This Report has been considered by the Executive Council, and I now move: "That the Dáil agree with the Joint Committee on the temporary accomodation of the Oireachtas in its Second Report, and is of opinion that immediate steps should be taken to give effect to the recommendations contained in paragraph 4 thereof."
TEMPORARY ACCOMMODATION OF THE OIREACHTAS. - SECOND REPORT OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE.
|
1. Do rith an Seanad an Rún so a leanas 1 Bealtaine, 1924:— |
1. The following Resolution was passed by the Seanad, on 1st May, 1924:— |
|
“Gurb é tuairim an tSeanaid ná fónfadh sé chun aon dea-chríche Tuarasgabháil an Chó-Choiste ar Arus Sealadach don Oireachtas do chur tharnais chúcha chun alt 3 de mhír 4 'd'ath-breithniú, ach go mbeartuíd leis seo an Tuarasgabháil do chur tharnais chun athbhreithniú generálta do dhéanamh uirthi. Ba mhaith leo, leis, a chur ina luighe ar an Rialtas go bhfuil géarghá le hárus oiriúnach do sholáthar don tSeanad agus dá n-oifigigh”; |
“That the Seanad is of opinion that no useful purpose would be served in referring back the Report of the Joint Committee on Temporary Accommodation for the Oireachtas for reconsideration of Section 3 of paragraph 4, but hereby resolves that the Report be referred back for reconsideration generally. They further wish to impress upon the Government the urgent necessity for the provision of suitable accommodation for the Seanad and its officials”; and |
|
Do rith an Dáil an Rún so a leanas 8 Bealtaine, 1924:— |
The following Resolution was passed by the Dáil on 8th May, 1924:— |
|
“Go gcuirtar an Tuarasgabháil tharnais chun an Chó-Choiste chun ath-bhreithniú generálta do dhéanamh uirthi.” |
“That the Report be referred back to the Joint Committee for reconsideration generally.” |
|
Ag géille do sna Rúin sin dóibh, dhin an Có-Choiste lán-ath-bhreithniú ar an ní gur hiarradh ortha Tuarasgabháil do thabhairt air. |
In compliance with these Resolutions the Joint Committee has fully reconsidered the matter upon which it was asked to report. |
|
2. Ní bhfuair an Có-Choiste, o tíolacadh an chéad Thuarasgabháil uatha, aon chomhairle d'aon tsaghas fhónta ach an chomhairle a thug Liam Thrift, comhairle as a dtiocfadh Tigh Laighean do thréigean ar fad agus foirgintí sealadacha do thógaint ar Fhaithche Laighean no neachtar aca ar thalamh Chearnóg Mhuirbhhean no ar ionad éigin eile a bheadh oiriúnach. Bhí breithniú déanta cheana féin ag an gCóChoiste ar an tairisgint sin agus bhi diúltuithe acu dhi sa mhéid gur bhain sí le Faithche Laighean amháin ach, ag géille do thuairim an Teachta san, bhreithníodar an tairisgint arís fé mar a chuir seisean i bhfuirm í le cúnamh pleananna a sholáthair sé don Chó-Choiste agus a mhínigh sé i bpearsain dóibh. Chonnacthas don Chó-Choiste go raibh na pleananna san tarraicthe go cliste agus ba dheimhin leo go mbeidís oiriúnach, fé mar a bhíodar ceaptha amach, chun árus seaaldach a bheadh oiriúnach agus dóthanach do sholáthar don Oireachtas agus dá bhfuirinn agus ina theanta san do sna hAirí agus dá n-oifigigh. Níor hullamhuíodh aon mheastachán ar an gcostas ach do ghlac an Có-Choiste le háireamh Liam Thrift; go bhféadfí na déanmhachtaí do chríochnú laistigh de bhliain, agus ná raghadh an costas ar fad thar £70,000 agus go mb'fhéidir go mbeadh sé gearaid do £50,000. Níor fhéad an CoChoiste, áfach, a mhola go nglacfí le haon scéim den tsaghas san. Gan an mhoill agus an costas a bhainfadh léi go cinnte do bhac, ba chóir go seasódh déanmhachtaí, den tsórt atá ceaptha sna pleananna, go ceann deich mblian ar a luíod, ach ba cheart an cheist i dtaobh buan-árus don Oireachtas do shocrú i bhfad roimhe sin agus nuair a bheadh sí socair níor mhór déanmhachtaí sealadacha den tsórt san do scrapáil agus dá dheascaibh sin bheadh costas a dtógála imithe gan mhaith, suim go bhféadfí úsáid ní b'oiriúnaí dhéanamh di mar chúiteamh do Chumann Ríoga Bhaile Atha Cliath in aon airgead a chaillfid siad. |
2. Since the presentation of its former report, it has received no further suggestion of any practical kind save that put forward by Deputy Thrift, which would involve the complete evacuation of Leinster House and the erection of temporary buildings on Leinster Lawn, or as an alternative, on the grounds of Merrion Square, or some other available site. The Joint Committee has already considered and rejected this proposal in so far as it was confined toLeinster Lawn, but in deference to the views of the Deputy, it has again considered the proposal as outlined by him with the assistance of plans which he furnished to the Joint Committee and courteously explained to it in person. These plans appeared to the Joint Committee to be skilfully drawn, and it was satisfied that the would, as designed, provide suitable and adequate accommodation of a temporary charaster for the housing of the Oireachtas and their staff as well as for Ministers and their officials. No actual estimate of the cost had been prepared, but the Joint Committee accepted Mr. Thrift's calculation that the structures could be completed within a year, and that their inclusive cost should not exceed £70,000 and might possibly approximate to £50,000. The Joint Committee, however has been unable to recommend the adoption of any such scheme. Apart from the delay and expense which it would necessarily entail, structures of the character designed by the plans should endure for a period of at least ten years, but the question of the permanent housing of the Oireachtas should be definitely settled at a much earlier date, and, when settled, would involve the scrapping of such temporary structures and the consequent sacrifice of the cost of erection, a sum which could be more appropriately used in compensating the Royal Dublin Society for any pecuniary loss it may sustain. |
|
3. Tugann an Có-Choiste fé ndeara go ndubhairt Uachtarán na hArd-Chomhairle agus é ag trácht sa Dáil ar an gCéad Thuarasgabháil ón gCóChoiste, nár thug an Có-Choiste mionchuntas ina dTuarasgabháil ar na nithe a bhí acu i gcoinnibh an tOspidéal Ríoga i gCill Mhaighneann d'úsáid, ach do bhraith an CoChoiste, agus braithid fós, nuair a dhineadar achmaireacht ar na nithe sin tré thagairt a dhéanamh don chostas, don mhoill agus don neachaothúlacht a bhainfadh leis an bplean san, gur thugadar uatha gach eolas ba ghá chun a dTuarasgabháil ar an ionad áirithe sin do bhreithniú agus do phlé. |
3. The Joint Committee notices that in discussing its First Report in the Dáil the President of the Executive Council suggested that the Report had not gone into the details of the objections to the use of the Royal Hospital at Kilmainham, but the Joint Committee felt and still feels that in summarising them by reference to the expense, delay and inconvenience involved, it had supplied all the essential materials for the proper consideration and discussion of its Report as to this particular site. |
|
4. Dhin an Có-Choiste an scéal go léir d'athscrúdú go haireach agus ní bhfuaradar aon réasún chun dul i gcoinnibh an ní a mholadar cheana, eadhon, an t-áitreabh go léir, Tigh Laighean, do thógaint mar árus sealadach don Oireachtas ach an Rialtas do sholáthar áitreibh oiriúnaigh no d'íoc as áitreabh oiriúnach ina bhféadfí gach cóir taithneamhachta a bhí ag Cumann Ríoga Bhaile Atha Cliath do chimeád réasunta slán idir an dá linn agus san ar coiníoll go soiléir go bhfágfí Tigh Laighean chó luath is d'fhéadfí árus buan d'fháil don Oireachtas. |
4. Upon a careful resview of the whole situation it has found no reason for departing from its previous recommendation, namely, that the entire premises comprised in Leinster House should be taken over for the temporary accommodation of the Oireachtas, subject to the Government providing, or paying for, suitable premises in which the amenities of the Royal Dublin Society could be reasonably preserved in the interval, and upon the distinct understanding that Leinster House would be vacated at the earliest possible date consistent with the acquisition of a permanent home for the Oireachtas. |
|
5. Má diúltuitear don mhola san, isé Caisleán Bhaile Atha Cliath an t-aon áit eile is féidir don ChóChoiste a mhola mar áit oiriúnach. Tá le rá i bhfabhar do go bhfuil a shuidheamh caothúil agus comhngarach, go bhfuil neart foirgintí ann nách gá a dheisiú agus gurb uiriste é mhéadú no cur leis. De bhárr atharuithe a dineadh air le déanaí tá sé nách mór ullamh ar fad chun dul isteach ann go luath agus ba beag le rá an costas agus an mhoill a bhainfadh le tuille oiriúnuithe dhéanamh air i gcomórtas leis an moill agus leis an gcostas a leanfadh as glaca le haon tairisgintí eile ab fhiú machtnamh ortha dar leis an gCoiste. Staonaid óna mhola a thárla ná fuil aon árus eile ceaptha i gcóir na gCúirt fós ach bíodh go dtuigid go dian-mhaith an cheataí a bhainfadh go cinnte leis na Cúirteanna d'aistriú go hárus sealadach éigin eile isé a dtuairim gur ceataí í sin 'na mbeadh lucht na dlí agus an phuiblíocht ullamh agus 'nar chóir dóibh bheith ullamh ar í fhulang, d'fhonn leasa an Stáit, dá bhfaghdís geallúint ón Rialtas go dtosnófí go luath ar na Ceithre Cúirteanna d'athnuachaint. |
5. In the event of this recommendation being rejected, Dublin Castle is the only location that the Joint Committee can suggest as a suitable alternative. It has, in its favour, convenience of situation and access, ample buildings in excellent repair and capacity for extension. Recent alterations have made it practically available for early occupation so that the expense and delay involved in any further adaptation would be small in comparison with that resulting from the selection of any of the competing proposals which in the opinion of the Committee were worthy of consideration. It refrains from recommending it so long as the question of alternative accommodation for the Courts remains unsettled, but the Committee, while fully alive to the inconvenience that would necessarily result from the transference of the Courts to some other temporary habitation, is of opinion that this is a consequence which the legal profession and the public, would and should, in the interest of the State, be prepared to endure, provided they received an assurance from the Government that the restoration of the Four Courts would be undertaken at an early date. |
|
(Sighnithe), |
|
|
GLENAVY, Cathaoirleach an Choiste. |
|
|
BRYAN COOPER. |
TOMÁS DE NÓGLA. |
|
DONNCHA O GUAIRE. |
MICHAEL O'DEA. |
|
PEADAR O hAODHA. |
JOHN T. O'FARRELL. |
|
ANDREW JAMESON. |
SIOBHÁN BEAN AN PHAORAIGH. |
|
LIAM MAG AONGHUSA. |
|
|
5 Meitheamh, 1924. |
Paragraph 5 of the Joint Committee puts forward an alternative suggestion. Could we learn from the Minister whether that suggestion is being considered, and if so, what are the views of the Government on the question? The alternative in paragraph 5 was the accommodation at the Castle.
The alternative set out in paragraph 5 was considered by the Executive Council, and the fact that weighed most in its rejection was that it would involve two removes, the removal of the Oireachtas, and possibly also the removal of the Government offices to the Castle; and the removal from the Castle of the Courts to some other habitation. There was also the difficulty of ascertaining what that other habitation might be. Kilmainham was discussed as possible, and it should be unnecessary to stress to the Dáil the extreme unsuitability of Kilmainham as a site for the Courts. There is a constant stream of traffic from solicitors in other offices to the Courts from morning until evening. If the Courts were situated so far from the city as Kilmainham I think there would be a good deal of complaint and dissatisfaction.
Weighing up the thing, there were just these two factors, the very considerable expense which two definite removals would occasion, and the extreme inconvenience to the public and to solicitors, barristers, and so on, if the Courts were removed from the Castle so far out from the centre of the city as Kilmainham.
I do not think that Kilmainham was amongst the alternatives mentioned by the Committee. What we were anxious to know about was the Castle.
I was mentioning Kilmainham as a possible alternative for the Courts. If we put the Courts out of the Castle, we have to place them somewhere, and the only alternative that seemed really available for them was Kilmainham.
I am not quite so sure that that is the only alternative to the Castle. It is one alternative. Possibly the Minister might bear in mind the other alternative, to restore them to their original habitation, which, possibly, many members of that profession and, I think, a considerable number of Deputies, would agree is a most suitable habitation for that particular profession. The Minister urges as an argument against the consideration of the Castle as a home for the Oireachtas that it involves two removals. I am afraid that any scheme will involve two removals, even the scheme that is before us at the moment. In the first place, it means removing a very old society from these premises and finding a habitation for that old society. Having done that, it means adapting these very unsuitable premises to our requirements, temporarily, and subsequently moving from these premises to whatever may be the future home of the Oireachtas. So that I am afraid the argument that the consideration of the Castle involves two removals is not a very weighty one. I am afraid that this matter, possibly owing to the many other claims on the time of the Executive Council, has not had that mature consideration that the subject deserves.
The proposal of the Executive Council means that we are to remain in these premises and eject, like the cuckoo, the original owners. To those two proposals I offer the strongest possible objection. The Dáil, I think, ought to be one of the last bodies to attempt to remove a fine old society like the R.D.S. from these buildings, in which it has done such excellent work for the country. These buildings are peculiarly adapted for the work of that society. To find other buildings that would be at all adapted to the work of that society would be a matter of very considerable difficulty. Having found those buildings, I am not sure that the work of that society, if it is taken from these premises, can ever be as well, or as successfully carried on as it has been in its association with these premises. As the proposition is to do an injury to a most useful organisation, that is the first reason why I oppose the proposal. The second reason is that while these premises are centrally and conveniently situated for Deputies the premises themselves are badly adapted and most unsuitable for the purposes and for the work of the Oireachtas. To all those who have length of stature, and have to sit in these seats for a number of hours, I am sure it is unnecessary for me to make any appeal. They have all felt the serious injury, the same as I have on a great many occasions, having sat here or tried to sit here comfortably for a number of hours on end.
That is not the only reason why I say that these premises are inconvenient. It is only to-day that a city man said to me: "When will something be done towards getting suitable premises for the Dáil? I happened to be in the Gallery for the last few days and I could not see from there. I could hear, but not being able to see the speakers I was unable to follow the proceedings." It is almost unnecessary to point out that this building we are in is so constructed that everybody can see the platform from which different lecturers have spoken in the past. If we are looking forward to continuing in occupation of this building for the next ten years, I am afraid we must consider, not alone the interests of the Deputies, but also to some extent the interests of the public, and large structural alterations will be necessary. I do not know, having made those structural alterations in this portion of the building, that it will be wholly suitable and I am quite satisfied that the other portions of the building are wholly unsuitable for the purpose of a home for the Oireachtas for a number of years.
For these reasons I would urge that we should not come to any hurried decision, because I am sure that the other alternatives have not had that consideration which a matter of this importance deserves. It is all very well to say that it is inconvenient to move, even suppose we should decide to move, from here to the Castle. The whole question, no matter from what point of view we look at it, has not to my mind had the consideration it deserves. Before we come to any decision on the question it ought to have that consideration.
I desire to congratulate the Minister for Justice upon the sane conclusion that the Government have come to in regard to the Castle. It is now some time since the Four Courts was destroyed. The Castle has been taken over, considerable alterations have been made, and considerable expense must have been incurred in bringing it to the condition which it is now in for the use, not only of members of the legal profession, but also of litigants. On that point, I would like particularly to draw Deputy Good's attention to the fact that the Castle is not to be regarded so much in the light of the habitation of the legal profession as the centre to which all parties have to go, whether they be litigants or professional people, to discharge these necessary functions.
I would desire to impress upon the Dáil the general satisfaction that has been felt, not only by both branches of the legal profession, but more especially by all classes of traders and litigants in the city of Dublin, at the central and suitable position of Dublin Castle for the Irish Law Courts. That is in regard to what is called the alternative. I submit that this proposal is not put forward seriously in the light of an alternative, but rather to show how difficult it is to obtain suitable premises for the accommodation of the Oireachtas outside of the proposed turning out of the Law Courts from Dublin Castle. The question seems to me to resolve itself into this: We have to find accommodation for the Oireachtas, and the problem is by no means an easy one. We have been going into it now for a considerable time, and I do not think it can be truly said that the conclusion arrived at has been a hurried one. It is some months since the question was brought up even in this Dáil, and it now resolves itself into the provision of accommodation for the Oireachtas. Where, I ask, are we to go? We find ourselves here, it is true, in the temporary possession of property that belongs to a most estimable society, but which, I ask, is the greater of the two evils? Should the Oireachtas be sent to a place like Kilmainham, or should the Royal Dublin Society be deprived temporarily of the occupation of these premises? That, I think, is the real issue before the Dáil. The question as to the unsuitability of these premises, such as Deputy Good described in regard to the benches not being to his satisfaction is, I think, a matter which might be easily provided for without costing a very large sum of money. I do say, in regard to the hardship that may be imposed on the Royal Dublin Society in depriving it of the use of these premises for the time being, that a far greater hardship would be imposed on the country as a whole if the Oireachtas were to be deprived of the most suitable available premises at the moment for its deliberations.
The Royal Dublin Society has done splendid work for the country in the past, but with all respect to Deputy Good the principal work of the Society was not confined to these premises. I submit that the principal work of the Society was done at Ballsbridge. In my opinion, if accomodation is found for the Society elsewhere, and I submit it is easier to find accommodation for the Oireachtas, I do not think that in the interests of the country the Society will have cause for very great complaint. It is suggested, and rightly so, that Royal Dublin Society should be compensated for their disturbance from these premises. With that I am in total accord, and furthermore I would submit that the amount to be expended on just and fair compensation to the Royal Dublin Society would be money far better spent than if a similar amount were expended upon the provision of temporary accommodation for the Oireachtas in such quarters as Kilmainham. Therefore, I heartily endorse the attitude and the decision of the Executive Council in this matter. I do not think that it has been a hurried decision. It took time to arrive at, and under all the circumstances, one must face facts and the circumstances of the case. I do not think a juster or a fairer decision could have been arrived at than that the Oireachtas should remain here in temporary possession of these premises, and that alternative accommodation, if possible, and I believe it is possible, be found for the Royal Dublin Society with fair and adequate compensation to that Society for temporary disturbances from these premises.
I, with most of the Deputies here, can approach the consideration of the recommendations made by the Executive Council without sharing to any extent in the anxiety that was so, eloquently expressed by Deputy Good. I, at any rate can, if nobody else can, understand that there is a reason from his point of view for endeavouring to bring us back to Dublin Castle as the site of the proposed permanent seat of the Government of this country. I think that Dublin Castle has many historical associations which would not commend it to us for that particular purpose.
That was not my recommendation. I only said it was one of the alternatives put forward in recommendation number 5.
Deputy Good has complained, and to a certain extent he is justified in making the complaint, as to the lack of proper accommodation in this Chamber. Many Deputies here, I am sure, know that the seating accommodation provided in the British House of Commons is altogether inadequate for the 640 members elected to that Parliament. I am sure that, if it desired, the British Parliament could provide the finest building of any government in any country in the world for the accommodation of its members, but as many Deputies here know, the Chamber in that Parliament, especially on nights when great Irish debates took place, was altogether inadequate to seat the 640 members elected to it. On nights when great debates took place, members could be seen standing around the Chamber with no place to sit down. When the British Empire, as it has been known—I do not know what it is known as now—has not been able to provide proper seating accommodation for its members, I do not see that there is any reason for any great complaint, for the time being at all events, that we have not been able to do better than they have done.
Surely we hope to be more progressive?
What about Paris?
Deputy Mulcahy anticipated what I was trying to convey. As far as I am concerned, this Report, if it means anything, means that we have given up for good the idea of ever going to Kilmainham, either as a temporary home or otherwise. The Minister for Justice made that quite clear. If the acceptance of paragraph 4 of the Report means that we have given up the idea of going to Kilmainham, either as a temporary or permanent home, then I am prepared to accept the recommendation of the Executive Council. I hope the Minister will make it clear that as a result of the acceptance of the recommendation of the Executive Council, it will be up to the Dáil or the Executive Council to select a committee whose duty it will be to immediately proceed with the work of finding a permanent home for the Oireachtas. If we are to cause the least amount of inconvenience, and I trust it is accepted that we should, to the people who are the owners of this building, then I say it is up to the Executive Council and the Dáil to decide here and now as the result of the acceptance of paragraph 4, to select a committee whose duty it will be to proceed immediately to find a permanent home for the Oireachtas, and one that will not have the associations which Dublin Castle has had with the Government of this country in the past.
I regret very much that I was detained and prevented from hearing the Government's statement on this matter. I did not think it would be on so early. I understand that there was a proposal from the Government that paragraph 4 as it stands in the Report should be adopted.
I will read the motion for the Deputy:—"That the Dáil agree with the Joint Committee on the temporary accommodation of the Oireachtas in its Second Report, and is of opinion that immediate steps should be taken to give effect to the recommendations contained in paragraph 4 thereof."
I regret to see that motion put forward on behalf of the Government. The President, when speaking on this matter last, drew attention in a very emphatic way to the pledges given by the Government and their predecessors at the time they took over the occupation of these buildings. I think he took an exceedingly proper attitude in the remarks which he made on that occasion, and that there was an urgent necessity for the Government to take every possible measure they could, in order to secure that any such pledges should be carried out both in the letter and in the spirit. When I read this report and studied it I came to the conclusion that the report should really not be taken as seriously as it was. It says two things which cannot, in my mind, be reconciled. One is, that this occupation should continue only for a short time, and the other that it should be done only in a temporary way until permanent accommodation can be provided. I cannot believe that that Committee or that this Dáil in considering the matter could look forward to any proper solution of permanent accommodation being provided in the immediate future. When that is provided I think every one of us hopes that it will be done on a scale which will be a credit to the country, and I think that everyone will also admit that our present financial position is not such as to hold out hope that in the immediate future that desirable result can be attained.
Personally, I take an optimistic view as to our ultimate position. I am not one of those who think that we shall be in the present state of affairs financially for a long time. I believe that when we recover from past events, as I think we shall recover, we shall find ourselves in a much more favourable position. But while I have that ultimate hope, and have it very strongly, I realise from a practical point of view that it will take appreciable time, and that it would be much better to go slowly and aim at the ultimate solution of permanent accommodation in a way which will be a credit to us. I do not think that the Committee in considering this matter could really have believed that in the next few years there was any possibility of getting that permanent accommodation and, therefore, that that aspiration on their part was contradictory to the proposal that we should take over these premises for a short time.
I am afraid that this motion means that the Government have receded from the attitude given expression to by the President when he last addressed the Dáil on this matter. I regret it very much, and I would have apprehension that that was, to a certain extent, encouraged by unfortunate words, words which probably mean a great deal more than they were intended to mean by the drafters of this Report. They refer to the position of the Royal Dublin Society as if it was entirely a question of amenities. "Amenities" is a good word, particularly if it is spelt correctly, but it does not happen to be in the Report. It is, however, by no means a suitable word to use in connection with the position of the Royal Dublin Society in this matter. I think a proper understanding of their position, and the work that they have done in the country, would make those who consider the matter carefully realise that there is a great deal more than that involved from the Society's point of view. They have been in the past, and I think there is every indication that they will be in the future, an institution of real benefit to the country. Those who have been engaged in that work know how much that work has been dependent on the co-operation of the different branches of the Society.
Even the agricultural work is indebted, to a large extent, to the support given to the agricultural members by every section of the Society. The very fact that they have at present the large Industries Hall, which takes a very prominent part in their work at Ballsbridge, is due to the action of one of the scientific members of the Society. I hope very strongly that the Dáil will realise that, inasmuch as we cannot believe that there is any prospect within, say, the next five, ten, or fifteen years, of getting a permanent place in which these Houses could meet with credit to themselves and to the country, they will not accept this proposition to stay here and take over these premises until that desirable solution is attained.
Deputy Redmond referred to this report and to the matter contained in paragraph 5 as not being meant seriously. I want to disabuse his mind as a member of the Committee, and tell him that it was meant seriously, and that from every point of view they considered that Dublin Castle, were it not for the fact that the law courts were established there, is a much more suitable site than any other.
Were it not for the fact that the law courts were established there.
Yes, and could be very easily removed out of it, and were it not, perhaps, that it might have been a little finesse that established them there. Now, I think that the Deputy, when talking on this Report, was more concerned with the comforts of the legal profession, and with the provision of these comforts, than for providing proper accommodation for the Oireachtas.
I expressly mentioned that I was not having regard to the legal profession, but, rather, to the wishes, convenience, desires and requirements of the general public, including traders and jurors.
I have heard what the Deputy said, and I believe as much of it as I think is right. I believe that the Deputy was more concerned about the legal profession, and I have no hesitation to say so.
I do not know if it is in order for a Deputy to say, in regard to what another Deputy has said, that he can take out of it what he thinks to be the truth. I would like a ruling on that matter.
We have recently been having quite a number of Deputies who state what they think that other Deputies think. It would be much better for Deputy Gorey to take what Deputy Redmond said instead of giving us his own views as to what Deputy Redmond thinks.
I will bow to your ruling in so far as——
Before Deputy Gorey proceeds he must agree with my ruling to the fullest possible extent.
I do not think that I meant it that way, and I agree with your ruling to the fullest extent. It must strike anybody that this theatre is very badly able to accommodate the numbers who attend here. This is not a full Dáil. We know that if things were right in the country almost as many more members should be here. I wonder what the position in these premises would be if we had a full Dáil. In coming to a decision we ought to come to a decision having regard to all the circumstances, having regard to the circumstance that within a very short time it may be necessary to provide accommodation for a full Dáil and not for part of the Dáil. Deputy Davin talks about the associations of Dublin Castle and what it stood for in the past. I am not concerned at all for what Dublin Castle stood for in the past. What does it stand for now? What did it stand for two or three years ago when General Collins took it over? It did not stand for the past. Dublin Castle stands for the present; it stands for victory; it stands for triumph. For us in Ireland it stands for what the fallen Bastile stood for to the French. I do not believe in any of this maudlin sentiment or in going back to the past. I believe in the present and in what has been accomplished; and the taking over of Dublin Castle stands as a monument of that accomplishment.
Deputies look at the reverse side of the picture, at the side turned to the wall. I prefer to look on the side turned towards me, and to the light of day at the moment; and I do not want to shut my eyes to the fact that whatever Dublin Castle was in the past it is to-day a monument of victory, and nobody can make it anything else. And when the Deputies consider this alternative they ought to get away from this maudlin sentiment and think of it as a serious proposition. Deputy Redmond congratulates the Executive Council on turning down Kilmainham. It is a very doubtful compliment. If Deputy Redmond congratulates anybody let him congratulate the Committee that turned down Kilmainham. It is the Committee who turned down Kilmainham. Another Committee may be appointed that may accept Kilmainham; but that Committee turned it down. I have yet to see very much sign that the Executive Council turned it down. That was not the feeling in this Dáil for the past twelve months. If there is any credit for the turning down at all Deputy Redmond had better get to the mark, and give credit to the people who did not turn it down.
I think that this proposition of the Minister ought to be approached with caution. I think that a little time ought to be taken to consider the matter. There is no need to rush about it. I do not propose a long adjournment of this matter but I propose an adjournment of, say, a few months to enable us to think the matter out and to enable us to try to approach it with fresh minds and not at a time when our minds are a little bit fogged.
I cannot agree with the Deputy who has last spoken in the suggestion that we had not considered this matter adequately, unless we are going to consider it and postpone it until our term in this Dáil is ended. We have been considering it now for at least six months. The Committee has sent in a Report; that Report has been referred back to them, and they have considered the entire matter again in all its bearings, and they have submitted another Report a couple of months ago. It has been hanging on ever since and now we are asked that it should be sent back again to the Committee to give it further consideration.
On a point of order, I did not suggest that this Report should be sent back to the Committee though Reports have been sent back. I think the Executive Council ought to be asked to re-consider the matter.
That is worse. The Executive Council did not come here without giving the matter due consideration, and if the responsible Minister comes here and states that they have considered the matter at the Executive Council, I think this Dáil should accept that statement. But if we are to direct the Executive Council as to when they are to make up their minds, or as to the time that is to be given to them to make up their minds, I think the sooner we get men more pliable in their place the better. So much for the postponement suggested by Deputy Gorey.
I want to approach the matter from the point of view of the inconvenience caused to the Royal Dublin Society. The Committee considered the inconvenience that will be caused to that Society, and we did know that a certain amount of inconvenience is bound to be caused to the Society. But when we put that inconvenience against the inconvenience to the elected representatives of the people in carrying out their duty to the nation we thought the inconvenience to the Society should be subordinate to that consideration, and it was for that reason that we came to the conclusion that the proper thing for this Government to do was to take over Leinster House and to make it suitable for our requirements for the time being. We all know that no matter what recommendation was made in regard to the taking over of any other premises or any other site, it would be a matter of years before that could be accomplished. The Committee had all these things before them; they had alternative sites and various propositions, including a proposition by Deputy Thrift, who came before the Committee and explained it. The Committee did not see fit to adopt Deputy Thrift's proposition. There was a proposition that the King's Inns should be taken over, but we found that if we did that we should have to put up additional accommodation of a temporary character to provide for the activities already there. These things would all cost fabulous sums of money, and they would only be in the nature of a temporary arrangement. If the Royal Dublin Society is compensated for any movement that they make out of this place for a time, I think that the Society can get on with the good work that they have been doing, and do it just as well elsewhere as they would do it in Leinster House. I know that they have done good work, and I hope that they will continue to do it as well in some other place as they have done it in Leinster House. Furthermore, there has been a good deal of talk about the Society's holding of Leinster House.
That is one of the things that has to be considered by this Dáil or by the Government because from the information I have at my disposal it is doubtful whether the Royal Dublin Society are the actual owners of Leinster House or not. Some years ago there was a discussion between the British Government and the Society and the matter was allowed to drop, and it remains in that way still. The Government of this country, through the Board of Works, are now maintaining Leinster House and doing all the repairs to it, and doing everything in connection with it. And that being so, I think myself that if the Government provide either accommodation in the shape of premises or money for disturbance, the Society cannot have very much to complain about. While the Committee wanted to do the right thing by the Society and while they did not want to put them to any inconvenience that was not necessary we could have come to no other conclusion than the conclusion we have come to in that report. I hope the Dáil will accept the report, and that we shall also proceed to put this House in order so that Deputy Good may not be in the plight in which he has been for the past six months, when he has hardly been able to stretch his legs in the proper manner. And as far as our friends in the gallery are concerned. I think an arrangement could be made, and if Deputy Good got the contract he would be able to effect improvements, so that visitors to the gallery would be able to see the Deputies when they speak. If these things were done we could get over a great many difficulties.
I would agree with what has been said by Deputy Hughes. It is absolutely necessary that the Dáil should come to a decision on this matter now. The House is going to adjourn in a week or so, and whatever arrangements will have to be made will have to be made during the Recess. Any alterations that are to be carried out here, if the Dáil decides to stay here, will have to be carried out in that time. There is no use in saying, as Deputy Gorey said, that the matter can be adjourned for a few months. With regard to all that has been said about the inconvenience that will be caused to the Royal Dublin Society, I take it that every member of the Dáil realises that a certain amount of inconvenience will be caused. I am quite sure the Committee took all that into consideration on the several occasions on which they met. I would also like to say, for the information of some of the members, who apparently do not seem to realise it that there were some members on the Committee who presented this Report who were also members of the Royal Dublin Society. I am sure they would be very anxious to safeguard, as far as possible, the interests of the Society. I think this matter should not be put back any further, that it should be decided here and now. I think when we take into consideration that this matter has been going on for the last twelve months or a year and a half nobody can suggest for a moment that it is being rushed.
I only really rise to refute Deputy Thrift's suggestion that the Committee were ignorant either of the work of the Royal Dublin Society, or that they did not attach sufficient value to it. As Deputy Morrissey stated, at least three members of the Committee were also members of the Royal Dublin Society. I think Deputy Magennis is a member, Senator Jameson is a member, and I have been a member for fifteen years. I take this opportunity of saying that, because I was misreported on the last occasion on which I spoke on this subject. I am a life member, and I have a great knowledge of, and a great respect for the work done by the Society. We have had a deputation from the Society, and we went into the matter very carefully with them. As Deputy Hughes said, it is not quite clear what the rights of the Society are in regard to this building. Certainly their tenure falls short of absolute ownership. I never heard of an absolute ownership in a building the repairs of which were done by a Government Department. In 1877, when the Society's Museum and Library were taken over for the State, they got £10,000 as compensation, and £25,000 to provide themselves with premises at Ballsbridge. That is £35,000. This building cost them £20,000. As one of the conditions for this transfer the Society retains sufficient accommodation for its functions in Science and Agriculture. That is what the Royal Dublin Society has an absolute right to, sufficient accommodation for its functions in Science and Agriculture. What it is asking to retain is also sufficient accommodation for its social amenities. Being a member I went across to the part that is occupied by the Society this morning. I found it rather crowded. There were twelve people there, which is more than usual. With one exception, all the members who were there were either reading the daily papers or the lighter illustrated papers. There was one gentleman who was reading "The Economist." He may, perhaps, be able to say that he was exercising functions in science.
Did the Deputy say "The Communist"?
"The Economist." He was possibly engaged in the functions of science; the rest were engaged in the functions we all perform every morning, of reading a daily paper, without considering that we are contributing to the nation's stock of either scientific or agricultural knowledge to any considerable extent. The title of the Royal Dublin Society is not an absolutely unimpeachable one. But they should be respected, because they have occupied these premises for many years. This will inflict a certain loss of membership. Therefore, I hold they are entitled to be treated not only fairly, but generously. That, I think, is the general view of the Committee, and I believe it is the general view of the Dáil. I would further say that this is a thing that I do not think anybody on the Committee will put forward as an ideal solution. There is no Parliament in the world perfectly housed. This is certainly not a perfect Parliamentary House, but I think improvements can be and should be made. I think that the fears of Deputy Gorey that we would be crowded out are not well founded. At Westminster they have seating accommodation for 420, and they have over 600 members.
A DEPUTY
More.
They have lost some of their prominent figures.
A DEPUTY
Including yourself.
That is what I was thinking of. We have 150, or, I should say, if the best comes to the best, we shall have 150 Deputies, and there is seating accommodation for at least 200 members. I think we have accommodation for any reasonable number of Deputies that are likely to come here. It is not proven that we shall be crowded. Probably if we remove the Seanad from the Museum—their unnatural environment—we shall be still fairly crowded. When one considers all the inconvenience of changing, packing up files and transferring offices and everything of that kind, we shall do very much better to accept the Government motion and stay where we are.
It would be interesting to know if any Estimate has been made of the space available in the Royal Dublin Society's premises, an estimate of the space that will be required when it becomes really the seat of the Oireachtas, or has the Committee, simply from a love of their vocation, arrived at the conclusion that the place should be carried on, making no estimate of the space available, or the space required?
I think I might answer that question. They have inspected the place and they had certain plans before them. We are satisfied that plenty of space can be provided.
For committee rooms, libraries and everything?
We will give the Deputy as much room as he requires.
Is it allowable to ask Deputy Cooper, as a member of the Committee, a question?
Yes.
I wanted to ask him how he reconciled the proposal to put the Royal Dublin Society entirely out of these premises, with his quotation of their rights to science and agriculture in these premises.
These rights were established in 1877. There were many rights that existed in 1877 that have vanished since. Deputy Thrift knows very well that in 1877 a landlord could charge unrestricted rent for any agricultural land he held. The flux of time and the necessity of the situation naturally affect rights.
That is, denies rights.
Motion put, and declared carried.
Ordered: That a Message be sent to the Seanad accordingly.
I wish to raise a point——
I would remind Deputy Davin that when I am putting a question it is too late to make any observation.
I only intended to ask a question.
A question is an observation.
Is it in order for me now to ask the question?
It is not.
There was a proposal made some time ago that if and when the decision had been taken that the Dáil should occupy these premises, the question of arrangement might be referred to the Committee on Privileges—that is, with regard to the rearrangement of this Chamber and so forth. Is that proposal likely to be adopted?
It would not be referred to the Committee on Privileges. It might be referred to the House Committee. I do not know what the intentions of the Executive Council are in that regard, but the Deputy can raise the question to-morrow.