Private Members' Business. - Electricity Supply (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 1963: Second Stage (Resumed). – Dáil Éireann (17th Dáil) – Wednesday, 11 Nov 1964

Private Members' Business. - Electricity Supply (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, 1963: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. Ryan

I dtosach báire, is dóigh liom gur cóir cúpla focal a rá as Gaeilge i dtaobh na ceiste seo chun a chur in iúl don Teach seo agus don Aire Leasa Shoisialaigh nach bhfuil na daoine atá i bhfábha shóbháil na dtithe seo i Sráid Mhic Liam i gcoinne aithbheochaint na Gaeilge.

I suppose I should have said “merci” to the Minister for Transport and Power, particularly when referring to remarks of the Minister for Social Welfare who loves to boast of the fact that he is a philistine. But it would appear that the Minister for Transport and Power would be most anxious to disown his colleague, the Minister for Local Government, in relation to the vandalism about to be wrought upon the houses in Fitzwilliam Street. I take it also that he may even during this discussion disown the Minister for Social Welfare and go on record as not wishing to be associated with the remarks of the Minister for Social Welfare who regards those who are in favour of maintaining, as an example to future generations, the skill of 18th century craftsmen in this country and who want to preserve the richness of Irish architecture as being enemies of things Irish and of the Irish language.

It seems to me an extraordinary degree of madness that a Minister of State is unable to justify the butchery of 18th century architecture on any other argument than that of damaging people by putting them in such company. That is the only explanation for the abuse of the Minister for Social Welfare. I have seen from the reports that the Minister for Local Government resorted again yesterday, in reply to a question by Deputy Byrne, to passing the national buck. He, in a manner reminiscent of Pontius Pilate, seems to wash his hands of all responsibility. That is the phrase I use advisedly, with a certain amount of reluctance, in view of the undue amount of unseemly accusations which have been thrown in public life over the past few months and which have been a matter of controversy elsewhere.

One cannot find any apt description for the behaviour of the Minister for Local Government in this House yesterday. He hastened to divest himself of all responsibility for the destruction of 18th century architecture in Fitzwilliam Street, Dublin. He castigated Deputy Byrne for even hinting at the possibility that he might have been even remotely blameworthy for the destruction of the 18th century architecture in Fitzwilliam Street. He endeavoured to throw all the blame on to the Dublin Corporation.

As I pointed out last night, Dublin Corporation were told by their legal advisers that they were powerless in the matter of granting general permission for rebuilding Lower Fitzwilliam Street, that they had no function in the matter at all, that it was a Ministerial function and that even the Manager had no option but to grant permission. Because of the condition of the buildings, it was a necessary prerequisite for the re-establishment of some buildings there to grant permission for re-development. In that situation, I think it is irresponsible, unfair and contemptible for the Minister for Local Government to come into this House and try to pass the blame on to the Dublin Corporation. As a matter of fact, in law, they were utterly powerless in the matter.

The Minister for Transport and Power resorted to the same disreputable tactic in the course of his remarks on this Bill. He said that the initial permission to rid Lower Fitzwilliam Street of these 16 houses from 18th century Dublin lay with the Dublin Corporation, although, again, he must know—certainly, if he does not know, he has been very badly advised—that Dublin Corporation were utterly powerless in the matter. The Minister said that Dublin Corporation could, in any event, have added a rider that if it were possible to do so, an 18th century facade should be preserved on the building. The Minister knows well that the ESB, even if the Corporation had power to do so, were under no obligation, good, bad or indifferent, to accept such a rider, if it were added. We have seen from their conduct that they never at any time had any real intention of preserving the buildings but rather they deliberately went about destroying them 20 or 30 years ago. It is suggested to Dáil Éireann and to the nation that if Dublin Corporation had pleaded with the ESB to maintain the Georgian facade they would have done so. That is a puerile argument and is in keeping with the futile remarks of the Minister for Social Welfare who endeavours to link up the opposition to the cultural revival of this nation with the efforts to maintain 18th century architectural excellence.

It is a pity that Deputy Dunne and others have sought to dovetail this issue into one relating to the provision of housing for the working people of Dublin. I do not think there is any connection. It may be with an eye on the gallery that Deputy Dunne said that. I do not think these houses are suitable for the type of people Deputy Dunne has in mind. Dublin Corporation have shown that they intended well. They did some work on Seán MacDermott Street and thereabouts, but these houses require to be well used if they are to look well. I think they have a residential purpose but it is not the residential purpose Deputy Dunne indicated to this House. Perhaps he had other residential purposes in mind. Certainly there is a sufficient demand in Dublin at the present time for flat accommodation to ensure that if these houses were put on the market as residential flats, they would be so used.

Mr. S. Dunne

Would that not take some of the pressure off the Corporation?

Mr. Ryan

I doubt very much that those who would take accommodation in Merrion Square would be on the Dublin Corporation's waiting list.

Mr. S. Dunne

The Deputy knows well there are people on that list who would pay practically anything for a flat.

Mr. Ryan

That may or may not be so. It would depend on whether or not the ESB would allow them in with children. That is the greatest barrier to getting housing accommodation at the present moment.

Mr. S. Dunne

There is no doubt the ESB are against children.

Mr. Ryan

I do not know whether they are against children as such. I cannot see any relevance to 18th century building in Dublin. The reason I regret this has been linked with the housing of the less fortunate among us is that it allows people to introduce all kinds of irrelevant arguments.

This is an argument based on cultural and aesthetic values and I do not think anybody gains anything by relating it to housing needs in Dublin or elsewhere at the present time. Deputy Cummins said that if our craftsmen, engineers and architects were given the opportunity they could design houses and housing accommodation for our people in the 20th century which would be a cause of pride to posterity just as our 18th century architecture is a source of pride to us. It seems valid for us to point out, in reply, that craftsmen have been given the opportunity, at the rate of 1,500 or 1,600 houses a year——

Acting Chairman (Mr. Cunningham)

It does not arise.

Mr. Ryan

It arises this way: the opportunity Deputy Cummins wants for our craftsmen and professional people has been withdrawn from them by the Government of which Deputy Cummins is an active supporter.

Acting Chairman

It does not arise.

Mr. Ryan

If arguments have been admitted—and they are on record— relating to the housing of the people of Dublin and if one of the arguments, which is on record, is that we should provide opportunities for the building of more houses, I believe it is entirely relevant to say——

Acting Chairman

It is out of order.

Mr. Ryan

With respect, I do not accept your ruling. My remarks are on record. I said at the beginning that what is wrong is that there are too many little people in big places who make their own rulings and try to suppress the wishes of the people. Apparently there is to be one law for vandalism—vandalism is to be respected because it is perpetrated by a semi-State body with the active connivance of the Government—but let anybody advance an argument against that vandalism and he is immediately ruled out of order. It seems to me to be entirely unworthy conduct and is symbolic of the moral illness from which we are suffering in this country and against which I should like to record my protest. The big noises in the ESB are laughing at the ineffectiveness of public representatives.

I congratulate Deputy S. Dunne on introducing this Bill. We all know at this moment that it is a futile protest —futile in so far as the preservation of Lower Fitzwilliam Street is concerned —but some day the people of Dublin and of Ireland will wake up to all the little dictators who are so anxious to quote chapter and verse and pass the buck from one to the other so long as they can prevent the will of the people being carried out. If that awakening is carried out we will all owe the mover of this Bill our best thanks.

I sincerely believe the sentiments expressed in the debate needed to be voiced so that at least it can be said of this day and age that there were those ready to protest even when the fight seemed to be hopeless. So long as there are people ready in this country to protest against the slumbers of a Boland, or the jibes of a Blaney or the indifference of a Childers there is some hope for the Irish people who, in another day and age, gave to Dublin something it is proud today to show the world.

Mr. Byrne

This debate has been so protracted that at this stage I do not propose to say more than a few words. Many arguments, sound and cogent, have been adduced in favour of Deputy S. Dunne's Bill, which I, of course, support. I merely wish to express that support. I feel it is incumbent on any Deputy who loves old Dublin to avail of this opportunity to record his protest against the vandalism of the ESB in razing these old houses which have been bequeathed to us by a gracious age, which have been admired by visitors to the country and which are an example of great beauty and a cause of great joy to many people.

The Minister has not at all succeeded in convincing me, or, indeed, any unbiased listener, that there is any need whatever for the action being taken by the ESB. It is a very sad reflection on all of us that this eventuality should occur. Bord Fáilte, the Arts Council and other influential and important bodies in our national life, have condemned the proposed action of the ESB. One is tempted to remind the Minister that Bord Fáilte is his charge. One is tempted to ask him if we are to have repeated in Lower Fitzwilliam Street the monstrosity constructed by Bord Fáilte on Baggot Street Bridge. Is that the sort of modern architecture Deputy Cummins described when he suggested that we must allow the present generation to give expression to modern Irish culture?

Is that the sort of monstrosity we want for Fitzwilliam Street? Is the Minister persisting in his expressed intention to turn the blind eye to this action? I do not believe the Minister has his heart in this proposal of the ESB. I have spoken outside the Chamber to Fianna Fáil backbenchers who feel like I do, like Deputies Ryan and S. Dunne do, on this matter. Indeed, it is a sad reflection on Irish democracy that the Government should see fit to impose a Whip on the backbenchers in relation to this Bill.

The simple fact is that if the houses in Lower Fitzwilliam Street are in poor condition it is because of the butchery of the ESB who have torn the guts out of them in the past. Those of us who have seen old cities in Britain and elsewhere realise that the Fitzwilliam Street houses are not beyond preserving. In other countries houses far more antiquated are being preserved for posterity. The Minister himself has spoken of the obligation to preserve the solid hard core of Georgian Dublin from which he excludes Fitzwilliam Street. Presumably he has in mind merely Merrion Square and no more. I am convinced that the Minister is being illogical in his approach. If the Fitzwilliam Street houses cannot be preserved then none of Georgian Dublin can be preserved and we can resign ourselves to razing it to the ground.

Mr. P.J. Burke

There were a lot of Georgian houses in Dominick Street that had to come down. While I appreciate the sentiments of the Deputies who introduced this Bill dealing with the preservation of the architectural beauty of our city, nevertheless we must be practical. Very few houses live for ever. There are no houses that can be kept standing permanently. There were cases in Dublin where dangerous buildings, Georgian houses, fell down and killed people. Sentiment may be all right but there must be a practical approach to matters of this kind. We may be conservative and anxious to preserve tradition. Most families, societies and nations cherish tradition but from a practical point of view it is impossible to preserve very old buildings.

Our modern architecture is very good and modern architects have even surpassed some of the old architects. For an example of beauty in architecture one has only to go to Lower Gardiner Street. Georgian houses were preserved in Gardiner Street at a cost of £1,000 per room to the ratepayers. They were let as tenement houses. The rooms are so large that it is very expensive for the unfortunate people who got them to keep them properly. The houses have a bad appearance. Opposite to them there is a block of modern flats. Any fair-minded person, no matter what his sentiments may be, comparing the Georgian houses and the modern flats would be compelled to vote for the modern structure having regard to its beauty and the comfort it represents for the occupants.

The ESB, a semi-State body, want to erect a modern structure. They have stated that a number of the rooms in Lower Fitzwilliam Street are falling down, that the houses are in a state of decay internally. It is necessary to be practical in matters of this kind. It is all very well to weep for the decay of Georgian architecture. We all pass away. Nations have passed away. Governments have passed away. There is a certain degree of physical decay taking place all the time. Even a tree will fall eventually. A beautiful tree may last for 300 years. People may have a sentimental regard for such a tree but nature has her own way of destroying it ultimately. The same applies to old buildings.

In a word, times change and we have to change with them. If one changes with the times one is not doing too badly. We must learn by experience. What was good enough one hundred years ago is not so good today. Great advances have been made in building, as can be seen by the modern buildings in this city.

Acting Chairman

The Deputy will have to confine himself to the buildngs mentioned in the Bill.

Mr. P.J. Burke

That is what I am trying to do. I am making comparison between old times and modern times. I am getting old myself and I am thinking of my younger days.

Mr. S. Dunne

Old friends.

Mr. P.J. Burke

Old friends.

Mr. Ryan

It is the weight and not the age which did the damage in Fitzwilliam Street.

Mr. P.J. Burke

I have no doubt that the two Deputies will do their best to keep these walls from falling but I do not know how they will manage to do it. They would have to work a miracle to put the clock back. If Deputy Dunne pulls his weight he may be able to put the clock back and by waving a magic wand keep these houses up.

Mr. S. Dunne

I hope I will never have to put a shoulder under Deputy Burke. I do not think I would be able for that.

Mr. P.J. Burke

That is as it may be. Finally, I want to say that I am far advanced on the march of time. I want to see good new buildings put up by modern architects. We cannot hold up old walls that are decaying. One cannot make a young fellow out of an old man. Some men, even in this House, when they are getting old think they are young. Even if they dye their hair and do other things to help them to look young, time catches up with them. The same applies to old buildings. I am all for modern architecture.

Mr. Ryan

The moral then is to shoot the old people?

Mr. P.J. Burke

Oh, no.

Mr. S. Dunne

Before my colleague, Deputy Burke, leaves, I want to express my regret that he has not joined with me so that the ESB could be put out where it should be, in County Dublin amongst our constituents, which might bring some of the money of which the ESB has control out to help the people in Santry, Blanchardstown, Lucan or Swords, who need such additions to the economy of their localities.

There has been a very interesting discussion and I want to thank the Deputies who contributed towards the consideration of my Bill. In having this matter openly debated here some service has been done to the cause of democracy in the first instance, to the principle that the Parliament of a nation is the supreme body in the nation, because for a long time people have been becoming apprehensive about this principle in this country and have been assuming that members of the Dáil accepted the situation wherein public officials or semi-public officials, full-time members of State boards or part-time members of State boards were the real policy-makers in the State, the real decision takers in the State, and that this situation was being allowed to develop without any voice of protest being raised in the Dáil against it.

We have had here over the past couple of weeks an exercise in protest and the effect it will have is a matter of conjecture. It would appear to be an irreversible progression that when any Government or semi-Government body takes a decision, no matter how wrong it is proven to be, it just goes ahead with it. Although the interest of the country and the interest of the citizens may be amply proven not to have been served by such a decision, the proposal invariably, in my experience, goes ahead, often to the detriment of the economy and to the detriment of all concerned.

I have not the slightest doubt that if these houses are demolished and replaced, within a few years people will walk down by the site and look at the gap in the prospect which extends from Holles Street right up along and say: "Who ever permitted that to happen? What authority was there when that line was broken and this modern construction put there in the middle?" People with some sensibility will ask themselves this question and, as times goes on, with the coming of enlightenment, with the development of appreciation of things aesthetic, more and more people will come to question this. Up to now many hundreds if not, indeed, thousands in the country and in the city, particularly, have questioned it and are questioning it and are asking, as I have asked my colleagues from the county, why do the ESB not go outside the city? Why are they insisting upon destroying an irreplaceable part of the Georgian era, the best Georgian houses in Dublin.

I have asked that question of many people but have had no answer from any source. The ESB have never said why they will not move out and no real reason has been given as to why this destruction should go on. The fact is that it is purely a matter of pride on the part of the ESB who want at all costs to get their way, to show that they are the bosses and that the people who were elected to this House by the citizens are of little consequence in matters of this kind which concern, I understand, expenditure in the region of £3 million.

I want to charge the ESB with conspiring to create a public impression that these houses are falling down from dry rot and decay. This is a gross distortion of the facts and is completely untrue. These houses have never been in the category of the houses in Dominick Street, Fenian Street, Summerhill, Gardiner Street or anywhere else in this city. The speakers who have referred to Dominick Street, notably Deputy Timmons and my colleague from County Dublin, do not advert to the fact that Dominick Street, Summerhill, and all these places I have mentioned, and many others as well, became slum tenements 100 years ago. They were neglected to the last possible degree.

There was absolutely nothing done with them in the nature of repairs by the slum landlords who owned them. They were occupied by, as I have said before, not scores or even hundreds of families but literally thousands of families, living one family to a room, many of them being average Irish families with a large number of children. Goodness knows, the children who had to live in such conditions did not get much of a chance in life because the housing conditions in the slum areas of Dublin, areas such as Dominick Street, Gardiner Street and Fenian Street, were comparable with the worst in the world, and the infant mortality in such conditions was one of the highest in the Europe of its day.

All these houses which are loosely called Georgian could not be compared in any way with the houses in Fitzwilliam Street or in the area adjoining Fitzwilliam Street. The Fitzwilliam Street houses, up to the time the ESB acquired them, could come under the heading of residential houses; in other words, they were occupied by a small number of families who were apparently of sufficient wealth to be able to maintain them in good condition so that they were not worn out, neglected and untended as the tenements were. There is no comparison. People have tried to make this defence for the ESB, that there was no outcry because the Corporation knocked down the houses in Dominick Street. The point was that the Corporation just got in ahead of time. The houses in Dominick Street would have fallen anyway just as they fell in Fenian Street. However, the Fitzwilliam Street houses show no signs of falling and, given proper attention, are perfectly capable of lasting for a considerable time.

Deputy Dockrell and I were invited on Friday morning last to see Georgian houses under reconstruction in this city. We went along and we saw an excellent job done not alone in one but in others. These Georgian houses I speak of which we visited and inspected are in an area which was not one of the worst slum areas but certainly a tenement area. We inquired of the builder and of the person who was developing the property what the cost was and we were told it was £4,000 to £4,500. Sir Albert Richardson, when he came over at the request, I think, of the Georgian Society to give us information on the Fitzwilliam Street houses, said they could be restored, in his view, at £6,000 per house. The ESB have said it would cost at least £17,000 per house and they were going to replace them at a cost considerably more than that.

What I want to underline is the fact that the various estimates so far err on the side of exaggeration, and that is the position even in relation to Sir Albert Richardson, though he was the person who produced the keenest figure of all. It has, in fact, been demonstrated to us that Georgian houses can be restored and put into a condition rendering them suitable for use as offices, as is the purpose in this instance, at a cost of from £4,000 to £4,500 per house.

The ESB, pursuing their destructive way, are not alone concerned to wipe out this piece of Georgiana but they do not seem to be concerned either with the impact that the cost of the proposed building will have upon the charges which have to be met by consumers. Compliments have been paid time and time again to the ESB in this House on their provision of a national service. The fact of the matter is the ESB has an absolute State monopoly. It has no competition of any kind. There are no standards against which the conduct of the ESB as a business organisation can be compared and a glance at their charges indicates that they are in many cases very, very high. Ordinary people who have to meet their accounts often find the greatest difficulty in doing so. People who live most carefully in order to meet their financial commitments, people who are guilty of no extravagance whatsoever, often have difficulty in meeting their ESB bills because the charges are so very, very high. On the other hand, the ESB are not one bit loth to send someone with a clippers to cut off supplies when the unfortunate consumer finds himself in the situation of not being able to pay his ESB bill.

If the ESB get away with the proposal to knock down these houses and build one of these modern cell blocks, for that is what they look like to me, these glass and concrete structures with about as much imagination as D Wing in Mountjoy, and almost equally depressing, what will the impact of the cost of that be upon the charges consumers will eventually have to pay, because, in the heel of the hunt, it is the consumers who will have to pay for all this? Whether or not they like the idea of Georgian houses being demolished, they will have to pay for their demolition.

Deputy Timmons referred to the late Sir Patrick Abercrombie at column 311 of the Official Report of 4th November. He said:

The late Sir Patrick Abercrombie, the well-known town planning expert, made it clear there was no alternative to the construction of a new building.

I am not disputing Deputy Timmons' quotation, but this is what Sir Patrick Abercrombie said in 1955 when he was, I understand, planning adviser to the Dublin Corporation.

At some stage in the not far distant future the entire street frontage must be reconstructed or rebuilt, and in his opinion it would be impossible to provide a new office building behind the existing frontages, based on his experience of the Adelphi Terrace, London.

It should be remembered that Sir Patrick expressed the same opinion about Carlton House Terrace, Regent's Park, etc., and the preservation of these and other notable streets in London has since been carried out, with modern offices and flats provided behind the old facade. In other words, like many others of his profession, Sir Patrick was fallible.

Deputy Timmons seemed to accept him as the ultimate authority upon architecture. The more I read of architecture the more forcibly it is borne in upon me that architects must be the most disunited body of professionals in existence. They quarrel about practically any and every proposition. There are many and varied views even on the question of the preservation of Georgian houses in Dubliln. On balance, so far as the layman can judge, it would appear that the best advice so far as Fitzwilliam Street is concerned came from Sir Albert Richardson, who seemed to me, looking at his qualifications and reading his history, and comparing that with the information available about others who were since consulted, the best authority upon whom to rely.

Mr. Childers

That is the Deputy's opinion.

Mr. S. Dunne

I am merely giving it as my opinion.

Mr. Childers

Other very eminent people thought differently.

Mr. R. Ryan

Such as the ESB directorate.

Mr. Childers

No. Sir John Summerson.

Mr. R. Ryan

The ESB put out a rumour that Sir Albert Richardson had had a heart attack. That was not true and the rumour was put out in malice.

Mr. M.E. Dockrell

Deputy Dunne prefaced his remarks by saying it was his opinion. That is the whole point of his statement.

Mr. Childers

I merely say opinions differ.

Mr. M.E. Dockrell

The Minister gives us another glimpse of the obvious.

Mr. S. Dunne

I am not decrying Sir John Summerson's qualifications at all. My information is that he is an architectural historian. He is not a practising architect. He is curator of the Soane Museum. Sir Albert Richardson is a professor of the Royal Academy. He is professor of Architecture in London University. He is an eminent historian and, very important in my view, a great lover of Dublin, a man who has been coming to Dublin and taking an interest in Dublin for over 60 years. Sir John Summerson came for just a two-day visit as a tripper. Sir Albert Richardson has been responsible for the preservation of some of the most important 18th century buildings in Britain, including city churches, Trinity House, the Assembly Rooms at Bath, as well as many modern buildings, such as the new offices of the Financial Times.

My opinion is that Sir Albert Richardson was easily the best authority to consult about the preservation of these houses. He said they could be preserved at a cost of £6,000 apiece. Sir John Summerson, on the other hand, did not give any opinion as to whether or not they could be preserved. He said they were not worth preserving; they were just one damn house after another. That was his view. He did not advert at all to the condition of the houses. He said they were not worth preserving. One can see in all this that the weight of expert opinion—if one can call it that—is undoubtedly on the side of the preservation of the houses.

It is too late now to inquire and so I shall make this statement—in November, 1963, the City Architect and Town Planning Officer of this city recommended that the existing facade should be maintained. Again in March of this year the view of the officials of the Corporation was that the facade should be preserved. Yet the ESB apparently are still pressing on with this decision to destroy, which is based, in the opinion of one eminent citizen and with which I agree, on the questionable taste of a solitary Englishman.

In the course of the Minister's contribution on this Bill, he expressed the fear that there was a grave danger that the core of Georgian Dublin is threatened—he did not say with destruction, but with disappearance. He suggested that if strong efforts were not made within the next 20 years, we might well see the end of the best of our squares. This is a good beginning in that direction. Others as well as myself have expressed the view that we feel the Minister is under pressure in this matter. No rational man with any susceptibilities at all could possibly agree to this proposal. I feel the Minister has been jockeyed by circumstances into a situation from which he cannot retreat.

So far as the Minister for Local Government is concerned, all I can say is that he has displayed the usual boorish attitude you often find exhibited towards Dublin by people who come from distant parts of the country. It was mentioned by the Minister that it was believed that these houses were jerrybuilt. I always thought that the expression "jerrybuilt" developed in the 1930's. How are we to determine that houses which were built 160 years ago were jerrybuilt? They were built in accordance with the crafts and trade practices of that time. I understand from architects and engineers that to apply that description to these houses is ridiculous, that these houses are amongst the best of their kind to be found in these islands.

The ESB made no effort to meet the suggestion of the Arts Council that the space behind a number of houses in Lower Mount Street be acquired and a new office block be erected on piers to provide parking space under ground, and that linked with the ESB block by bridges over East James' Street. Deputy Clinton's contribution seemed to me to amount to the fact that architects never agree and do not seem to be able to agree. Most of the opinions which have been expressed on this Bill were in favour of preserving the Georgian houses. It was also obvious that the Government do not intend to respond to my appeal to make a free vote possible. This is very regrettable. Apart from this question of the Georgian houses at all, I expressed the hope at the end of my speech that we might be mature enough to at least decide some of these problems which do not endanger the lives of Governments in a democratic way, by allowing Party members to vote the way they wish. Apparently the Government Party have not yet reached that degree of maturity. I suppose there is the argument that if you slacken the rein, the horse may run away again, perhaps in a more tricky situation.

It was suggested by Deputy Clinton that these houses were dangerous. There was never at any time a statement from the Corporation or any architect that these houses were dangerous. They are perfectly safe and can be made capable of being tenanted if the will is there. The will is not there, but the will is there to destroy them. This is the most unjustifiable act ever carried out in this city as far as houses and offices are concerned. All the commonsense arguments, all the arguments in regard to traditionalism and decent conduct by public bodies, are in favour of the ESB taking themselves outside the city where they will have plenty of space and not be adding to the already chaotic traffic conditions which apply to their present situation and leaving the Georgian houses to stand as they are, leaving them available for what I consider to be a contribution towards the solution of the Dublin housing problem.

Deputy Ryan and possibly others felt this was a matter which has not been helped by my advertence to the housing problem in Dublin. I am not suggesting that, if these houses were taken over and reconstructed, they would make a large contribution towards solving the problem, but I am saying that it would be an earnest of the desire of everyone to take the pressure off the Corporation. It might very well be that the rents in this area would be of such a nature that it would not be possible for large numbers to avail of them, but nonetheless it is within the knowledge of everyone associated with housing in this city that of the 9,000 people approximately who have applied to Dublin Corporation for houses, there are literally hundreds who would gladly pay an economic rent for a flat in Fitzwilliam Street.

Deputy Ryan adverted to the problem which arises when landladies or landlords will not accept families with children. This of course is one of the unchristian, hateful and difficult side effects of any housing shortage anywhere. Leaving that aside, there are many hundreds of families, elderly and retired people, married couples or sisters and brothers, who could very well avail of flats in this area at a proper rent and who otherwise, if not provided for in this way, will fall back on Dublin Corporation. That is why I make the case that these houses could be put in a condition suitable for being tenanted instead of being destroyed.

Finally, this Bill is an effort to focus attention upon the insidious creeper-like growth of power in the hands of people who have assumed an attitude of disregard, if not indeed of contempt, for the people of Dublin, of Ireland and of Dáil Éireann.