house might be, under certain circumstances, available, and that with certain alterations it might be made suitable either for the temporary housing of the Oireachtas or of the Royal Dublin Society. I understand that this house is owned by a family which has rendered great service to Dublin, and which, perhaps, if approached in the proper way might be willing to enter into negotiations for the temporary leasing of it, either to the Oireachtas or the Royal Dublin Society.
As one of the members of the Committee, I may say that we spent some little time in trying to find a solution of this difficult problem. While I have no particular objection to the matter being referred back to the Committee, I cannot see that the suggestion made by Deputy Thrift is going to serve any useful purpose, for the reason that the Committee took most of these points into their consideration before sending in the report which is now before the Dáil. I do not think that to refer back the Report to the Committee simply for the purpose of finding whether the Committee will recommend the erection of a temporary building in Leinster Lawn, in the shape perhaps of a tent or something like that in order to house the Oireachtas for the next couple of years until a permanent building is found, is a feasible proposition. I think that what is underlying this whole question of referring back the report to the Committee, is the fact that the Royal Dublin Society think that if they leave Leinster House that they will be lost and lost for ever, and that they will never recover. I do not hold that view, but that argument has been put up.
The Royal Dublin Society does not live by Leinster House. They live by Ireland, and while they say that they have lost a considerable number of their members during the last year or two, while we have been here in possession of part of this building, it must be remembered that these members came to them within the last two or three years. I remember the time when the Royal Dublin Society was looked upon as a shoneen institution to which the ordinary man in the street would not get admittance. They have changed their minds of late, and I am glad to note that they have done so, and have become a democratic institution, and the ordinary man in the street who can afford a subscription of £2 2s. a year, can now become a member of the Society. I hold that no matter where the Royal Dublin Society goes the name which the Society has in the country at the present time, will go with it, and that Leinster House is not the be-all and the end-all of the Royal Dublin Society. The Society, I believe, could get accommodation suitable for its requirements much easier than we can get accommodation suitable for our requirements in any other part of the City of Dublin, and for that reason I believe that Leinster House is the only convenient place in the city where the Oireachtas can be housed, until we find a suitable permanent building. If the report is referred back and reconsidered, I do not see what we can do. If we have to put up a temporary building in Leinster Lawn, that is going to cost a considerable sum of money, while at the same time Leinster House, I am given to understand, is kept up by the Board of Works out of Government grants. I understand it is being kept up even at present out of Government funds. I do not see that we are going to do the Royal Dublin Society a bit of harm by taking these premises over for a few years until we can get a permanent home, and I am certain that we will hand them back in as good repair as they were in when we took them from the Society.
Mr. EGAN
I am not in favour of the amendment of Deputy Thrift. If it is a question of having to spend money on an outside place to provide accommodation for the Royal Dublin Society, why not do so? It seems to me to be a much more sensible suggestion that we should stay here and give the Royal Dublin Society reasonable compensation to enable them to provide themselves with the accommodation which they require. Everyone knows perfectly well that nine-tenths of the activities of the Royal Dublin Society are centred in Ballsbridge, and that the other one-tenth of their activities is centred here. Furthermore, I do not care for the idea of disfiguring Leinster Lawn with a temporary building. What, I ask, are you going to do with it afterwards. It seems to me that to put up a temporary building in Leinster Lawn would be a waste of money, and consequently I am supporting the view expressed by Deputy Hughes, that we should stay here until such time as we are in a position to put up a building which will fulfil all our requirements.
I have no particular objection to the sending back of this Report for further consideration if any Deputy thinks that further consideration is going to be of any value. I hope and urge that the Committee will give due consideration to Deputy Sir James Craig's complaint. Reference has been made to a possible six months. If we are to be here for a further six months, I hope the Committee will bear in mind the necessity of having some reconstruction of this Chamber, even for these six months. Consider the position. Here you have Deputies of the build of Deputy Sir James Craig, Deputy Good, Deputy Gorey, Deputy Bryan Cooper, Deputy Wolfe, Deputy O'Connell and Deputy Bulfin. Now, consider their shins. One has often wondered what was the real explanation of so many vacant seats. Now we have it. Give us good seating and then there will be no excuse for bad attendance. I hope if this matter is to be referred back that, whatever the decision, there will not be any further delay in re-seating this Chamber.
I notice that in this Report the Royal Hospital is dismissed very shortly. "The Joint Committee cannot recommend the selection of the Royal Hospital owing to the existing difficulties of access by the business and professional life of the city." I will admit that they supplement that objection further on, but while concentrating upon the actual cost in respect of one particular site, there is no reference to the possible cost in connection with other sites. Now, we came in here either in good faith or in bad faith, and I suggest that it has very much the appearance of having come in here under false pretences. In the fifth page of the report there is a document signed by the President, the Honorary Secretary and the Director of the Royal Dublin Society. It states that when the late General Collins, after inspecting the House, expressed the desire to hold the first Provisional Government assembly in the Lecture Theatre, he generously acknowledged the offer that was made and expressed the hope to the Society that the inconvenience would not exceed eight months. We are here nearly two years, and I submit that unquestionably it needs some explanation to the Society as to why there has been a breach of faith, if there has been a breach of faith. And if it be for no other reason than the question of convenience to the professional and business life of the community, I submit that there should be more explanation of that: there should be more proof of it. If one travels in foreign countries and visits a city like Paris, one will see splendid avenues. Comparing them with this mile and a half in this city, about which the complaint of inconvenience has been made, one wonders whether we have got a true conception of what is the capital of a country or not. I think one avenue in Paris is about three miles long. A great city, and great minds could only have conceived a city of that sort, and we say that to go from the centre of the city to Kilmainham is an inconvenience to the business and professional life of the city. I submit that the case has yet to be made in proof of that statement. It may be that Kilmainham would be less convenient for those who wish to come here, but is it a fact? The majority of Deputies come in from the country at the Kingsbridge, and the Royal Hospital, if it were the site, would not be a grave inconvenience to them.
The question, then, arises as to the suitability of the institution we are in at the moment. Is it suitable? Are the committee rooms for the various parties rooms in which a party can hold a meeting of any length without grave inconvenience and perhaps grave consequences to persons sitting in these rooms, and are they really fitting rooms for an assembly such as this? And while we might possibly say that it is time to take the Seanad out of the Antique Furniture Room of the Museum, we ourselves are in a theatre.
A theatre devoted to high art.
A theatre devoted to high art, as the Ceann Comhairle says. I admit at once that it would take a considerable length of time to make Kilmainham suitable, but I submit that at the end of that time you would have a much more suitable institution than this, and you would have nobody to say that you had broken faith with them.
What about College Green?
Well, if we do really take into consideration the claims that have been made in connection with housing in the City of Dublin, I submit that College Green must wait. After the case that is made by the Medical Officer of Health of the City of Dublin, and by the representatives of the municipality, I submit that we ought to wait. Even if we spent £70,000 upon making the Royal Hospital habitable for a while, time would be given to see how best to get a national institution which would meet with public approval. I am not at all so satisfied that there is that extraordinary sympathy for the Bank of Ireland premises, the old House of Parliament, as people say. We were told that there was a great improvement during the period of that Parliament; that there was a great society here during that time. I would like to know how far the brilliance of that society was responsible for its selling its birthright.
I do not approve at all of building on Leinster Lawn. I think it would destroy the beauty of Merrion Square and of this building. I do not believe you would put up a building there which you could point out with any degree of pride or satisfaction to a visitor as the place where the Parliament of the nation meets. I am prepared to allow it to go to the Committee, but I would not vote for it, no matter what recommendation is put up for it if it be put up. I know that it is unpopular to urge the claims of the Royal Hospital. It was by a process of exclusion that we came to it. In that mood and for that purpose we recommended it. We know it is not ideal; we know that one cannot get a Parliament House at a moment's notice, and we know, furthermore, that even if one were to admit the claim for the case made for the old House of Parliament it would take years to make it suitable, if we were to start now, and we know, furthermore, that we have not the money for an extravagant experiment of this kind.
Would I be in order in referring to the point raised by the President? I deliberately did not refer to Kilmainham because I thought it was out of order, and I would ask your leave and the leave of the Dáil, to refer to it now.
I decide in favour of Deputy Cooper's point of order. He cannot therefore make another speech. I decide in his favour.
Will I be allowed to answer the President's argument, because I think the views of the Committee should have a chance of being put? Unfortunately, two of the Committee are absent.
I am inclined to agree with Deputy Cooper. Not only did the President go to Kilmainham, but he went to College Green, which, by the Terms of Reference of the Committee, was almost excluded from the Committee's recommendation, in so far as the Committee was to consider temporary accommodation. As I understand Deputy Thrift's amendment, he desires to refer back to the Committee Section 4, Paragraph 3, of the Committee's report in order that the Committee may consider whether a temporary building could be erected in Leinster Lawn; or does he want other alternatives to be considered too?
I left it a little wider than that. It was simply to refer back their final recommendation, which would give them an opportunity to consider any alternative suggestion that might be brought forward. They recommend one certain thing because two things are excluded. That is what Sub-section 3 of Paragraph 4 means. Supposing that goes back, I take it that if anyone else were to make a suggestion as to another alternative, it would automatically come forward for consideration.
It was certainly in the wider sense that I seconded the amendment.
I suggest—I do not know whether it would be an amendment to Deputy Thrift's proposal or not—that there is a residence that probably would be suitable for other requirements——
If you allow Deputy Wolfe to speak twice, I suppose you will allow me?
I am only allowing Deputy Wolfe to make an explanation.
May I make an explanation?
We want to get clear as to the amendment. The amendment is to refer back Section 4, Paragraph 3, for the purpose of the consideration of other alternatives. We may as well have a discussion on the amendment as on the question of the adoption of the Report. It seems to me to be practically the same thing, and I will hear Deputy Cooper again.
With reference to Kilmainham I may say that when I was appointed on the Committee I had absolutely no bias against it; I was, if anything, biassed in its favour. The paragraph in the Report is not quite what I personally would desire. Owing to illness I was absent from the last meeting of the Committee when the Report was debated, and I think that I should have put in some other reasons besides those that are given. I make the President a present of one point. I timed myself from Westland Row direct to the Royal Hospital by tram and on foot, and it took me just over twenty minutes, which was not excessive. As I say, I went there, if anything, prejudiced in favour of the Royal Hospital because it is available and reasonably accessible: but when I looked at the premises I came to the conclusion that they were wholly unsuitable for the purpose. To begin with, take the hall. There is a hall there that would seat at least four Dáils; it is at least three times the size of this. I inquired from the officials of the Board of Works, who had prepared most informative plans, as to the acoustics. The acoustics, they said, are very bad, everything echoes, but we would make it rather better by hanging army blankets around the walls. Is it a tenable proposition that the Dáil should sit in a hall surrounded by army blankets? We should begin by buying those early Irish tapestries, which are now being discussed in the Press.
Then as to the Seanad, I thought the chapel in which it was proposed to accommodate the Seanad was eminently suitable to that body. It was dignified and gloomy. But all the members of the Seanad on the Joint Committee objected very much, and I am sorry to say that the ground of their objection was that they would be next door to the Dáil with only one wall between them, and that the disorderly proceedings would disturb them. It seems there are two halls in which the Assembly could be accommodated; one is much larger than would be required for the Dáil, and its acoustics are bad; but the other one I personally think suitable for the Seanad, but it did not commend itself to any member of the Seanad on the Committee. What remains? There remains a whole nest of little rooms about the size of an undergraduate's room in a college, or an officer's quarters in barracks, and any larger rooms that are required will have to be made by throwing down the partitions, and throwing these different rooms together. The President said that the Committee rooms here are not suitable for the purpose of long sittings. I believe the Party meetings are held in the Committee rooms; probably the President knows more about the long sittings than I do. I am certain that the acoustics and everything else in the Committee rooms which it was proposed to make in the Royal Hospital would be far less suitable, because there would be probably three rooms thrown one into another. There is only one decent sized room in the whole place, which it was intended should be used as a library, but with book-shelves in it, it would probably not accommodate more than ten Deputies who wished to read at the same time. What is intended for the refreshment room is a whole range of rooms, with about six partitions, which would have to come down, and I think the result would be that by the time the food would have been carried from one end of the room to another it would be cold. There would be room for only two rows of tables. There are rooms of normal size that would be perfectly suitable for clerks' offices, and so on, but barring that, there is not a single room, even if adapted by the ingenuity of the Board of Works, which seemed to me suitable to accommodate a Parliament. Whether we spend £50,000 or £70,000, we should have on our hands a building that is suitable for a Parliament House, and nothing else. The alternative which the Committee put forward has, at least, this merit, that whatever money is spent the State will have this house, which they ought to have, and I think they have a right to have. This place could be used as a lecture theatre, in conjunction with the Museum, and nearly all modern Museums have a lecture theatre, in which lectures are given and slides shown on matters of interest.
It has grown up with time, but I think it is incongruous that in the middle of the National Library, the National Gallery, and the National Museum, there should be a building which is private property. I do not want to prejudge the issue—I am not myself a member of the Royal Dublin Society— but at least three or four members of the Committee were members of the Society, and were certainly not actuated by any hostility to it in any way. We should have something for our money. The Royal Hospital could be made an excellent residential hall for a University or something of that kind, without spending much money on it. Mind, you would have to spend a great deal there; there is no electric light there, and you would have to put in electric light, and you would have to put in heating. It would be a very large proposition, indeed. It would be a very serious proposition, and I believe we could get better value for the money by following the Report. One other thing I want to say. This was a very representative Committee, representatives of all shades of view. There are quite a number of points on which Senator Jameson differs from Senator O'Farrell; Deputy Nagle and Deputy Gorey are not always in agreement with one another, and both of them sometimes disagree with Deputy Hughes and me. This Committee was representative of all parties and classes. Its Report was unanimous, and, therefore, I do not think that the Dáil ought to put it aside lightly.
When the first Committee, of which I happened to be a member, was set up to inquire into the question of the temporary housing of the Oireachtas, the Deputies were asked, and anybody else who was interested was asked, to submit to the Committee the names of any places other than this. A number of suggestions were sent in, and I think every alternative suggestion, with the exception of the one now named by Deputy Professor Thrift, was considered even by the first Committee. I am in agreement with everything Deputy Bryan Cooper has said in reference to Kilmainham, and for the reasons that he has given. I think, as well as that, that the approaches to the Royal Hospital, with the exception of the one on the Kilmainham Jail side, are anything but desirable and could not be looked upon as suitable approaches even to a temporary House of Parliament. Apparently there are two sections in the Dáil on this question. One with Kilmainham all the time in their minds, whether it be as a temporary or permanent home I find it very difficult to determine. I believe those who speak here in support of it are actuated by a desire in the first place to get out of this place, for the reasons the President has advanced to-day, but the real object in some of their minds is to make Kilmainham the permanent home for the Oireachtas. I am anything but sentimental in matters of this kind, but I believe you will never have a concentration of opinion upon the activities of this new Parliament until you get the College Green House. I suggest to President Cosgrave that it was not the fault of the walls or structure of that House that led to the selling in College Green House of the birthright of the nation. It was the fault and failing of the people in the House, and not the fault of the building itself. It may, perhaps, be considered a hardship by members of the Royal Dublin Society to be kept out of the use of this theatre for such a long time, but I think Deputy Egan has hit the point very fairly when he said that reasonable compensation should be given to the Royal Dublin Society to enable them to find a place that will be equally suitable for them, and to leave us this place, temporarily, at any rate. The only thing I can see in Deputy Professor Thrift's amendment is that this matter should be referred back to the Committee for the purpose of inquiring whether temporary premises may be set up in Leinster Lawn. There is no other issue to go before the Committee, because all other alternatives have been considered.
I think the Dáil should hesitate in approving of Kilmainham even as a temporary site for the Oireachtas when it involves the expenditure of £70,000. Deputy Davin has pointed out the inconvenience of the locality. All who know the avenues of approach there will clearly understand that they are not boulevards in the sense that the President refers to. The location is very undesirable. One suggestion made in its favour as regards location was that Kingsbridge was the terminus at which the greater percentage of Deputies from the country arrived, and that it would be convenient for them. But a Deputy has to go to his hotel and at the adjournments it will be found that Kilmainham is an inconvenient locality, apart from the other disadvantages. I am not going to labour the disadvantages of structure, as I have not had an opportunity of inspecting the building. The statement of Deputy Cooper is sufficient evidence to show that after a large expenditure of public money you will have a very disappointing result. In view of that statement, I think Deputies should hesitate to approve of the selection of Kilmainham, either as a temporary or permanent home for the Oireachtas. I therefore am in favour of the suggestion of Deputy Thrift. If effect be given to it, it will probably lead to the suggestion of other buildings or sites. Deputy Woulfe has referred to one. He gives the assurance that the accommodation to be provided in the building that he has in his mind will be ample for the purpose of both Houses, and the location is an excellent one. Furthermore, he believes that it will be quite possible, in fact very likely, that the owner of the premises will be willing to accommodate us, temporarily, at any rate. I suggest that if the Committee are going to consider the question of sites, they should at the same time consider the question of bringing a permanent building into being.
They could not. That is outside the terms of reference.
At any rate, the site suggested by Deputy Thrift is an admirable one. Immediately opposite. I think, you have the site for a permanent home for the Oireachtas in Merrion Square. The sooner we address ourselves to the question of providing a permanent building the better, because it will limit to a considerable extent the expenditure that would be incurred in the provision of a temporary building. The President has referred to the fact that when this building was originally taken over the assumption was that we would be in occupation for no more than eight months. We have considerably exceeded our welcome. I think it is unfair to the R.D.S. that we should trespass further on the liberal accommodation that they have afforded us. There is no good in making the suggestion that you can compensate a society of that kind by providing temporary accommodation for them or by monetary remuneration. Societies of that kind are associated with certain locations, and like business houses, when they depart from the area in which their business has been created, failure usually follows. I think it is unfair, taking into account the circumstances in which temporary accommodation was provided for us by the R.D.S., that we should trespass further on them. I, therefore, am in agreement with the proposal of Deputy Thrift that this matter be again referred to the Committee to see if a better suggestion than that contained in their Report is not possible.
I did not argue the question from the point of view of the advantages of the building suggested. I confined myself to one point in my opening statement, and I propose to continue that. I wanted the Dáil to be in the position of saying, if it became ultimately necessary to take over these buildings, that that course was not adopted until every possible avenue of escape from it had been explored. I do not believe that these buildings are suitable for our purpose. They are entirely inadequate. They are uncomfortable in their present form, and they do not give us nearly enough space. I do believe that it is possible to erect either on Leinster Lawn or Merrion Square, or possibly somewhere else, a building which will enable us to carry on our work for ten or fifteen years at a comparatively small cost, and which will look ornamental and be a real credit to us. Therefore, contenting myself with the mere statement of that belief, I suggest that there was a prima facie case from general considerations for asking the Committee to consider fully a proposal which they had not already fully considered. From the speeches which have been made, I think there is a readiness on the part of the Dáil to ask the Committee to reconsider the matter, and I content myself with leaving it at that.
Amendment put and declared carried.