I move:—
|
Go ndeontar suim nách mó ná £68,000 in íoc an mhuirir a bheidh le n'íoc i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1925, ar son Deontas i gCabhair do Chumann Ríoga Bhaile Atha Cliath mar gheall ar Thigh Laighean do bheith ar seilbh ag an Oireachtas. |
That a sum not exceeding £68,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1925, for a grant in aid to the Royal Dublin Society in respect of the occupation of Leinster House by the Oireachtas. |
Deputies will remember that following a report of a committee it was decided that for the present, at any rate, the Dáil should remain, that the Seanad should be accommodated in Leinster House and that the whole premises should be taken over. After that there followed negotiations with the Royal Dublin Society with a view to finding them accommodation in temporary premises. Certain premises were inspected by representatives of the Society. The result, however, of their inspections was that they put it to us that they could not find any suitable premises that they could occupy temporarily; that the prospects of the Society and its membership would be very seriously injured if it were put in some unsuitable temporary premises for a considerable period, perhaps a period of ten years, and that it was necessary that they should at once accommodate themselves in a permanent way; that whatever the intentions of the Government were with regard to the occupation of Leinster House, it was necessary that the Royal Dublin Society should not spend, say, seven or ten years in temporary premises, but that it should have permanent suitable accommodation as soon as possible.
We felt that that attitude was reasonable, that we could not ask them to go into a house which they said was unsuitable in, say, Merrion Square, and stay for an indefinite period, with a loss to their members of the amenities which they would have in suitable premises, a loss to the Society of its members, and the weakening through that of the whole fabric of the Society and a decrease in its usefulness. It became a question, therefore, of giving them compensation for their ejection from Leinster House, and we, after a considerable amount of negotiation, agreed to a sum of £68,000. That sum is one which I think is fair to the Society. It is fair to the Society especially in view of the fact that they have determined to concentrate all their branches at Ballsbridge, and consequently it is probable that they will not have to build there as much as they would have had if they had chosen a site in town.
My own view is that if the Society had chosen to remain in this neighbourhood and had chosen to build, say, on the site of Maple's Hotel, we would not have been able to agree with them on a sum as low as £68,000. That sum may seem fairly considerable to Deputies, but there are factors to be taken into account, which may not be generally known, because in addition to having possession of this building, the Government had to pay for this building in the last year a sum of £832 for rates. If you take 20 years' purchase of that, it would be over £16,000. Of course, it may be assumed that rates will come down somewhat, but in any case the fact that the Government paid £832 rates on the premises was a very considerable advantage to the Royal Dublin Society.
In addition, the Government spent approximately £300 a year on the upkeep of these premises. I do not think that will go down anything appreciably. That certainly may be taken as worth £6,000, so that between these two items alone the Society was entitled to something from £20,000 to £22,000. It was estimated that to erect a building, giving them the accommodation they had here, and to be a building of somewhat superior construction, as they would be entitled to, in view of the premises they were being put out of, would cost about £54,000. Then the Society, if we had been dealing with the matter item by item, or going before some sort of arbitrator in the matter, would have been certainly entitled to something for the occupation of portion of its premises during the last couple of years. There is no doubt our occupation of portion of these premises involved the Society in actual expenditure and by inconveniencing members and by causing certain amenities to be restricted, did lose the Society actual membership. I do not know what would be a fair sum to fix for compensation to the Society for our occupation of the premises during these two years.
The Society, in a claim, put in a large sum, a sum which I think could be shown not to be accurate, but on the other hand, if one were to say £2,000 per annum, it is a figure which would not be widely wrong. It might be fairer to say £1,500 per annum, but in any case there is an item there of £3,000 or £4,000. If we were to add together the price of building new premises of the same extent as those we were putting the Society out of, that would be £54,000. If we were to take the full value, the rates and upkeep of 20 years' purchase, that is £56,000, you would have £22,000—that is £75,000 altogether. A claim could be made of three or four thousand pounds for damage to the Society during the last two years, say, in all, £79,000 or £80,000. On the other hand, that is susceptible of certain reductions. I think the Society going to Ballsbridge would be able to pay for itself well with the sum of £68,000. I believe from investigations I made and from inquiries addressed to the Valuation Office that perhaps it might be able to get certain exemptions for part of its premises, devoted strictly to scientific work. There was no exemption in respect of those premises here although certain parts were devoted to scientific work. It might get a certain reduction in valuation. The rates will be down a bit and the Society, having its premises all together, will save something by concentration, and I feel that the sum we offer, and which they, with some reluctance, accepted, will compensate them fairly well. On the other hand, I think it is a good bargain from the Government's point of view. I believe if we had gone to arbitration in the matter, and if that claim had been discussed item by item and a value fixed on each item we would not have got off with £68,000.
