I would like to say a word in connection with this, merely as a promise, or a threat, for the Report Stage. I want to have an amendment introduced. In the definite statement that we have put down in Section 3, sub-section (1) there may be the following danger: You will remember that the Bill has two main purposes, one to enable the Commissioners to make leases, or to grant licences, and the other to allow the Commissioners to make bye-laws for the proper management of the Park— for the preservation of order. The intention in sub-section (1) is that places like the Chief Secretary's Lodge, the Under-Secretary's Lodge, and these enclosed spaces, would remain as they were. Again and again, certainly this year, and last year more definitely, the question of the disposal of these lodges came up, and I fear that in the Bill as it stands it might not be possible to lease, say, to a private individual these houses.
DAIL IN COMMITTEE. - PHOENIX PARK BILL, 1925—THIRD STAGE.
Would that not come up on Section 4?
No. I will explain it in a moment. It is quite true that under Section 4 we have power to make leases, but all these leases are revokable. What I would propose on the Report Stage to do would be to introduce an amendment to the effect that any powers that the Minister has under the State Lands Act would not be impaired by the Bill, so that if he thinks fit the Commissioners might make a lease, say, of the Under-Secretary's Lodge to a private individual, that lease, of course, being put on the Table of the Oireachtas. That is simply the intention I have, and I think it well to give the House warning.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will consider the desirability of being a little specific regarding any amendment he proposes to make. If he is thinking of the lodges I think it would be easy, and quite in conformity with usage, to specify these places. We know how easy it is, even under the provisions of the State Lands Act, to specify in a report laid upon the Table that certain contracts be made, but nobody notices them because the procedure is a very formal one, and it takes a lynx eye to detect anything that might happen. I think we ought to avoid the possibility that some future Minister, for instance, some Deputy from the Farmers' Benches or these Benches, or the Independent Benches who happened to be in the place of the Parliamentary Secretary, might want to dispose, or try to dispose, of certain sections of the Park, and get it through the Dáil under the provisions of the State Lands Act. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that he should specify the two or three places that he has in mind which he may want to except from the provisions of this sub-section.
I will consider that, certainly, before the amendment comes on. But I fear that even if it were of the general character that I propose this sub-section (1) would be quite as fit.
Oh, yes, sub-section (1) does in a general way speak of some purposes, purposes for which they have hitherto been used. That section would not allow you to sell the Nine Acres, for instance, but under the State Lands Act you might, and nobody would notice it.
I will consider that point.
I wonder would there be any difficulty about putting forward a proposal such as has been put forward on various occasions in connection with the Park, as to the formation of golf links under this Bill?
took the Chair.
I move, on behalf of Deputy Duggan, the following amendment:—
In sub-section (1), page 2, line 46, after the word "Minister" to insert the words "and to the provisions of this section."
It is merely to correct an omission in the drafting of the Bill.
I think there is a desire from all parts of the House that there should be such a condition in the section. This is almost a consequential amendment, if I might make a kind of half-bull.
I move:—
In sub-section (1), page 2, line 46, after the word "Minister" to insert the words "and of the Oireachtas."
My brain is still rather reeling with trying to understand how the first amendment can be consequential to nothing antecedent. I observed that on the Second Reading the discussion mainly concerned itself with the closing temporarily of certain parts of the Park and the charging for admission. That is covered by the sub-section, but very much more is covered. This sub-section gives the Commissioners of Public Works, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, power to close part of the Park permanently, as I read it. It must be read with regard to sub-section (3):
"Every licence heretofore granted by the Commissioners for the exclusive occupation of any portion of the Park and in force at the passing of this Act, shall continue in force."
This is a licence for exclusive occupation in the way of a licence to build the Chief Secretary's Lodge, the Under-Secretary's Lodge, and so on. I think this sub-section:—
"The Commissioners may, subject to the consent of the Minister, grant to any person a licence authorising such person to fence-off and have the exclusive occupation of any portion of the Park for any particular purpose, and to exclude the public from the portion of the Park to which such licence relates, and to admit the public to such portion——."
That is to say "to admit the public on payment of such fee," but they might charge a prohibitive fee. I think this sub-section, read into this whole section, might give power to build more lodges in the Park. I am not in the least frightened of that nor that the Commissioners of Public Works will make improper use of the powers granted in the section to give licences to build houses in the Park to any private individual. What I am frightened about is the pressure of other Government Departments. The Ministry of Local Government may have a scheme for housing in Cabra and may come to the conclusion that their scheme may be more complete and effectual if they could take a small portion of the Park. They might say: "There is a portion of the Park; no one uses it; it is of little value and it would be of great value to our scheme." If the Hibernian School is again occupied by the troops, the Minister for Defence may decide to have a miniature rifle range and warn people off for that purpose. Gradually Department after Department would encroach on the space in the Park and the area available for the public would become smaller and smaller. I suggest that if anyone, whether a private individual or a Government Department, wishes to obtain the exclusive occupation of any portion of the Park for any serious length of time, that matter should be submitted to the judgment of the Oireachtas, preferably I think by Resolution. I do not think you should put a Bill through all its Stages in both Houses. A Resolution of each House ought to be sufficient. That was my intention in drafting this amendment.
I say the parallel to the State Lands Act which Deputy Johnson made is not sufficient. The procedure adopted by the State Lands Act, which is more or less the procedure adopted in Amendment No. 3, is inadequate. The bulk of the lands covered by the State Lands Act were lands which would normally be let, coastguards' cottages and things of that kind, which it was right and proper to let. The normal procedure with regard to the Phoenix Park is not that it should be let or leased or given for exclusive occupation. That should be abnormal procedure requiring the consent of the Oireachtas. I do not know if the form of words I propose entirely covers the situation. If the Minister tells me that, on Report, he will insert some proviso preventing the granting or exclusive occupation of the Phoenix Park for any longer period than, say, two or three years, such a period as would make it impossible for people to build, then I shall be quite satisfied to withdraw my amendment, but I think there is a certain danger under the Bill, as drafted, and that danger ought to be met.
Take the example Deputy Bryan Cooper mentioned, that is the building of cottages under the pressure, say, of the Ministry of Local Government. I do not think that can happen under the general terms of this Bill. They are too narrow; I do not think we have any power to do that. It would be actually ruled out, I think, by Section 3, sub-section (1). So far as the meaning of the amendment is concerned, it would mean that we should have to proceed by legislation, and so far as the other point is concerned, namely, that we should proceed by resolution, that applies not merely to building, but also, for instance, to letting, say, for athletic purposes. This is a remark that applies, not merely to this amendment, but to some others. I doubt if it is proper in that particular instance, or in cases like that, that the House should solemnly pass a resolution and have it adopted on those particular lines. It is largely a matter rather of administration than of legislation. Also, so far as building is concerned, and a lease for building, I doubt if under the Bill we can give any satisfactory lease. Any lease we would give under this particular Bill is revocable at the will of the Minister. Though it does not quite fit in with all that Deputy Cooper requires, I should be quite willing that any leases or lettings should follow the procedure of the State Lands Act. For the moment that would seem reasonable enough to cover the particular cases. I see the force of the argument that the Phoenix Park is in a different position from Glen Imaal or the Collins Barracks or any property in the possession of the State down the country. It is not in a position to be let. Undoubtedly in the case of the Phoenix Park, letting would not be normal; it would be abnormal. What I feel is, if we bind the Commissioners too much to too many different ways of procedure for different instances, it would be possible for the Commissioners and the Minister to do what there is a general feeling ought to be done, for instance, in connection with the various grantings of athletic grounds for which the Phoenix Park would be a suitable place.
Will the Minister consider the question of bringing in on Report a provision dealing with building leases?
Certainly.
I do not think, even with a revocable clause, there would be quite an adequate safeguard. I fancy these leases were revocable in the past, yet the Viceregal Lodge could be built. If the Minister would frame —I appreciate that he has the advantage of having a draftsman—some form of words that would deal with this matter, I have no desire to hamper him unduly with regard to the letting of the Park, and, with the permission of the Dáil, I will withdraw the amendment.
I beg to move:—
To add at the end of sub-section (1), page 3, the words:—
"Provided that no licence issued under this section shall empower the holder of the licence to erect any fence or structure so as to preclude the public from viewing any games, entertainment or exhibition unless the draft of such licence shall have been laid before each House of the Oireachtas for ten days on which the House has sat after such draft was laid before it."
The fear I have is not so much the letting of buildings, though that is one that ought to be taken into account, as that pressure will be applied to allow certain portions of the Park to be enclosed for special purposes as against the recreation and enjoyment of the public. There is a growing propaganda in favour of the development of Ireland as a tourist resort, and there will be a growing propaganda in favour of utilising portions of the Park for special purposes, such as sport and recreation. If there is liberty given to Ministers to allow enclosures to be made by the fencing off of portions of the Park, they may some day be tempted and may fall to the temptation. I want to guard against that, if possible, and to provide that no licence will empower the erection of a fence without the definite sanction of the Oireachtas. I mean a fence that would preclude the public from viewing any game or entertainment. So far, all games, such as polo, football, cricket, etc., that are played in the Park, are played on specified grounds, and they are open to the public. I want that system to continue. I am not averse to setting apart portion of the Park for special purposes, or even erecting pavilions for athletic grounds, such as those for cricket and polo; but I want to preclude the possibility of any of those grounds being enclosed with a fence or barricade of any kind that would prevent a public view. Even to allow that for a short period, I think the specific saction of each House of the Oireachtas should be obtained. I believe the Parliamentary Secretary is clearly of the same view. I think he will agree there is no prohibition in the Bill, as it stands, against that possibility.
So far as the general paling off for a lengthy period of any portion of the Park is concerned, I do not think I would have any difficulty in accepting that part of Deputy Johnson's amendment. I would like to point out, however, a matter that we discussed on Second Reading. It may be necessary to carry out an entertainment of a certain type for a very limited period, say, three days. It may be necessary to charge a fee and raise money in that respect. In that way, if a licence is necessary for a limited period of time—three days, the same period as we have in the other amendment—permission could be given to the Commissioners to authorise, if they thought fit, the erection of a barricade that would obstruct the view. I think that would be only reasonable. So far as interference with the public view in the ordinary way is concerned, I fully agree with what Deputy Johnson has urged, and I would be willing to see if some steps could be taken to carry out the view expressed in his amendment. So far as any period extending over three days is concerned, I am quite ready to fall in with Deputy Johnson's view. I would ask the Deputy to consider the point further, seeing that we do take power to grant licences to people to charge fees in order to be able to carry on particular work. I think it is only reasonable that the Commissioners should have power to grant a really effective licence for the holding of a particular entertainment over a limited period. So far as all other sports are concerned, I quite agree that there should be no obstruction of the public view.
From the Parliamentary Secretary's point of view, I am afraid there is the possibility that there could be a licence covering three days a week for a period of ten weeks in the summer season.
No, no. I can make provision that such a thing shall not occur and that the licence shall only cover a certain length of time, once or twice a year. There is no intention to have three days added on to three days, so bringing about a permanent interference with the rights of the public.
I am rather anxious to make it possible for any place to be fenced-off and a charge made upon the public only in very exceptional circumstances, circumstances which would secure the approval of each House. A general national purpose might be better fulfilled by allowing such a procedure to take place. Only in such a case would I allow any such thing. I want to make it difficult, therefore, and I want to make it possible to grant a licence only when the project would be such as would have the support of the Oireachtas. Unless there is some provision of the kind I have suggested, the temptation will be great and the pressure from all kinds of parties who want to raise funds for charitable purposes will also be great. I have not the slightest doubt that the pressure would be very hard to withstand unless there is a legal stop to which the Minister can refer, saying: "I would be very glad to do it myself, but the law prevents me." The Minister should favourably consider a provision of this kind which would prevent the fencing-off of any portion of the Park except on very special occasions which would command the general assent that would be shown by the approval of both Houses.
There is a possibility that the Oireachtas might not be in session when the suggestion might come forward for fencing-in portion of the Park in the manner indicated. We might not be able to fit in or apply this particular provision which is similar to the State Lands Act provision. Therefore this would be an exception. That is the reason I suggest we should be given power to permit this once in the twelve months at the very most. We could limit ourselves in that way even in the Bill. I quite agree that it is not a power that should be often used or that it is not a power that we should have power, so to speak, often to use. I quite fall in with the Deputy's views in that respect. They are my own views and I would be quite willing to consider whether a limitation of that kind could not be put into the Bill. An exceptional occasion may however, arise where a decision may be necessary, a decision on comparatively short notice when both Houses of the Oireachtas would not be sitting. I suggest in view of that that the Deputy might withdraw his amendment.
If the Parliamentary Secretary will consider some other form which will secure the purpose I have in view I should be very glad to meet him. It is only a safeguard to meet what is his own desire. I do not wish to press the amendment.
I beg to move:—
In page 3, before sub-section (3), to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
"The Commissioners shall not by any licence granted under this section in respect of any period exceeding three days authorise fees to be charged for admission to any part of the Park unless either——
(a) the grant of such licence has been approved by resolution of each House of the Oireachtas; or
(b) the draft of such licence has been laid before each House of the Oireachtas and neither House has, within the next ten days on which the House has sat after such draft was laid before it, passed a resolution disapproving of the grant of the licence."
This lays down a provision in regard to a letting for a period of three days. If the period is more than three days the licence must be approved by a resolution of each House of the Oireachtas.
The amendment I put forward was on the same terms, minus paragraph (b), and it might be well to discuss both together. Paragraph (b) is subject to the criticism which I have already expressed, that the licence referred to may be laid on the Table, and simply by carelessness or laxity of interest or apathy, leave the power in the hands of the Commissioners. I think that it should be by positive approval. I think we ought not to use this form of laying papers on the Table more than is absolutely requisite for the conduct of the business. I think everybody will agree that unless we have a very much more alert House and a very much better organised information department, the procedure of allowing a draft of the licence to lie on the Table, and in the absence of any positive action on the part of either House it shall become operative is too risky. I think that that is risky because of the absence of this alert public opinion within this Dáil, and I would ask the Minister to agree that it requires positive assent, rather than absence of opposition before the licence should be issued.
There is another point in regard to this amendment which Deputy Johnson has not touched upon. That is that there is no provision as regards laying the licence on the Table in this amendment for any statement as to fees to be charged. I think if it is necessary to move a resolution we should find out—when the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary issues a licence, I presume they would make some stipulation as to the fees to be charged—what stipulation has been made. That is a matter over which we should have some control. If the Park is to be national property and not the property of the city, then the Oireachtas is the body that ought to have control as to the manner in which it is to be let. If the fees to be charged are considered exorbitant, by any section of citizens, the representatives of that section should have an opportunity of making and presenting their case. The point as to the Oireachtas not sitting is, at first sight, one of considerable weight, as is any point that comes from the Parliamentary Secretary, but in cases of this kind where sports meetings are organised, we must remember that they are organised a considerable time in advance. Anybody wishing to organise an athletic meeting or sports meeting, motor races or anything of that kind, starts organising these fixtures six months beforehand.
I do feel very keenly that we must control this question of letting public property in the Park and that it is not enough to leave the whole discretion to the Minister for Finance and the Board of Works. In that case our only opportunity of challenging a letting would be either by resolution, which it might not be possible to bring on in private Deputies' time, or on the Estimates. It might well happen that very nearly a year would elapse and the whole thing would be dead and gone before the Estimates of the Minister for Finance came up for discussion. I suggest that when it is intended to let the property of the State and the property of the citizens and to charge fees for admission to it, that the definite consent should be sought of each House before such an action is taken.
So far as the licence is concerned, when it is put on the Table of the House, the draft licence will show the fees to be charged. On the other point, whether it is to be a positive act on the part of the House, from the point of view of the ordinary conduct of the House, I doubt if it is desirable that a matter of this kind should be brought on for special sanction. Any proposed letting of the Park could scarcely slip through. When any Deputies from the City of Dublin intend to object to the issuing of such licences, it would be possible for them to challenge them. It seems to me, as far as that is concerned, that the proceedings of the State Lands Act is more compatible with the dignity of the House in regard to a proposal of this kind, than that we should enter into what would practically amount to a curtailed system of legislation for each particular act.
I rather object to giving the Board of Works a free hand in this matter. I think the basic principle in connection with the Park is that it does not lend itself to this fencing in and excluding the public from any particular part of it. The question of erecting a barrier which would be effective would be a very expensive proposition. It would need to be a very special form of entertainment, and I do not know that the cost could be covered by the receipts at a meeting lasting for three or four days. I think that we could not depart from the general principle, that the Park in all its area is open to the public without running the risk of allowing things to creep in to the conditions of letting, that would afterwards be found objectionable. I am merely speaking of cases that would justify the payment of a sum that would really and effectively shut out the public. I think that the Board of Works ought to press for such powers in that matter.
I have a good deal of sympathy with the view expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary, that special sanction to deal in a matter of this kind is more in the region of legislation than in the function of the legislature. But in the resolution, paragraph (a) specifies for the approval by resolution of each House as one alternative.
It makes it compulsory.
So, if there is any meaning intended there, the Parliamentary Secretary's criticism of the amendment put forward in my name does not follow. It is part of his own proposition, and it is only made because we are departing from what is the general view expressed by Deputy Hewat just now, that there should be no departure made from freedom in this matter; that there should be no fencing-off and a charge for admission. There has been the acceptance of the proposition that there may be occasions when such power should be in the hands of the Ministry without special enactment, but we are very anxious, every one of us, that those occasions should be few, and that they should not be used freely. We want to put on some kind of a curb, and we really want to give power to the Minister to be able to stand up to the demands from sections of the public. The latter proposition, that is, the proposition contained in paragraph (b) strikes me in this way: The proposal is made, say, to hold a garden party, a motor race, or an aeroplane parade in October. A licence is arranged and prepared and laid on the Table of the House in July, but it does not become operative until ten days have elapsed during which the House shall have been sitting. True, but when the public is interested in the matter in July, it has concurred more or less that such a thing should take place. By the time the House begins to sit, a paper is simply put on a file in the Reading Room for Deputies? Unless it is someone's duty specially to watch these files, the licence is passed, no action is taken, and the matter becomes a mere formality at the Minister's discretion. While I disagree with the general proposition that the House is to be responsible for administration, I think there are circumstances, and this is one of them, when there should be specific resolutions in the matter of a departure from the general will of the House in regard to the letting of the Phoenix Park for fees or the closing of it. When there is a departure from that general will on special occasions, it should be, I think, by the specific resolution of each House of the Oireachtas.
I feel that the formal method of laying these licences on the Table of the House, while it would be satisfactory, if the Dáil had been an institution with a couple of generations of life behind it, and was active in all its critical aspects, it might be quite satisfactory, but our experience is that it is not satisfactory in that particular aspect, and therefore I think there should be positive action on the part of each House of the Oireachtas before a licence of that kind becomes effective.
I think it will be admitted that it is only on the very rarest occasions that the Board of Works or the Minister would consider the question of letting the Park for a particular purpose. During our time it was only so let on probably one occasion. This is a very big proposition, the letting of the Park or the closing of it.
Or any portion of it.
Yes, any portion of it. Remembering that that power has been used so sparingly in the past, it will certainly not be used more generously by reason of the provision that is contained here. The very expenses referred to by Deputy Hewat, which appeared to him to work in one direction, should actually work in the other direction. The cost of putting up such fences would have to be borne almost entirely, if not entirely, by the persons getting the use of the Park, and that particular cost would be prohibitive. It is only where you want an immense space that would not be available in any other ground that the Park would be used. The bringing in of the Oireachtas to pass the necessary resolutions for a matter of this kind, does not, in my opinion, add to the dignity of either House. With regard to the laying of papers on the Table of the House, has anything occurred since that particular practice was introduced to warrant any suspicion with regard to getting things through without notice?
I would ask the President to bear in mind that we are not legislating for this year or for next year or for the next five years. We are legislating for perpetuity, and for a time when a different atmosphere may prevail here, and when there may be a Government in power with entirely different feelings in regard to these things.
I do not subscribe to that at all, not in the least bit. As long as I have known the City of Dublin—as Deputy Figgis would say, I think I have some right to speak on a matter of this sort, having been born in Dublin—I have observed that a most jealous care has been shown by the citizens in regard to the Phoenix Park, and an objection to any interference with its use. That was only as regards one section of the country, and it was because of its nearness to the city that the citizens were interested. Now, it is the property of the nation. Not alone Deputies, but people from all parts of the country would have an interest in seeing that this place was still kept open. I think it most unlikely that there would be any abuse whatever of the power that is sought in this measure. I think the case made by Deputy Hewat, that a special resolution should be passed by reason of the cost of the fences, is really a safeguard in the other direction. It could not be a small institution that would ask for the use of the Park. The trouble and the cost entailed, the cost of advertising and so on, would make it a proposition upon which public opinion could easily be consulted outside the passage of a resolution.
With regard to Deputy Johnson's point that we do not know what sort of a House we may have years hence, in answer to that I might say that you might have a puritanical Seanad which would object to any sort of sport. It might object to the utilisation of an institution like the Phoenix Park for any purpose other than a public purpose, while Deputies here might be unanimously in favour of giving its use for the purpose asked for.
That is true. I intended my argument to be used in this way, that if there were people willing to come forward and spend so much money on fencing-off the Park, that the object of their doing so would be very important and would be worthy of the consideration of the House.
In discussing this amendment, Deputy Hewat, I think, was getting back to the idea contained in an amendment dealt with earlier. I might point out to him that I doubt if this Bill is extending our powers very much. I think it is limiting our powers rather than extending them. Under the existing law, we could do the very thing which Deputy Hewat objects to. If we were simply to drop this Bill we have the powers that Deputy Hewat objects to.
We recognise your power.
We have legal power to do it. I am really trying to carry out, as far as reasonably possible, the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 3, so far as this question of letting is concerned. Under this Bill we are claiming powers that we have over the Park under the State Lands Act. In reality we are to a large extent limiting our particular powers. After all if there is something in what Deputy Johnson says about Deputies not watching papers laid upon the Table of the House it would be a stimulus and an education to them in their public duty to see that they do watch papers laid in the House so far as the City of Dublin is concerned.
There is one point Deputy Johnson made that appealed to me very strongly. I recognise that his particular form of the amendment is a protection that the Minister in charge, or the Secretary in charge, would desire to have as such. At least it would undoubtedly be an excellent argument when people came to him to be able to say that we had no power to do this. It is the easier way. Protection on that point is more easy to give by reason of the fact that this matter may be challenged in the House, and held up. I think, on the whole, that is a reasonable precaution enough. I think the responsibility should not be taken off the administrative side of the general government of this country and put on to what I may call the legislative side. So far as I am concerned, it will require a great deal of argument to make me consent to any interference with the rights of the Park. It would undoubtedly have to be a very big occasion that would allow of such a thing even being considered, to say nothing about its being granted. I think, on the whole, the idea proposed in Deputy Johnson's amendment would meet the general requirements of the case. Perhaps it might be better in all these matters to have one uniform method of procedure, and that might be preferable to adopting the Deputy's amendment. If agreeable to the House, I would make arrangements so that the provision in the State Lands Act should be applied and that we might have one uniform method of procedure.
I prefer to have the amendment as it stands and to have it specific in this proposed legislation.