Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 9 Apr 1930

Vol. 34 No. 6

In Committee on Finance. - Local Government (Dublin) Bill, 1929—Committee Stage.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It has been suggested that amendments Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 might be raised more suitably at a later stage. Amendments 1 and 2 are dependent on amendment No. 9, and it is suggested that if the amendments to the definition section were left over until the end it would be much better. Would Deputies concerned agree upon that course?

Agreed.

[An Ceann Comhairle resumed the Chair.]

SECTION 2.

(1) On the appointed day the respective councils of the several added urban districts and also the Rathmines and Pembroke Joint Hospital Board and the Rathmines and Pembroke Main Drainage Board shall be dissolved and cease to exist, and thereupon the City Corporation shall become and be the successor of the said bodies respectively, and accordingly references in this Act to the successor of the said bodies or any of them shall be construed as referring to the City Corporation.

(2) On the appointed day the respective areas of the several added urban districts shall be detached from the county and from the jurisdiction and powers of the County Council and shall be added to the Existing City, and thenceforward the said areas shall be included in and form part of the city for all purposes and the boundary of the city shall be extended accordingly.

An Ceann Comhairle

If amendment 7 is carried I think Section 3 will be consequentially deleted— that is, no question can be put from the Chair on Section 3. On the other hand, if amendment 7 is defeated, the Chair will assume that all or the main part of the discussion on Section 3 will have taken place and nothing will remain but to put the question of Section 3.

Mr. MacEntee

I move amendment 7:—

"In sub-section (1), immediately after the word ‘districts,' line 3, to insert the words ‘of the several coastal urban districts.'"

The purpose of the amendment is to provide for the inclusion of what are described in the definition section as the "coastal urban districts" in the City of Dublin. That inclusion, we believe, is a natural and inevitable consequence of the contiguity of these districts to the city and of the community of interests of the inhabitants both of these districts and of the city. The interests of those who live in the coastal urban districts and of those who live in the city are in no way in conflict and are in every way in accord.

There is no geographical, social or economic reason for the establishment of the proposed borough. It is a redundant and unnecessary project and, since it will involve a duplication of services, staff officers, employees, salaries and miscellaneous expenses of all kinds, we believe it will be costly and inefficient in operation. I am sure that 80 per cent. of the inhabitants and residents of the coastal districts are dependent economically upon the City of Dublin. I am sure that 65 per cent. of the adult inhabitants of the townships spend the greater part of their lives in the city. Yet if the coastal borough be established these people to whom the prosperity and progress and sound administration of the City of Dublin are as important as they are, say, to the dwellers in Merrion Square of Marlborough Street or any district now included in the city, will have absolutely no voice or influence in city affairs.

Therefore, because a sound administration of the City of Dublin in which they earn their bread is of more importance to the inhabitants of Blackrock and Dun Laoghaire than the social prestige and local influences which would accrue to the select few in those townships if the borough be established, we hold that the onus of justifying the proposition to establish a borough rests upon those who have been responsible for the section and not upon those of us who are asking that the natural thing should be done and that those townships should not be divorced for ever from the City of Dublin.

I submit that the proposal to establish the proposed borough will mean the duplication of officers and the duplication of services. If the coastal borough is to be established naturally there is going to be a mayor, and a mayor, I am sure, under the existing dispensation will require a salary. He will have official quarters and a special staff for himself and every one of these things is going to impose an appreciable but unnecessary charge upon the residents of the proposed borough. On the other hand, if we do not have to have the borough we do not want the mayor and we do not have to pay for the mayor. I believe so far as civic pride is concerned the inhabitants of Blackrock and Dun Laoghaire would be as well served by the Lord Mayor of the City of Dublin as by a mayor in the proposed borough. There is no historic reason for establishing the borough of Dun Laoghaire except that George IV. landed there. There is no other reason why there should be any separation of administration for Dun Laoghaire as distinct from the City of Dublin.

Again, if we are going to have a separate borough we also want a separate Manager at a separate salary. In that case I am sure that if the theory underlying the Local Appointments Commission works out in practice, the fact that Dublin is able to offer greater opportunities and because it has greater resources, the matter will work out in such a way that we shall have an inferior administration in Dun Laoghaire as compared with the City of Dublin. The Manager of Dun Laoghaire will be inferior in ability to the Manager of the City of Dublin. Therefore, this separate borough is necessarily going to have a less experienced and a less skilled administration than would be given to the area if it had been included in the City of Dublin. What I have said about the Manager extends to every other department of local administration. The engineering staff will not be as competent and as skilled as in Dublin— that is, if the theory underlying the Local Appointments Commission works out in practice. The engineering and the medical staff and the staff administration generally in a separate borough are all going to be inferior to the staff which would administer the same services if the borough were included in the City of Dublin.

What are these services that have to be administered by the two separate staffs? There is first of all the public health service, the administration of tuberculosis, home assistance and relief service, mental hospitals, maternity, child welfare, housing, waterworks, sewerage, road construction, cleansing and lighting, reformatory schools, industrial schools, and a host of minor activities and so on. But taking all that list, is there any particular feature in relation to the administration of the public health services or mental hospitals or child welfare or drainage peculiar only to the coastal districts which would make it necessary and render it essential that there should be a separate administrative authority for each of these services for the little area, the little township with, I think, not more than 30,000 people, which is to be constituted a separate administrative authority under the Bill? Is it not quite clear that every one of these services could be much better and more economically administered by the Corporation of the City of Dublin than by a Corporation of the proposed borough?

If there is any reason whatever for setting up a separate authority for administering these services in the case of the proposed borough of Dun Laoghaire, then that reason applies, as I said on the Second Reading of this Bill, with equal force to the townships of Pembroke and Rathmines. It applies with even greater force to them, because the communities of Rathmines and Pembroke are much more important, much larger, much more highly developed, and much wealthier than Blackrock and Dun Laoghaire. If there is any reason for excepting Dun Laoghaire and Blackrock from the City of Dublin, then it applies with much greater force to Pembroke and Rathmines. It can be argued with much greater force and effect to exclude Pembroke and Rathmines from the city than to exclude Dun Laoghaire. It could be applied with even greater effect to the exclusion of the district of Clontarf, which has been already included, and which the Minister, thank goodness, does not propose to exclude in this Bill. The very same reason which compelled the Minister to include Pembroke and Rathmines should compel him, if he is logical and practical, and if he considers the matter in the light of common sense, to include Blackrock and Dun Laoghaire.

It will be noticed, I am sure, by most of the Deputies who have taken an interest in this question that a memorandum was recently published in the newspapers, it appeared in the "Dublin Chronicle" for 29th March, and the propositions made therein. That memorandum is not perhaps remarkable for its proposals. It is an attempt, I believe, to meet the criticism advanced largely from these benches with regard to the proposal to exclude the coastal districts from the City of Dublin, and to set up eventually a northern borough. The remarkable thing about it is that the men who have signed it were the strongest protagonists for the proposed coastal borough. They were its most enthusiastic advocates. Yet, when they came to consider it, what was the conclusion that they came to and endorsed with their signatures? First of all, that there should be what is called a Conjoint Service Board to assume financial and administrative responsibility for the common services of water supply, sewerage and housing in the whole area from Killiney to Malahide, and from the North Wall to Chapelizod. That was the recommendation which these men, having seriously considered the implications of the Minister's proposal, were compelled to make against their prejudices, against their prepossessions and against their own previous and publicly-declared opinions. Many of them who have signed that are members and representative of the councils of the urban districts of Dun Laoghaire, Blackrock and Dalkey. And they came to the conclusion that so far as the major problems with which the local authorities have to deal, the Minister's proposal to set up a separate borough was wholly impracticable, and was altogether untenable. That was the conclusion to which they were driven.

If you are going to set up a conjoint service board—I do not know whether the Minister is prepared to accept a proposal or not—to deal with questions of common concern such as water supply, housing and sewerage, what is there outside the ordinary public health administration to be left for the corporation of the proposed borough to do except, possibly, to discharge the functions which might be more properly discharged and undertaken by a local amusements committee? When you have dealt with the water supply, the sewerage and the housing, surely you have dealt with the major functions, duties and obligations of the local authorities? The case for having a common authority for dealing with those services in the areas which we have under consideration is unanswerable. If you can make a case for dealing with those services, what case can you make for the exclusion of public health services? Supposing an epidemic were to break out in the City of Dublin, would it not be absolutely essential that there should be a uniform administration of the public health precautions and regulations which would be taken and enforced in order to deal with that calamity? Can anybody in the House imagine that if there were an epidemic of any disease in the City of Dublin that with the hundreds of vehicles—trains, buses, trams, motor cars, and even way-farers—which pass every day between the city and the townships, it could possibly be confined to the city alone and that the people in the townships would not have to deal with it good, bad or indifferent? Can you imagine a million germs, when they come to the artificial boundary between the City of Dublin and the borough of Dun Laoghaire, saying to each other: "Oh, this is the holy ground of Dun Laoghaire. General Mulcahy has established it with a separate mayor and a separate manager. We must get off and go back to the City of Dublin?" If such a state of affairs were to occur in the City of Dublin —Providence forfend that it should —would there not be an immediate outery for one common authority in control of the public health services taking the necessary co-ordinate steps in the City of Dublin and in the borough of Dun Laoghaire to safeguard the citizens from the ravages of the disease? If you can make a case for a common authority in regard to sewerage, housing and the water supply that same case can be made for a common authority to administer public health services over the whole area.

General Mulcahy

I am not making that case.

Mr. MacEntee

It can be made and ought to be made and if you do not make it, it is simply because you refuse to approach this problem with an open and intelligent mind.

General Mulcahy

I thought the Deputy was arguing against doing a thing like that.

Mr. MacEntee

I am arguing that there should be a common authority, that the coastal districts should be included in the city. I am putting forward the argument that even those who were enthusiastic advocates of the establishment of the proposed coastal borough have now been compelled to admit that there should be one common authority for the administration of housing, water supply and sewerage schemes, and as a corollary to that they must also accept the proposition that there should be a common authority for the administration of the public health services. That is the proposition that I am submitting to the House.

General Mulcahy

From Malahide to Killiney?

Mr. MacEntee

I am dealing only with the proposal to establish a coastal borough. I am arguing that the proposed area for the coastal borough should be included in the city and I am not at the moment concerned with Malahide or Killiney.

There is another reason why the coastal borough should not be established, another reason in the interests of the inhabitants of the townships. These districts are capable of great development. I am sure that at least a quarter of a million pounds could be well spent in developing them. If this sum were to be borrowed at 5 per cent. and the loan were made repayable over a period of twenty years, the annual charge for interest and sinking fund would be about £20,000. The rateable value of the proposed borough would be £167,000 and therefore to raise £20,000 would require a rate of 2/4¾ in the £. If the proposed borough were not established, but the districts were included in the city, the rateable valuation of the City of Dublin, with the districts of Pembroke, Rathmines and the coastal districts included, would be about £1,731,000. In order to raise the sum of £20,000 it would be necessary to strike a rate of only 2¾d. The ratio of the two figures, 2/4¾ and 2¾d., is in the relation of ten to one. That is the measure of the advantage that the people of the coastal districts would derive from inclusion in the city.

I feel I am in duty bound to move this amendment because it is in the interests of the people whom I represent that they should be included in the city. I am urging it from their point of view only, but I am perfectly certain that it will be no less an advantage to the people of the city themselves. I am perfectly certain that the benefits in their case would be no less substantial, that they would be in a position to see that these coastal districts were developed and that they would be developed in a way which I think would provide what has been described by Deputy Lemass as the natural air lungs for the people of the crowded districts of the city. If Dun Laoghaire and Blackrock be not brought into the city I believe the development of these districts will not proceed on the right lines. I believe they will be developed in such a way as to preclude almost the undesirable dwellers in the slums and crowded districts in Dublin, as they appear to some of the aristocrats in Dun Laoghaire and Blackrock, from enjoying the amenities of these places which are theirs by right. If the townships exist and are able to maintain themselves and if they are apparently more prosperous and more pleasant places to live in than the slums of Dublin, it is because the people of the slums have made it possible for Dun Laoghaire and Blackrock to exist. One of the reasons why I am a particularly earnest advocate of the inclusion of these districts in the city is to establish the claim of the workers in Dublin to enjoy the amenities of Blackrock and Dun Laoghaire as of right.

Mr. Good

On the Second Reading debate on this Bill I pointed out that in my opinion one of the blots of the proposed measure was this coastal borough. I agree very largely with the arguments that have been advanced by Deputy MacEntee. When we come to consider the problem in detail we are forced to the conclusion that there are a number of services which should be common services in this particular area. No one will doubt for a moment that the water supply is a common service for that area. No one will doubt that the electric lighting system under the Shannon Scheme as now worked is a common service all over that area. Anybody who has had experience at all in connection with fire brigades will agree that the present system, which is a localised system, is entirely adverse to modern conditions. We have in the area which I have had the privilege of representing for a number of years, a fire brigade system. We can call upon, I think, something like seven to ten men in the event of a fire in that particular area. Assume for a moment that a fire were to break out in the premises of the Royal Dublin Society and that we sent out our small local equipment with seven to ten men. Would anybody argue that they could deal effectively with a fire in premises of that magnitude? Let us try to get clear of party problems in discussing a measure of this kind. What we want is that a service like the fire brigade should be centralised so that in the event of an emergency, our city can call upon a fire brigade and equipment sufficient to cope with any situation that arises.

Mr. J.J. Byrne

There is a fire brigade next door to it.

Mr. Good

That fire brigade cannot be called to Pembroke without certain formalities. There is one fire brigade in Pembroke which considers itself quite capable of dealing with any fire in Pembroke, but others of us might hold a different opinion. Another service that should be centralised—I have argued this point on a number of occasions—is road administration. Take the present position between Dublin and Dun Laoghaire. At present you pass through four different towns with four different equipments for road administration. I think the more we see of modern road maintenance the more we must agree as to the necessity for centralising such services. The only service of any importance that would be left if we agreed to these services being centralised is public health. If I know anything at all of the views held by those who have considered this problem, I think the general view is that that should be a centralised service.

If this service should be a common service and a centralised service, what have you left for this local authority you are setting up to-day? If you set it up it will find something to do. It will have a staff, as well as expenses, but it will have no real authority. Why set it up? I would like to see some argument or some reason put forward in the first place as to why it is not desirable to centralise these services, because that is the pivot. If these services can be centralised and can be more efficiently administered by centralisation, then that will settle the problem of the coastal borough, because I do not think that those who are in favour of the coastal borough will agree that, if these services are taken away and centralised, the coastal borough is necessary. Really the problem hangs around the question whether these services should be centralised. From experience I have no doubt whatever that these services should be centralised, and if so there is no necessity whatever for setting up a coastal borough to administer what is left.

Professor Thrift

I agree with a great deal of what Deputy Good has stated, but yet I find a difficulty in accepting his final conclusion. I admit right off that whatever arguments are to be brought forward for the inclusion of Rathmines and Pembroke within the city apply very strongly also to making a further advance along the coast to include Blackrock and other areas. I admit straight off the desirability of having the centralisation that Deputy Good has been speaking about and in having whatever co-operation is possible in the administration of these districts. Yet I feel that if we were to contemplate at the moment making the vast change which would follow from absorbing Rathmines and Pembroke and also absorbing Booterstown, Blackrock, Dun Laoghaire and Killiney, we should run a very serious risk of setting up an unwieldy whole which we should not be able to manage satisfactorily at the present moment. Personally, I would much rather consider making a change of that kind in a series of steps than trying to make it in one step with results which it would be difficult to estimate beforehand. I think there would be very considerable risk if we were to take that step at once; we might endanger the final success of the scheme which would ensue if we were to go about it gradually. I am not satisfied with the Bill as it stands because it does not envisage co-operation at all.

It sets up on the one hand a city and on the other side a coastal borough, and it seems to do everything to prevent co-operation, to set them in isolation, and put one against the other. It is possible to alter that and to aim at the result which we all desire, to aim at it by steps which we would be able to take gradually. It could be made certain that each such step would be the best that could be taken at the time. I think the plan outlined in the Bill as it stands is expensive, and is unnecessarily tending to lead to separation between what is called the coastal borough and the city. The Bill provides for an extension of the borough boundary in so far as that extension shall not touch the city, but it carefully seeks to prevent any kind of amalgamation or co-operation between the city and this coastal borough.

I hope it will be possible by amending the Bill to prevent that isolation and do something which will lead definitely towards co-operation, and also at the moment establish such centralisation in joint services as is possible. Take for instance the fire brigade. There should be no difficulty about that. We should take such steps as are possible at the moment and certain to be successful in regard to co-operation. We should consider laying down in the Act that, as time progresses, further consideration shall be given to what further steps can be taken for extending that joint sort of service, or extending the boundaries of the city or amalgamating further districts with the city or the borough, or even the borough with the city. Much of my objection to the Bill as it stands would be removed if there were definitely laid down in the Bill some provisions which would secure that that kind of consideration shall be given to the problem at fixed intervals, that the problem shall be reviewed so as to see what further steps towards the ultimate goal should be taken from time to time. I think that it ought to be possible to amend the Bill so as to get rid of certain objections which were present to the minds of Deputy MacEntee, Deputy Good, and to myself.

Further, I think that the administration set up for the coastal borough is unnecessarily extravagant. I think if it is a step forward, that we should, as we do in the Bill, amalgamate smaller districts along the coast into one. That is a step which is as far as I would care to go at the time. I think we are loading that amalgamation with unnecessary expense when we talk of setting up a Mayor and Alderman. I think that that expense is unnecessary, and I think that amalgamation could be done without it. I think we would be setting up a further bar to the amalgamation of the borough and the city which we hope to see taking place some day. If we set up a Mayor and Alderman in that district we are creating a kind of inertia against further change which would be quite difficult to overcome. I do not think that it is either necessary or advisable to reject the coastal borough idea altogether, but I think it is necessary and advisable that it should be considered in the Bill merely as a step necessarily leading to further change in the future, and that the Bill itself should foreshadow the way in which that change should be made, and should be considered as a temporary step towards the larger result which we would be aiming at.

General Mulcahy

I sympathise very heartily with that feeling which Deputy MacEntee has, namely, that if you are going to have control of a large area around Dublin, it should be control by a body directly over that area, and responsible for the whole work in it. I have greater sympathy, if it be possible to have sympathy, with the idea which Deputies put up when they say: "We are not going to be responsible for arguing that. It is someone else's responsibility to argue it, and we will not be responsible." I would much prefer a system whereby you had a city, a coastal borough and an area on the north governed by a council. The proof, if proof were needed, that under present circumstances you cannot suddenly get satisfactory administration of a local government kind over a large area like that, is enshrined in the report of the Greater Dublin Commission which, taking a large area like that, divided a certain section and said:—

"Let that be the coastal borough and let the representatives on the council who come from that area be responsible for certain petty services in that area, and let the people elected in Rathmines and Pembroke act as an advisory body in regard to certain petty services in their area." On top of that they had to change the basis of representation in the matter of numbers in respect of the city and these areas outside so that a particular population which gave you one representative in the old city would give two representatives if it was a population outside. The advisory committee dealing with petty services, and the change of basis of representation, all point to the difficulty of taking a large area and, from the local government point of view by associating the council with expert machinery, carry out the government, development and administration of that area in accordance with the wishes and general interests of the people.

The Greater Dublin Commission gave up the idea of doing that for a large area without bringing in all kinds of weaknesses in the matter of responsibility and representation. When I approached the consideration of this matter I said that I wanted a large area that would make it sure that you had city interests dominating the whole development that was going to take place around Dublin Bay. Bearing that in mind, I took the green line in the Greater Dublin Commission Report as a basis, more or less, for the purpose of considering the situation. I was driven to this conclusion that, although the Commission said that County Dublin should remain, it was quite clear that it could not remain when you leave a county with 85 per cent. of its original area to work out its local government problems of development and administration, with 29 per cent. of its original resources, and with 30 per cent. of its people; that with the type of area that County Dublin is you could not possibly expect the county to do that, and that if you were leaving the county to do that you would have to get such a contribution from the city to relieve the burden that was being thrown on the coúnty as would constitute a burden on the city that the city could not be reasonably expected to sustain. It was because of that that I and the Department turned to the consideration of the problem that brings us to what we have here before us now.

As far as development is concerned, I hope I made it clear in speaking on this on the Second Reading that the powers for the extension of the city and Howth urban district, for the extension of the coastal borough area in an uncostly way, whether by inquiry and a provisional order ratified by the Oireachtas here, were put there in order to make the bodies that are operating around Dublin Bay organic, to give them full powers of growth and for the purpose of growing in an organic way into the city that Deputies are dreaming about. If anything can be done in the Bill to make that more clear, Deputies will understand that on any of these inquiries that are being held the city can be represented. It is intended that the city can be represented and its objections will be heard. If there is anything that can improve the proposals in the Bill from that particular point of view, to make it clear what the intention is in the development that is offered, if urban development goes on there in such a way that the city here considers that the city should be extended either to take in an additional rural area or the growing urban areas around it, that the city interests are going to dominate that situation, such interests of the city must be favourably considered—if that can be made clearer in the Bill, that certainly may be made clearer.

As far as the objection taken to the mayor and the alderman and the borough is concerned, the position is that you have two codes, the code for boroughs and the code for urban districts. The old code for boroughs gives us the more satisfactory code of law to operate into a system by which, having a corporation, you carry out the work of the corporation by means of a council and a manager, apart from the fact that the three local bodies came together in 1924, compounded their own differences and agreed to a scheme of reorganisation into a borough as the type of organisation most satisfactory from the point of view of running an area there with a council and a manager.

Deputy MacEntee, as I said, says it is our responsibility. He argued that the necessary detail should show that the borough should be a separate borough rather than that it is his responsibility to argue the case for bringing in the borough. Deputy MacEntee, in a subsequent amendment, suggested that the number of fifteen elected persons from the borough area is not a sufficient number to look after the interests of the borough and to supervise its administration. His amendment suggests that it would require twenty-five persons, locally elected, to look after the interests of the borough and to supervise the administration, but he nevertheless thinks that the interests of the borough and its administration can be centralised in the city and directed from the City Hall, and he argued in a most astounding way, because there is one particular position in the heart of the city here to which the Local Appointments Commissioners can appoint a City Manager, that that is the only person worth having as an employee of any public body to direct the proper carrying on of their business. I do want the Deputy to take upon himself the responsibility of arguing that four representatives—because if you take a council here of thirty-five such as Deputy Peadar Doyle suggests for the city as proposed in this Bill and take them as the basis of representation and add from the borough to the council a number of representatives based on population in the same way or, if you like, base it on valuation, the borough would not get four representatives to go into a council of thirty-nine and to look after the general administration. You are supposed to carry on the general work of local government in an area running down along the coast of 4,182 acres, an area half the size of the present City of Dublin and extending over a distance of under five miles. You are supposed to carry on the proper supervision and look after the proper provision and administration of the services there with four representatives of the area sitting in the City Hall with thirty-five other persons, I submit, more interested in the development and administration of the city than they are in the administration and development of the borough. So that, from my point of view, we are, in the changes we are bringing about here, taking the present city, which has an area of 8,357 acres, and we are adding to that city Rathmines and Pembroke, two urban districts of about 3,300 acres, but as much a part of the old City of Dublin as Fitzwilliam Square, Inchicore and the Merrion Square area are. We are joining in these urban areas, but as well as that we are adding to the old city of 8,300 acres 5,300 acres taken in from the rural areas around and we are setting up in that city a new system of local government by a manager associated with a council. We are asked at a time in which we are enlarging the city by 5,000 odd acres from the rural districts alone to add to that an area stretching over five miles of sea coast and bringing in an area nine and a quarter miles away from the centre of the city from which it is to be administered. We are told that centralisation of water services, fire brigade services and road services would make for economy. I do not accept that. I consider that the centralisation of public health services would come before the provision of water, the provision of roads and of fire brigade services in those areas generally.

From my point of view the main things that require attention in the regions of Dun Laoghaire, Blackrock, Dalkey and Killiney at the present moment are housing, and certain aspects of public health. Water is centralised in the proposals that we are making that Rathmines and Dublin be brought together. The coastal borough gets its supply of water delivered at certain taps and it is charged at a certain price by the city for it. I do not know what more satisfactory arrangement to provide water for the coastal borough there could be.

As far as lighting is concerned it goes out of the picture now. There is no reason why the coastal borough should be brought into the city simply because the coastal borough and the city are getting their light from the Shannon.

There is as little reason why the coastal borough should be brought into the city because it is getting its water from Roundwood. As far as the fire brigade is concerned when the two areas, side by side, are run by Managers there is no reason why an arrangement could not be come to that the fire brigade organisation in each place should co-operate. As regards economies that could be brought about by the centralisation of road services, I do not think that the economies that could be brought about, if economies could be brought about, would warrant taking that scattered area that up to the present has been governed by four urban district councils, putting it into the city with very little representation and having its problems of housing and health dealt with from long range. The proposal to have this coastal borough, this city and a county council dealing with the affairs of the City and County of Dublin, I put to the House, is the most satisfactory arrangement that we could make at the present moment. The imagination of Deputies has been stretched in this particular matter I think as a result of the area outlined in the Greater Dublin Commission Report, but I suggest that the area that is included inside the green line marked on the map of the Greater Dublin Commission is an area sketched for regional planning purposes. We ought not to allow ourselves in matters of local government to be dragged away from the main problem of carrying out the proper administration of a local area in the interests of the people of that area by the bigger conception of regional development and regional planning. We see in Britain where regional planning has included something like 78 areas. I spoke to a rather disheartened engineer who was an adviser to a British regional planning committee made up of representatives from 78 local bodies. I have said that the matter of town planning has been given a considerable amount of consideration in the Department. I have said that by the autumn I will be prepared to introduce legislation dealing with town planning.

When I come to deal with town-planning we can take the City and County of Dublin and we can consider the problems that arise from the town-planning side of the City and County of Dublin, but let us not begin to think in terms of town-planning when we ought to be thinking in terms of areas for local administration pure and simple. If with the machinery set up for town-planning purposes we see that further extensions or further amalgamations are necessary, then steps can be taken to bring these about. But when we talk of economy and all that kind of thing in connection with roads, whatever requires to be done for roads, to my mind at the present moment, is here in the City of Dublin. The main roads leading to the city are all right. It is when you get into the city you have trouble, and it is the city that will have to pay for whatever changes take place there. Your town-planning is going to be on a scale for roads, sewerage, drainage and water systems. That is the backbone of any of your proposals for town-planning. Everything else comes down to that skeleton—housing and development of any other kind. Do not let us drag the town-planning conception across what we are proposing here. I said that housing and certain aspects of public life are the things that I feel are the most urgent in the coastal borough. If the housing required in that particular area is going to be discussed and decided from the standpoint of a Council sitting in the City Hall then the housing interests of the coastal borough are going to be prejudiced.

Mr. Lemass

Why?

General Mulcahy

Because you want the touch between your Council representing directly the people that are concerned in the matter and your machine to examine the situation properly and to decide and take action. If from the point of view of housing the borough came into the city, instead of having five years of work before us, we would have five years of talk and argument, five years of calling for reports and plans and all that kind of thing. The housing problem of the coastal borough is a thing that has to be faced and more or less settled within the next five or ten years, and it can most satisfactorily be done locally. From the public health point of view the public health authorities in the City of Dublin have enough of a problem to deal with in their city. The County of Dublin has not yet a county medical officer of health. The County of Dublin without the coastal borough could easily argue that with their reduced functions, their reduced finance and power generally, they could not afford the machinery of a county medical officer of health. One county medical officer of health for Dublin County will deal with the coastal borough and the county. He could give us in a practical way that supervision over general public health matters in the coastal borough that is necessary. But the machinery of the city would have to be extended by additional offices and all that kind of thing to deal with coastal borough public health problems from the city. The expenditure could more satisfactorily be shouldered and the work could more satisfactorily be done from the county side. If you take away the coastal borough from the county you will not get the satisfactory health services in the county that we would be enabled to have by having a county medical officer of health dealing with the county and the coastal borough.

Roads are one aspect of public health—the cleaning of the smaller and back streets and all that. The centralisation of road control is not going to give you the supervision of and the cleaning of the smaller and back streets that, in my opinion, are necessary from the public health point of view. Our proposals extend the city very considerably. As I say, to a city of over 8,000 acres at present we are giving 5,000 acres of an area which is at present in rural districts, We are taking in two urban districts— Rathmines and Pembroke —and setting up a new machinery, and if we bring in the coastal borough we are going to have the interests of the coastal borough neglected and, to a certain extent, the city neglected, because we are going to have calls from the coastal townships to do their particular work, and we are going to throw on the managerial system a load that ought not to be thrown on it at once. I fear that the results of extending the city so much before the managerial system has had time to set in the city will be such, from the point of view of effective administration, as will prejudice the system.

Mr. Corish

I think we are entitled to ask the Minister why he has made such a departure from the Greater Dublin Commission Report. Certainly, the argument he has brought forward is not very convincing. I agree with the views put forward by Deputy Good and Deputy MacEntee, because I believe that what we are advocating is what the Minister or his predecessor advocated when the 1925 Bill was going through the House. We are asking for nothing more than that Bill provided, in so far as county councils in various parts of the country are concerned. I agree with Deputy Good and Deputy MacEntee when they say that services such as roads, water and sewerage ought to be common services in so far as the whole coastal borough and the Borough of Dublin are concerned. The Minister has specially mentioned the question of housing. He is of opinion that housing could be dealt with better by the coastal borough that will be set up. I do not agree with that point of view, because I believe that if you have the County Borough of Dublin extended to Blackrock and Dun Laoghaire the credit of the council will be higher than the credit of the council which the Minister proposes to set up for the areas of Blackrock and Dun Laoghaire. Credit, in so far as housing is concerned, means a great deal. Until twelve months ago, when the Minister extended the Local Loans Fund to the building of houses, it was a very difficult matter to get money for housing. One never knows when the Minister will go back to the old position, and it will then be very difficult for local authorities to procure money for housing.

If Dun Laoghaire and Blackrock were a borough by themselves, their credit would be very short as regards securing money for housing. To my mind, their interests, so far as housing is concerned, would be better served by having them part of the City of Dublin. As to public health matters, in my opinion the public health of the citizens of the proposed new borough would be far better looked after if they were under the jurisdiction of the Dublin City Council. Those of us who are members of corporations and councils down the country know how difficult it is to secure accommodation in a Dublin hospital for any of the deserving poor who require a major operation. In my opinion, Dun Laoghaire and Blackrock would be in almost the same position as the council of a provincial town. Their wants in this connection would be more speedily dealt with if they were under the jurisdiction of the new City Council.

My interpretation of the arguments put forward by the Minister is that they are a condemnation of the new managerial system, because he points out that there are things that would not be done if the people in Dun Laoghaire and Blackrock were to come under the jurisdiction of the new Dublin Council. He talked about back streets, lanes and places of that kind not being properly attended to and cleansed. One would think, from all the compliments paid by the Minister to the managerial system proposed to be set up by this Bill, that none of these things could happen. One is surprised at the Minister using such an argument. He also reminded us that County Dublin has not yet appointed a county medical officer and one is entitled to ask why it was not done under the 1925 Act.

General Mulcahy

The Act was not applied to County Dublin. We are only applying it now.

Mr. Corish

Certainly, so far as the other counties are concerned, I cannot understand why the Minister has not used his powers in this matter.

General Mulcahy

We are getting on fairly well.

Mr. Corish

Not as well as you should.

Mr. G. Boland

They are not all retired from the army yet.

Mr. Corish

The Minister says it is not good policy to have roads centralised. I think everything that has been done during the past seven or eight years is opposed to the Minister's argument. As Deputy Good points out, where you have two councils operating, as there will be, it is ridiculous for both councils to have to provide a set of machinery for the upkeep of the roads. With Deputy Good and Deputy MacEntee, I believe that if we are to have roads properly kept it will be absolutely necessary that we should have Dun Laoghaire and Blackrock brought under the City Council. As Deputy Thrift pointed out, if we set up a new council it will be an argument against further change. I could quite understand the position if the Minister were prepared to leave Dun Laoghaire and Blackrock as they are at present, allow things to develop, and give powers to the new Dublin Council to bring in Dun Laoghaire and Blackrock afterwards, when we had arrived at a certain stage in the development of the new borough. But, I cannot understand him setting up something that we had not heretofore in this area. It will impede progress, and I believe that eventually a move will have to be made to secure that Dun Laoghaire and Blackrock, especially Dun Laoghaire, which is almost entirely coastal, will be brought in. If we were even to do what I suggest now, and leave them as they are at present, it would save Parliamentary time in future, apart from all the confusion which may be created. I have no doubt that confusion will be created in the very near future, and I ask the Minister to consider the position in the light of the arguments put forward. Like Deputy Good, I think that this matter ought to be discussed in a non-Party manner. Those of us who do not live in Dublin are proud of the city, and would like to see it a model city. I believe that the matter should be considered by every Deputy apart from party, and that all of us should do our best for the capital city of the country.

Mr. Lemass

Although the arguments advanced by the Minister against the proposal to include the coastal borough in the city differ somewhat from those advanced by Deputy Thrift, it seems to me that they arise from the same misunderstanding of the circumstances. The Minister told us that it was inadvisable and impracticable to devise a satisfactory system of local government for a suddenly enlarged area. Deputy Thrift talked of the inadvisability of taking the entire step of extending the city to the area proposed by the Greater Dublin Commission all at once. Both the Minister and Deputy Thrift appear to be under the impression that the area proposed to be embodied in the coastal borough is of very large dimensions in relation to the city which it is proposed to establish under the Bill. In fact, the step which Deputy MacEntee is asking the House to take is a very small and almost negligible one in relation to the actual move which the Bill asks the Dáil to sanction. The area of the four townships which it is proposed to include in the coastal borough, although larger than the existing area of either Rathmines or Pembroke, is, nevertheless, inhabited by a much smaller number of people, and its valuation is considerably less than either of the existing urban districts which the Bill proposes to include in the city.

General Mulcahy

How much?

Mr. Lemass

I shall give figures. The population of the four townships of Blackrock, Dalkey, Dun Laoghaire and Killiney is 35,101.

General Mulcahy

37,000.

Mr. Lemass

I shall take the Minister's figures.

General Mulcahy

It is a couple of thousand lower than Rathmines and about four thousand more than Pembroke. It comes in between them.

Mr. Lemass

A couple of thousand less than Rathmines and about four thousand more than Pembroke. The population of the proposed coastal borough is less than one-half of the population of the two townships which the Bill proposes should be included in the city. Similarly, its valuation is less than one-half of the valuation of the two townships which it is proposed to include in the city. That fact should be taken into account when we hear the Minister arguing that it is inadvisable suddenly to extend the area of the city to a much greater extent than he proposes. The actual extension of the area involved by the adoption of Deputy MacEntee's amendment would be comparatively small in proportion to the extension of the city area which the Minister proposes. That fact must also be taken into account when Deputy Thrift's argument is being considered, that we should only proceed to the enlargement of the city step by step. The actual step which the Minister is taking is very much greater than the final step which we are asking the Dáil to take in order to secure the inclusion in the city of the entire area proposed to be included in the jurisdiction of the Greater Dublin Council.

This Bill has been described here by Deputy Good and Deputy Corish and, in the Shelbourne Hotel by the Minister, as a non-Party measure. Presumably that means that the Government Whips will not be applied, and if the Dáil decides to pass the amendment favouring the inclusion of the coastal borough no crisis will result necessitating the resignation of the Government. Deputies, therefore, can come to the consideration of this question on its merits. I have no doubt that any Deputy who considers the question on its merits will be forced by the very strong case which can be made out for the inclusion of the coastal borough in the city to vote for the amendment.

In the course of this discussion, and in the course of the debate on the Second Reading, there was considerable dispute as to the party on whom the burden of proof rested in relation to the question of the inclusion of the coastal borough. We contended, and in my opinion rightly contended, that those who proposed to exclude those areas from the city should prove that a definite advantage would be conferred on the ratepayers of the city and the coastal borough area in consequence of that exclusion. The Minister took up the attitude then, and he takes up the attitude now, that the onus is upon us to prove that advantage will be conferred by the inclusion of these areas. In other words, he contends that the position should be that the coastal borough will be established unless a very strong case can be made against it. Without necessarily going very deeply into the question as to whether the onus of proof is on him or on us, I say that there should be an assumption that the City of Dublin should extend around the whole of Dublin Bay and that there should not be any tendency to take as the proper situation the situation that existed before this Dáil was established. If, however, we want merely to have advanced here solid arguments in support of the contention that the inclusion of the coastal borough area in the city would favour the ratepayers, we can get them in the last place where I think Deputies will turn to look for them, and that is the speech delivered by the Minister for Local Government on the Second Reading. He set out then, as reported in Column 930 of the Official Debates, fourteen reasons advanced by the Dublin Corporation in the year 1879 for the inclusion of the Rathmines and Pembroke areas in the City. The Minister adverted to these reasons in support of the proposal to include those areas in the Dublin City provided for in the Bill. Every single one of these arguments can be advanced with equal force for the inclusion of the coastal townships in the City of Dublin as well. It would take a long time to read them, but I will ask Deputies who are anxious to study this question carefully to read these arguments, not in relation to the townships of Rathmines and Pembroke, but in relation to the coastal townships and they will be struck, I think, by the force with which they apply in that case. The Minister relied upon them to justify the inclusion of Rathmines and Pembroke. I think that we can also rely upon them to justify the inclusion of the coastal townships.

I want, however, to confine myself to the reasons which the Minister has advanced against the amendment. The principal reason appears to be that, if the four coastal townships are taken from the county council, the county council administration will be made extremely difficult, if not impossible, and a burden will be thrown upon the people which would be very much increased in comparison with the existing burdens. That appears to be one of the Minister's main arguments. It seems to me that the coastal borough is being established very largely because the Minister wants to keep the county council in existence. It is pointed out that we will leave under the administration of the county council 85 per cent. of its present area, 29 per cent. of its resources, and 30 per cent. of its people. He implied, although he did not definitely state it, that it would not be possible for the county council's administration to be carried on if that should happen. The Minister should inform the Dáil whether or not 30 per cent. of the existing population of the county does not, in fact, represent a greater number of people than those actually included in many existing counties in which county council administration is carried on most successfully.

As far as I am aware, the number of the population which would be left in the county council area, after the coastal townships had been taken out of it, would exceed the population of quite a number of the smaller counties of Ireland. The same applies also to the rateable valuation. It is undoubtedly desirable that there should be a county medical officer of health for the County Dublin. I cannot see why the appointment of a county medical officer of health will be impossible if the coastal townships are included in city. Is that a serious argument? It surely is not suggested by the Minister that the difficulty created by that reduction in the county council area and administration is insurmountable if it can be proved that there are substantial advantages to be gained by the city by the inclusion of the coastal borough areas. The Minister also argued that the coastal borough is a separate place from the city in its whole outlook at the present moment. I dispute that entirely. I contend that there is no separate outlook whatever amongst the residents of the coastal townships. They regard themselves as citizens of Dublin. Their interests are bound up with the City of Dublin. They find their pleasure and in many cases their livelihood within the city. When they travel throughout Ireland and abroad they represent themselves as citizens of Dublin. It is not correct, and I do not think the Minister was serious in advancing as an argument that there is a separate outlook existing in the proposed borough area as distinct from the outlook of the city. He argued that neither in relation to water supply, roads, nor drainage, etc., could any case be made for a united service. We can examine that later. I suggest that unless it can be shown that there will be a decided disadvantage suffered by the citizens of the proposed coastal borough, then the balance of the argument is in favour of their inclusion in the city of Dublin.

It is not sufficient for the Minister to say that no advantages will be gained. He should, I think, definitely prove that disadvantages will result from inclusion. He has not attempted to do so. He gave another reason at the meeting of the Central Branch of Cumann na nGaedheal held in the Shelbourne Hotel, where he replied to the criticisms advanced here on the Second Reading debate, which I noticed he has not repeated to-night. He said that when they had the four coastal districts linked up and acting under a system of local government they would be better able to see whether they should be part of the city or not. It appears that he is proposing to set up this borough, not because he is certain it is the best thing to do, but in order to have a good look at it after it is set up before making up his mind to see whether it should be destroyed. That argument, though not relied on to-night, is quite as sensible as some of the arguments upon which he did rely and with which I now propose to deal. He told us that in relation to housing, administration from the City Hall in Dublin was likely to prove much less efficient than administration by a special local council established to look after local interests. The argument is one which I am sure will increase the enthusiasm of the citizens of Pembroke and Rathmines for the Bill. Surely if it is not possible for the administration from the City Hall in Dublin to deal effectively with housing in Blackrock it is equally impossible for that administration to deal effectively with housing in Rathgar.

The whole argument is, however, a criticism of the managerial system. Surely the air of Dun Laoghaire is not so much better than the air in Dublin that the Manager with an office situated in Cork Hill is necessarily less efficient than a manager with his office situated in Dun Laoghaire Town Hall. Apparently the Minister seems to think that that is the case. Everything that can be done by a coastal borough council for the improvement of housing conditions in the coastal borough area could be done also by the City Council and a lot more, because the City Council would have not merely greater financial resources at its disposal, but also greater resources in technical skill and machinery for dealing with matters of that kind. The Minister's contention that there would not be proper touch between the people concerned and the council is, in my opinion, not worth serious consideration. Surely there would be just as much direct touch between the representatives of Dun Laoghaire at the City Council as there would be between the representatives of Dun Laoghaire at the Dun Laoghaire Council.

The Minister, however, utterly destroyed the whole case which he had himself advanced for the establishment of the managerial system when he said that if the responsibility for dealing with housing in Dun Laoghaire were put on the City Council, it would result in five years' talk and argument before anything would be done. If the managerial system is going to result in five years' talk and argument in the City Council of Dublin, then the Minister should mend his hand even at this late stage, withdraw the Bill and save the ratepayers from that fate. The Minister did not tell us why the problem of dealing properly with housing in Dun Laoghaire was not going to result in five years' talk in the Dun Laoghaire Council. The systems to be established in both cases are identical. If the problem of housing in Dun Laoghaire is going to have such disastrous results in Dublin, if the coastal borough is included in Dublin, why is it not going to have equally disastrous results under the separate administration by the coastal borough? I believe when the Minister was advancing that argument he must have felt that it was groundless, but he thought, perhaps, that it might read well and that it would serve as some justification to the citizens of Dun Laoghaire for depriving them of the manifest advantages which amalgamation with the City of Dublin would give them.

There are quite a number of services in respect of which it can be shown that substantial advantages would come to the ratepayers of both areas from amalgamation. I do not think that it is necessary that we should show that these advantages would come. I think the onus is on the Minister to show that disadvantages would come. I nevertheless think that the advantages are so substantial that the case for the separation of the two areas falls to the ground. We hear a lot about rationalisation these days. What we are asking the Dáil to do is to rationalise the local government services in Dublin. Surely there must be economy as a result of the placing of important public services under a unified control in the Dublin City area. The roads were referred to. The Minister seems to think that if there were unified control the roads and the back streets would not be kept clean. I do not know how the Minister arrived at that conclusion. It seems to be another criticism of the managerial system. I am not at all sure that the Commissioner system has resulted in the cleansing of the back streets.

Judging by the complaints I receive in that connection, the back streets are not clean at the moment. I believe they are just as much likely to be clean if there is unified control of the cleansing services in Dublin as there is if the coastal borough is established. The argument is one that does not need to be taken seriously. There is, further, a possible saving on the cleansing of the streets as a result of the fact that there would not necessarily be dual control.

I am sure that if the City Council were considering the renewal of the contract with the firm now engaged in the city areas for the proposed Greater Dublin area, they would be able to effect it at a lower cost than the aggregate cost of the two contracts—one for the city area and one for the coastal borough area. The same thing applies to the question of road construction. There is a possibility of a saving in relation to the managerial cost and to the supply of equipment. In relation to practically every main service it can be shown that substantial economy will result or substantial advantages will be gained by amalgamation.

The question of main drainage has been mentioned. It has been pointed out that there are at the moment two drainage systems, and that some form of dual control will be necessary; therefore, I do suggest that we consider this question of drainage from a point of view other than the cost. It cannot be seriously contended by any party that the citizens of Dublin have no interest in the fact that the drainage from Malahide is being discharged into the sea in a manner likely to imperil the Velvet Strand at Portmarnock. It may be argued that that concerns Malahide only, and that if they make a saving of a few pence in the rates it is a matter that concerns them only. But the Velvet Strand is a place that is likely to be destroyed as a seaside resort as one of the great attractions to the poorer classes of the citizens of Dublin. It would pay the Dublin Council to incur the cost of improving the drainage service at Malahide if, as a result, the Velvet Strand was saved as a health resort for the poorer people of the Dublin slums.

The same also applies to the coastal borough area. The sewage from the coastal borough area is being discharged untreated into Dublin Bay in a manner likely to result in disimprovement of this place as a seaside resort. It would pay the people of Dublin to bear the cost of a system of drainage in the coastal borough if as a result the attractiveness of Merrion, Blackrock and Dun Laoghaire for the poor people of the slums was increased, giving facilities for bathing, and so on, in these places. In that particular connection there is a very real community of interest between the residents of Dublin and the residents of the coastal borough.

The Minister seemed to argue that no difficulty was likely to arise in the matter of a water supply. There is an arrangement at present by which the coastal townships buy their water from the City of Dublin. That surely is an argument in favour of amalgamation. It cannot be advanced as an argument in favour of establishing two distinct areas. Merely because some modus vivendi has been effected is no reason why the obvious advantages of unification should be lost. I am not sure how far the existing water supply of the city is adequate. We have contracted to supply water to areas outside the coastal borough. We have contracted to supply water to Bray. Last year, when there was a shortage, we were unable to carry out the contract, and the citizens of Bray had to go without Vartry water for some time. That would seem to suggest that it would be in the interests of the residents of the coastal borough area that they should have more direct control over the water supply than they have at present. They have no control at present except that they get an amount of water which they require at a price fixed by the Dublin Council.

The same applies to the matter mentioned by Deputy Good in respect to the fire-fighting services. It is surely obvious that this service could be, if not cheapened, at least increased in efficiency if there was unified control over the whole area. I am inclined to agree with Deputy Good that the existing fire-fighting apparatus in the township of Pembroke is inadequate to deal with possible contingencies that might arise. I do not know what formalities would have to be completed before they could get the assistance of the Dublin fire brigade. Would it be necessary under the present circumstances for the Pembroke Council to meet and pass a resolution deciding to ask for the brigade, or would it be necessary for the Dublin Council to meet and pass a resolution deciding that the fire brigade should go? The formalities may not be as foolish as that, but it has happened in the past that damage to property resulted from the fact that these barriers existed in the City of Dublin between administrative areas. As far as I know, there is no fire-fighting apparatus at all in certain of these coastal townships and the provision of such apparatus would be one of the first duties of the coastal borough—or at least the provision of more adequate apparatus than they will take over from the existing townships. That expense would be saved if the coastal townships could be secured the services of the existing apparatus in the City of Dublin.

There are quite a number of other services in respect of which I think it can be shown that unified control will result either in a saving or in increased efficiency. I mentioned a number of services during the Second Reading debate and I asked the Minister to show how their efficiency could be increased by dual control. The President, in the course of his speech on that occasion, pointed out that these services would not be exercised by the borough council at all, but would remain to the county council in respect of the borough council area. I do not think that was an answer to my question. What I asked was how the effectiveness of these services in the city, including in the term "city" the coastal borough area, will be increased by dual control whether that control is exercised by the city council on the one side and the borough council on the other, or by the city council as against the county council. The mere fact that the services will be administered by the county council will not increase their efficiency beyond the point that could be attained if there was unified control over the whole area.

It is, however, clear that there is no argument, in relation to any of these services, in favour of the establishment of a coastal borough. The only arguments advanced in favour of it are the two relied on by the Minister in his speech this evening. First, that it is unwise to extend the area of the city to too great an extent at once, and, secondly, that the inclusion of the coastal borough in the city would so interfere with administration that it would be almost impossible to carry on. I think I have shown that in relation to these arguments the Minister's case is untenable. The extra step which the amendment asks us to take is negligible in comparison with that which the Minister asks us to take. The area which it is proposed to take is less than half the population and valuation of the combined areas of Rathmines and Pembroke. The population which will be left under the administration of the county council is, in fact, greater than that in many areas in regard to which county council administration has proved effective. The same applies to the valuation of the area left under the control of the county council.

The President

What is the valuation?

Mr. Lemass

The only figures I have are those given in the Greater Dublin Commission Report. The figure is £414,745.

The President

As against?

Mr. Lemass

I do not know. I think the figures of the existing valuation are £919,000. The rateable valuation of the following counties is lower than Dublin even after Pembroke, Rathmines, Rathgar, Dalkey and Killiney, are excluded, namely, Carlow, Cavan, Clare, Donegal, Kerry, Kildare, Kilkenny, Leix, Leitrim, Longford, Louth, Mayo, Monaghan, Offaly, Roscommon, Sligo, Tipperary (North Riding), Waterford, Westmeath, Wexford, Wicklow. The area in respect of the rateable valuation of Dublin County Council, even after the coastal borough has been included in the city, will remain one of the largest in Ireland. I do not think that there is any force in the Minister's contention that the needs of the residents in the coastal areas will get any better consideration from the coastal borough council than they will get from the city council. I believe that the city council would be just as anxious to develop these areas and make them attractive parts of the city as the coastal borough council could possibly be. As Deputy MacEntee pointed out, the persons who initiated the campaign for the establishment of a coastal borough have since modified their opinions to the extent that they want a conjoint board set up to deal with the main services of water supply, sewerage and housing. If these main services are to be handed over to a conjoint board no reason remains for the establishment of a borough council at all. The Minister said, in justification of the proposal to establish a borough, as distinct from an urban council, that the former administration would be superior but he did not give any arguments to justify that contention.

As I pointed out, the population of the proposed coastal borough will be substantially less than the existing population of Rathmines and Rathgar, yet the urban council administration proved effective in that district. If the Minister is set on the plan of amalgamating the four coastal townships into one area and of excluding it from the city, I think he should listen to the suggestion that instead of exalting that unit into a borough status he should leave it as an urban district, because that would make it possible to consider the question of amalgamation in the near future, or at whatever time it became obvious, in the opinion of the citizens, that amalgamation should take place. I ask him to consider the suggestion of Deputy Corish that if he is determined that these areas should not be included in the city, they should be left as they are. They have managed to pull along fairly well up to the present and, if they are left as they are, there will be no insuperable barrier to extension. If the coastal borough is set up, it will become a definite impediment to the extension of the city southward. The Minister is, I am sure, aware that those who have been advocating the establishment of a coastal borough are already agitating for increased powers and for an extension of the boundaries so as to include certain parts of the county. That agitation will grow and the borough powers will be strengthened so that it will be almost impossible to bring control of the whole area under the city council.

I said on Second Reading, and I still believe, that the main reason that the Government decided on the establishment of a coastal borough was political. I think that they did not take into consideration, or give their main consideration to, the welfare of the ratepayers of the areas as such. I believe that they were influenced by the fact that an agitation for the establishment of a coastal borough existed in the area and they were anxious to placate and get support for their Party from those people. I believe that Dun Laoghaire Harbour, where most distinguished foreign visitors arrive, was also taken into consideration by them when they decided to crown this arrangement with a mayor. What is the necessity for a mayor? What case has been made in support of the proposal to establish a mayor in the coastal borough? If there must be a council for that area let it be definitely subordinate to the city council and let it be presided over by a chairman, like Rathmines and Pembroke. Why it is to be given the dignity of having a mayor I do not know, unless the Government knew that the chances were that the mayor would be an individual holding the same political outlook as themselves and would, therefore, be fit to associate with them when they are standing on Dun Laoghaire Pier receiving distinguished visitors. If the Minister gave, for including these proposals in the Bill, good political reasons, as I have advanced, I could, as I suggest, understand it. He could get them passed, no doubt, by the usual majority here. He has, however, decided to base his case upon the argument that the establishment of a coastal borough is to the advantage of the ratepayers. That argument, as I think, has been proved by every speaker against him to be groundless. The welfare of the ratepayers of the coastal borough and of those of the City of Dublin will best be served by amalgamating the two areas. As this is a non-Party measure, and as Deputies are free to vote in accordance with their convictions, I hope that these areas will be amalgamated and I ask the House therefore to pass this amendment.

Mr. Flinn

Do I understand that the President said that this cannot be a non-party measure in which every Deputy would be entitled to vote according to his personal wishes? Can we have an assurance from the Minister himself that he will so consider it? It would alter the whole atmosphere of the discussion on the Bill. Having asked for that assurance from these benches, surely the House should not expect the request to be treated with contempt. Are we going to get this assurance that this will be regarded as a non-Party measure on which every Deputy will be entitled to express his convictions in the Division Lobby without the pressure of the Party Whips? I am amazed that we have not received that assurance which has been asked for.

The President

I was rather puzzled in the course of the speech of Deputy Lemass as to what he was driving at until he came to the end of his speech. Then I was satisfied that Deputy Lemass sees nothing either in this House or outside it except through political spectacles. He sees this measure through political spectacles. He can form no judgment on this matter or any other matter except by viewing it through political spectacles. It is quite in accordance with that particular frame of mind that we should be invited to give expression to the view as to whether or not this is to be a Party measure, having had the strongest Party speech on it and having had every other possible indication from the far side of the House that the Party opposite were looking at this measure in a Party manner.

Mr. Lemass

Might I quote the Minister for Local Government for the President?

The President

I know what he said.

Mr. Lemass

You must have forgotten it.

The President

No.

Mr. Lemass

This was what General Mulcahy said at the Shelbourne Hotel: "There was no intention on the part of the Government to deal with it as a Party measure. The Government had never approached the situation in that way but they had some difficulty in dealing with questions like that in the Dáil where they were up against people who were not discussing the matter on its merits.""There was no intention on the part of the Government to deal with it as a Party measure." That means on non-Party lines.

The President

I do not know that there is any difference between that and what I was saying. I was just pointing out that Deputies opposite always invite the whole House to look at a measure in a non-Party way, every member of the Party having made up his mind or having been told to make up his mind to vote in a particular way. Reading Deputy Lemass's speeches during the week-end I was convinced that he never approaches any subject except on the one basis— viewing it through political spectacles. He amused himself during the week-end denouncing everybody. He reminds me of the Pharise who, as I told a Dublin audience a short time ago, was referred to by Swift as on no occasion feeling so holy as when he is making an open confession of the Publican's sins. Now this is Deputy Lemass's idea of a non-political discussion. I was wondering what he was driving at when he referred to unified control and efficiency. Unify control and you are going to have efficiency! I was rather puzzled at another part of his speech, and his references to the new City of Dublin, and at the statement that when Dun Laoghaire, Blackrock and Killiney are all added to the new city, the new representatives on the Corporation will be as much interested in housing in Blackrock, Killiney or Dun Laoghaire as they are in housing in the City of Dublin. I was a representative on the Dublin Corporation for quite a number of years. The Deputy had not that advantage. He came here as a juvenile.

Mr. Lemass

You describe him as such.

The President

When I went into the Corporation in 1909 the previous extension of the city boundaries had been in operation for something like nine years and there was considerable agitation in the Corporation then. The agitation was in respect of certain undertakings that had arisen out of the extension of the boundaries in 1900. One of these matters was that Clontarf was to get the advantage of the main drainage system which they had not got up to that time. Another was that the sloblands were to be laid out as a park and that had not been done up to that time. Speaking from recollection I should state there was no extension of housing in Glasnevin, Clontarf or Drumcondra up to that time. There was quite a considerable number of houses, however, built in Inchicore where the sites were very cheap. To say that by amalgamating Dun Laoghaire, Blackrock and Killiney with the new city, the two or three members returned from each area in Dublin are going effectively to deal with the housing problems in these areas, is asking us to believe a good deal. Certainly it would surprise me if they could not do this work locally much more efficiently if they were so minded, and do it more effectively by concentrating their energies entirely on problems which in many aspects differ greatly from those of the City of Dublin.

The Deputy went on to compare certain services, excluding all the time from his observations what the effect of this proposal would be— whether if he were a member of the Dublin Corporation, he would recommend the Corporation, supposing this Bill were never introduced, to promote a Bill with a view to extending the boundary out as far as Dalkey, or whether he would be prepared to pay the price in which that particular extension might possibly involve the city. His solution, of course, is a different one. There are several counties with smaller valuations, but they are not counties whose valuation is to be cut into two and which are expected to continue the services for the remaining districts. I wonder did the Deputy bother making up what is likely to be the cost of the existing services on the county after this revision of the valuation? The present cost of the services it seems is £470,000, of which £120,000 comes from Government sources. A sum of something like £350,000 is levied in rates. A considerable portion of that comes off here. I observe there is no amendment from the Deputy or from anybody else in connection with Section 17, which seeks to arrange for any financial adjustments that are necessary. I wonder did the Deputy concern himself with the fact that he was handing over from one body to another the services already administered by a pre-existing body and that by unifying these bodies he is going to increase the costs by adding something else? He did not consider that point.

Mr. Lemass

Urban services.

The President

Urban services and county services. He is going to unify the two. He is going to take two existing transactions and put them into one but as to the cost that will be entailed with the transfer that takes place from the county council to the city, who is going to pay that? Very lightly we talk about the fire brigade. Reference is made to the Pembroke fire brigade not, perhaps, being equal to its present job. I do not know what is to be said on that. The statement was made that there is to be more efficient service. Is the more efficient service likely to result without extra cost? Deputy Lemass's simple answer to that is to unify and get efficiency. With unification everything is to be less costly. You are going to have better services and lower prices. Is it likely?

Mr. Lemass

Yes.

The President

It is. The existing motors in the Fire Brigade have got to be sent to other places; we can distribute the forces of the Dublin Fire Brigade, spread them nine miles outside the city and do it at a lesser cost.

Mr. Lemass

I did not say that. I said do it at less than what the coastal borough could do it.

The President

But there is the extra cost. Who is to pay for it?

Mr. Lemass

The citizens of the coastal borough.

The President

The new name for the Party opposite will be the £30,000,000 Budget Party, if they do all these things. In the same way you can do everything in the City of Dublin if you spend more money, and to spend more money, more money will have to be levied in rates. The fact of the matter is Deputies have not considered in this question what is involved under Section 17 to the rates in the city. Bear in mind there would possibly be an addition from one penny to a shilling in the £ extra, or if I do not say extra, that would have to be paid to the county by reason of this loss of valuable property, and I do not know whether or not members of the Corporation would be anxious to extend the boundaries. Deputies say in relation to the Fire Brigade that they would have more service. Yes, but someone would have to pay for it. They cannot have more water. They are getting in a supply in good order and condition, no matter how many people are drinking it. The electric light mentioned by Deputy Good would be there. No one is going to interfere with it.

The Deputy spoke of sewerage. I do not know whether he had in mind the Rathmines and Rathgar sewerage or the Blackrock and Dun Laoghaire sewerage, but they are three separate systems. In one case certainly it would be a great advantage to connect up the Rathmines and Rathgar sewerage with the city, but it is going to cost money. It costs money in two ways. First, with regard to the connection — I do not know how much that will cost — and secondly with regard to the pumping. When it comes down to the outfall works it has got to be pumped. More accommodation is necessary, storage, and so on; the Deputy brushes all that aside. Unification, greater efficiency at a lesser cost——

Mr. Lemass

The President is not referring to the sewerage of Rathmines and Pembroke?

The President

I am.

Mr. Lemass

Rathmines and Pembroke are going to be included in any case.

The President

I know that. I am only following out the Deputy's argument. I said I did not know which he mentioned, because he mentioned sewerage. In the other case my information is there is no damage to the strand. I do not know whether the Deputy has advice from engineers on the subject. My information is that it is carried on an ebb tide, that it does no damage, and that it is swept out to sea.

Mr. MacEntee

What about Dalkey?

The President

I do not know about Dalkey. I say with regard to Dun Laoghaire and Blackrock.

Mr. MacEntee

Ask the opinion of some of the residents of Dun Laoghaire and Blackrock about the sewerage.

The President

What is the Deputy's case? I did not get the full force of his observations.

Mr. MacEntee

I will deal with that later.

The President

Does the Deputy mean to say that there is no drainage in Dalkey?

Mr. MacEntee

There is not proper drainage.

The President

Very good. There is to be proper sewerage, if it is to be added on. In other words, there is to be more money spent, and who is to pay? The most elaborate programme, every possible improvement in services!

Mr. MacEntee

The people whose health is mainly affected, the citizens of Dublin.

The President

The citizens of Dublin are not particularly affected by wrong drainage in Dalkey, and the citizens of Dublin paid for, or are paying for, their main drainage. If the people of Dalkey, or the people anywhere else, want main drainage they will have to put their hands in their pockets to pay for it.

Mr. MacEntee

There is a terrible animus against the people of Dalkey.

The President

Sixpence in the £ will produce a considerable sum, but the Dublin main drainage cannot be extended by a wave of the hand. It means more money, and more money means more rates, and more rates are not going to improve business in the city.

It is all brushed lightly aside by Deputy Lemass, talking about unification, more efficiency, less cost and not bothering his head to go into any one of the three problems. It is the worst statement on any subject that I have heard from the Deputy, and as I said the whole fault in the speech was in the finish; having failed to go into the cost, floundering along hopelessly and muddling into deeper water all the time, he asked: "What is the meaning of it?—it is political." I have a document in my hand, dated 1924, the Dun Laoghaire, Blackrock and Dalkey Borough Bill, introduced here in the Oireachtas. That is their own proposal. In considering what was the best thing to be done in connection with the Report of the Commission, we decided that any further extension of what was embodied in the Bill would not be in the best interests of the ratepayers and the citizens of Dublin and bearing in mind that those other districts were not going to be brought in, we gave attention and car to their proposal to form a coastal borough. It is their own wish. All the things that are condemned, or most of them, are what were asked for by these people who were prepared to back their proposal with their money. A Bill was introduced here, and we have the allegation that this was a political Bill by a Deputy who was probably a Minister for Defence outside in another Government at the time we were bringing it in.

Mr. Lemass

That was not within my department.

The President

It was later, if it were not then, and we were bothering ourselves about local government while the Deputy was considering what he was going to do with his army. There is nothing political in it. It ought to be considered quite free from party matters.

Mr. Flinn

Party Whips.

The President

Party Whips. I hope the Deputy will persuade the Whip opposite to take them off, but whether he takes them off or not, I know the way his Party will vote. When we are invited to discuss anything on a non-Party basis here it is always on the assumption that the other party are not doing it. As I said, this amendment is likely to add very considerably to the cost by reason of the changes which will not result in greater efficiency. It is an unbalanced proposal. It is not a proposal which would in my view pass a meeting of the representatives of the Dublin Corporation if they were sitting, knowing all the circumstances of the case, and it is introduced in the words of the Deputy as a full-blooded political manoeuvre.

Mr. MacEntee

After listening to the speech of the President and bearing in mind the speech of the Minister for Local Government when he was introducing this measure, the one thing that is borne in upon me is the appalling animus which the President and the members of the Executive Council seem to bear towards the innocent inhabitants of the urban districts of Blackrock, Dun Laoghaire, Dalkey, Killiney and Ballybrack. The whole burden of their speeches has been that these people are not going to be permitted to live in healthy surroundings, to be provided with proper sewerage, drainage, and water supply at the expense of the inhabitants of the City of Dublin. The proposal which the House is now considering has just been characterised by the President as an unbalanced one. Let us consider some of the factors in the Bill and determine for ourselves whether the proposal which we have advanced or the proposal for which the President and the Minister for Local Government have made themselves responsible is likely to create the greater want of balance. Let us consider the rateable valuations of the areas concerned. The rateable combined valuation of the townships of Pembroke and Rathmines is £337,000; the rateable valuation of the coastal urban districts is £167,000; the rateable valuation of the City of Dublin, I think, is £1,335,000. If the Minister adds to that an area having a rateable valuation of £337,000 he creates an area having a valuation of £1,670,000. That, according to the President, does not become an unbalanced proposition. The whole still retains its symmetry and balance. In the eyes of the President to add to that an area having a valuation just one-tenth of the whole, increasing the valuation from £1,670,000 to £1,830,000 overturns the whole structure. It becomes top-heavy and unbalanced. That is the sort of argument the House is asked to consider. That is the proposition.

The President

I do not say it is.

Mr. MacEntee

Are you not after saying that our proposal is an unbalanced proposal?

The President

Not that.

Mr. MacEntee

I say if the City of Dublin can sustain an addition of £337,000 in rateable value and still remain a balanced proposition a further addition of £167,000 is not going to create an unbalanced area or is not an unbalanced proposition to present. Consider the argument from the other point of view, from the point of view of effect upon the County of Dublin. At the present moment Dublin County has a rateable valuation of £919,453. If we include Pembroke and Rathmines in the city as is proposed in the Bill it immediately reduces that valuation to £582,000. If you do what we are asking you to do, to include the coastal urban districts, the rateable value will be further reduced but it will be reduced much less in proportion than by the proposal which the President submits to you. After excluding Blackrock, Dún Laoghaire. Killiney, Ballybrack and Dalkey as well as Rathmines and Pembroke, the new valuation will be £414,000. If you are justified in reducing the rateable value of the county of Dublin from £919,000 to something like £582,000 there is no valid argument, all other things being equal, and the balance of the argument being in favour of having a unified urbanised area under the control of the one authority and embracing all those communities who live side by side, which are dependent upon each other, and one of which—Blackrock and Dún Laoghaire—is economically entirely dependent on the City of Dublin, why, because you are going to reduce the rateable value of the County of Dublin from £582,000 to £414,000, you should go against commonsense and exclude Blackrock and Dún Laoghaire from the new city.

Supposing you do include Blackrock and Dún Laoghaire in the city and, therefore, take them out of the county, what is going to be the position of the county in relation to the other counties of Ireland? The County of Dublin with the areas of Dún Laoghaire and Blackrock and Killiney and Dalkey included in the city and excluded from the county will still have a greater rateable valuation than any other county in Ireland with the exceptions of Cork and Galway. It will have a greater rateable valuation than Cavan. Carlow, Clare, Kildare, Donegal, Kerry, Kilkenny. Leix, Leitrim, Limerick, Longford, Louth, Mayo, Meath, Monaghan, Offaly, Roscommon, Sligo, Tipperary North Riding, Tipperary South Riding, Waterford, Westmeath, Wexford, and Wicklow.

Consider it again from the point of view of the population or, first, from the point of view of the revenue to be derived from the rates. At the present moment, I think, the total revenue derived from the rates or by contributions from the urban districts in lieu of rates to the County Dublin is something like £456,518. That was the amount derived from the rates for 1927-28. If we include Pembroke and Rathmines in the city, the revenue from rates or from contributions in lieu of rates to the County of Dublin will be £378,983. If you include, in addition to Pembroke and Rathmines, the coastal urban district in the city, the residual revenue of the County Dublin will be £344,639. The Minister comes to the House and asks you to accept a proposition which is going to reduce the rateable revenues of the County of Dublin from £456,000 to £378,000 and then he asks you to reject a proposition which has, as I said, commonsense and argument to support it. He asks you to reject that proposition upon the grounds that it is unbalanced, though if you reduce the rateable revenue of the County of Dublin by £150,000 the proposition is a valid one and does not create a want of balance in the eyes of the President. When you ask him to go a little further with a proposition that has every reasonable argument to support it he asks you to reject it on the ground that if you agree to a further reduction of revenue of £32,000, still leaving the County of Dublin with a revenue from rates or contributions in lieu of rates of £344,000—a revenue that would be higher than that of any of the counties of Carlow, Cavan, Clare, Donegal, Kerry, Kildare, Kilkenny, Leix, Leitrim, Limerick, Longford, Louth, Mayo, Meath, Monaghan, Offaly, Roscommon, Sligo, Tipperary North Riding, Tipperary South Riding, Waterford, Westmeath, Wexford and Wicklow—it is an unbalanced proposal. The inclusion of the coastal urban districts would still leave the County of Dublin with a greater revenue from rates than any other county in Ireland, with the exception of two—Cork and Galway. Yet our proposition is described as "unbalanced." Our proposition would put the County of Dublin in the same "unbalanced" position as twenty-five of the twenty-seven administrative county areas in the Free State.

Again, consider the question from the point of view of population. The present population of the County of Dublin is 188,000. The Minister comes before you with a proposition which is going to reduce that population to 115,000. Our proposition would, admittedly, reduce that further and would leave the County of Dublin with a population of 80,000. The Minister is asking you to deprive the County of Dublin of 73,000 —almost 40 per cent. of its population—and he asks you to jib at the idea of accepting a proposition which would reduce that population a little further and leave it 80,000. That would still leave County Dublin with a greater population than counties Carlow, Kildare, Kilkenny, Leix, Longford, Louth, Offaly, Meath, Wicklow, Waterford City, Leitrim, Sligo, Monaghan——

General Mulcahy

I am afraid the Deputy is not correct in his figures. The present population of the county is 188,961. The proposed population, according to this Bill, is 104,649. If the Deputy's proposal were carried, the population of the county would be 64,570.

Mr. MacEntee

The figures I have quoted may be subject to correction because of the fact that I was unable to get the figures for the added rural areas. At any rate, the figures do not affect the validity of the argument I am putting up—that our proposition is a balanced one, that it is a natural one, and that if it is accepted the County of Dublin will not become such an uneconomic administrative area as the Minister endeavoured to convince the House it would be. Even if the inclusion of the coastal urban districts in the city were to involve a reorganisation of the county administration, what would be the effect of that upon the inhabitants of the county, who are the people with whom I am concerned for the moment? The Minister himself said that if these areas were included in the County of Dublin the consequent administrative changes in the county would be such that the county rate in North County Dublin would be reduced by 2/6 in the £ and the South County Dublin rate would be reduced by 1/- in the £. As well as that, he said that instead of having, as we have at present, three county councils administering the area of Counties Dublin, Meath and Wicklow, we would be able to dispense with one of these three and would only require two of them.

General Mulcahy

Does the Deputy remember what was going to happen the rates in Meath and Wicklow?

Mr. MacEntee

I am concerned, and the Deputies who sit for County Dublin are concerned, at the present moment, with the effect on our own constituents. But I believe that if the amalgamation which the Minister mentioned were to take place it would involve no increase in the rates of Meath or Wicklow. You would have a larger and richer area going into Meath, and with a larger population you would have such economies in the administration of the joint areas that you would be able to reduce the rates in Meath as well as in North County Dublin. At any rate, the Minister's own admission is that if this proposal were accepted by the Dáil there would be a reduction in the rates in North County Dublin of 2/6 in the £, and in South County Dublin of 1/- in the £.

I only rose to deal with the arguments advanced by the President. I think everything which the Minister has said has been fully and completely answered by Deputy Lemass. We are not looking at this matter through Party spectacles. If we were regarding it as a Party question, Deputy Good and I would probably look at it from different ends of the telescope. From a Party point of view, I do not think we have a single thing in common. But we have this in common — we both represent the people of County Dublin. When you find that Deputy Good's views and my views coincide, as they do, on a matter like this, you may be perfectly certain that neither of us approaches the question from a Party standpoint. This amendment has not been put down from the point of view of party. It has been put down after careful and detailed consideration of the case. We cannot see a single reason, as I have stressed time and again, why Pembroke and Rathmines should be included and why Blackrock, Dalkey and Dun Laoghaire should be excepted. These communities conflict in no way. They are wholly in concord with one another, and therefore, they ought to be administered by one authority. The Minister said that if Dun Laoghaire and Blackrock were included in the city, their local interests would not be safeguarded or secured. I think that is a very weak argument, to say the least. If there is any validity in the Minister's argument, then the central principle of the Minister's Bill—the principle of city managership—stands condemned. According to the Minister's theory, we are to have an effective City Manager, who is going to do his duty to the citizens as a whole, and who is not going to be swayed, as corporations were formerly swayed, by mere class or party interests. That City Manager, if he does his duty as laid down in this Bill, will see that the development of Blackrock and Dun Laoghaire will proceed step by step with the development of every other area under his control. He will see that the interests of the citizens of Blackrock and Dun Laoghaire will not be neglected or placed second to the interests of the citizens of any other part of the city. If Blackrock and Dun Laoghaire require housing —and they do require housing—I am perfectly certain, if the City Manager carries out his duties in the spirit which this House hopes he will, the interests of these areas as regards housing will not be neglected in any way.

A point was made about area. It appeared to me that the Minister, by making that point, failed altogether to consider the general tendency in civic development at the present moment. Look at the millions of money that Dublin has spent in endeavouring to reduce the density of its population in certain areas. The whole tendency of modern communities is to spread themselves over the greatest possible area, in order to reduce the evils which have followed upon overcrowding. In fact, the proposition I would put up is this— that the bigger the area the better the city and the healthier the population. The argument the Minister has advanced for keeping these districts outside the city is the very argument that, if he considered at all the health of the general body of the citizens, he would advance for bringing these areas in. They are not densely populated but the City of Dublin is densely populated, and the natural tendency of the city should be to develop along that seaboard and not to develop to any greater extent inland than it is developing at present — not to develop disproportionately inland — as it will be compelled to do if the Minister's proposals are carried. If those proposals are carried, a barrier will be set to the development in the direction of Dun Laoghaire and Blackrock and the city will be compelled to develop inland.

The point was also made that I have an amendment down dealing with the size of the Corporation of Dun Laoghaire and Blackrock, and that because I suggest that it would be beneficial to the new borough to have a larger council than the Minister proposes, I have admitted that Blackrock and Dun Laoghaire require a separate civic authority. I have made no such admission. That has no relation whatsoever to the proposal to include Blackrock and Dun Laoghaire in the city. It is only put down there to minimise the effect of the Minister's obstinacy in refusing to accept the proposal to include Blackrock and Dalkey in the city. If Blackrock and Dalkey are to be included in the city, I am perfectly certain an arrangement can be made to ensure that they get reasonable representation on the city corporation. If Blackrock and Dun Laoghaire would not get reasonable representation on the corporation, if included in the city, what is to be said about Pembroke and Rathmines? They are being brought in and there is no plea that they are not going to get reasonable representation or that their views will not be listened to in civic affairs. The fact of the matter is that if the Minister's theory of city managership is sound, the size of the representation matters very little; it is the quality of it that will count; because if the citizens of Blackrock and Dun Laoghaire return men who are fit to be their representatives, fit to advance their point of view in the council, then the well-directed and well-founded criticism of these members of the corporation will ensure that the City Manager will do his duty to those districts. Therefore, I emphasise that if the Minister's own theory about city managership and its effectiveness is sound and well founded, there is nothing in the argument that if you bring in Blackrock and Dun Laoghaire you will not be able to give them that representation in the corporation which will ensure that the interests of these districts will be looked after.

Mr. Good

rose.

An Ceann Comhairle

Does the Deputy desire to speak again?

Mr. Good

Yes. I have spoken once already. I think I am entitled to speak three times.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is entitled to speak as often as he desires to do so but I thought Deputy MacEntee was concluding the debate.

Mr. Good

I was anxious, when I spoke a short time ago on this Bill, to lift it out of the atmosphere of Party politics. I must say that I am sadly disappointed that the President and the Minister have not given some assistance in that direction. I think this is a Bill in dealing with which we might all co-operate in the interests of the capital of our country. I am still hopeful that the President and the Minister may see their way to co-operate in that direction. I listened with interest as one always does to the President, but I could not help asking myself as the President concluded, what is the object of this Bill. If we are not to get greater efficiency and economy from amalgamation what is the object of the Bill? One would rather gather from the arguments of the President, particularly in the two instances he gave us, that we might get greater efficiency, but certainly we do not get greater economy under this proposal. I ask if we are not going to get economy under this proposal what good is it going to confer upon the city? I am not quite sure we are going to get greater efficiency. There is a view held, and I think rightly so, in Rathmines and Pembroke that there is as great efficiency there at the moment as there is likely to come under the new administration. If you are not going to give greater efficiency and economy what is the use of the Bill? The President told us, and I was rather surprised to hear it from him, that in the matter of housing we were likely to get better results by reason of the local representation that the coastal borough would have and the concentrated consideration that would be given to this problem by the local authority, that is, the new coastal borough. My experience in these matters is that under a large centralised Department, such as we would expect to see in the City of Dublin controlling the larger area you would get in that Department the knowledge and experience and the information about housing, and views on housing that it would be impossible to get from any small localised authority. Would that experience and knowledge when placed at the service of the coastal borough not be an advantage to the coastal borough and to the city, because we would then have the problem looked upon as a whole problem and the coastal borough as portion of that problem instead of looking at it through isolated units at the present? From that aspect— and I agree with other Deputies that housing is one of the most important problems we have to deal with—I am satisfied that under a unified system better consideration would be given to housing than is given to it at present.

The President said: "If you are going to have a centralised fire brigade that is going to cost more money." I do not think the President was serious there. The President knows that the fire brigades under these authorities are isolated units. What we want under a centralised department is that should an emergency arise all these units will be brought together to deal with the difficulty. You cannot do that at the moment. That can be done without any additional expense whatever, and in that way you would get greater efficiency. I was much interested in what Deputy Thrift said, because as we know, Deputy Thrift gives a great deal of thought to any problem upon which he expresses an opinion in this House. But Deputy Thrift's fear about this Bill was quite a fair and reasonable one. He said he was quite in favour of centralising, but he said let us do it in steps. With that view I am in accord. That is the attitude we have adopted on several occasions, and in regard to several Bills in this House. Let us take the Shannon Scheme. The Shannon Board absorbs various areas as it is prepared to administrate in those areas, and it only takes over those areas when it is prepared to deal with them. Let us apply the same principle to this Bill. Give the Minister power to absorb those areas when he feels his Department is competent to deal with them, so as not to clog the machinery. I agree with Deputy Thrift if you throw all these local authorities on a Government Department at the moment, you will clog the machinery. You must do it in steps. Deputies will remember that when we were dealing with the raising of the school age under the School Attendance Bill some years ago, we came to the conclusion that we would clog the existing administration of the schools if we were to throw the additional pupils into them. What did we do? We gave the Minister authority; we approved of the principle, and said: "As soon as you find your administration is capable of dealing with these additional units you should have power to take them in." What I want done with this Bill is that when we have an opportunity of dealing with the problem as a whole, to view it from the larger standpoint, to try to visualise if we can what extension will be necessary within the next twenty years, and to provide for that. Let that provision be made so that it can be adopted in stages. What I object to in connection with this Bill is that instead of dealing with it from that point of view we deal with it from a narrow and small-minded point of view.

I urge upon the Minister that from the view of centralisation of services this is a matter that is bound to come up. The majority of the different services that will be administered by the coastal borough are services which in the next twenty years are bound to be centralised in the city. If we are going to get as a whole more efficient services from centralisation in the centre of the city what is the advantage of setting up this coastal borough? Once you set up all these authorities there is the greatest difficulty in getting rid of them. They become vested interests and become a difficult problem. It is easier to solve in the first instance than if you set up these authorities and have to get rid of them eventually. I urge upon the Minister unless he sees clearly the necessity for setting up this authority that it is highly undesirable it should be set up. I would also urge that in connection with this whole problem, not only as regards this particular coastal borough but possibly extensions on the other side of the city, that we should try to visualise these extensions, and make provision for them in this Bill, and let this development arise out of this Bill as the particular areas develop.

General Mulcahy

I would be prepared to put a clause into the Bill that would require an examination in five years' time to meet Deputy Good's point about the extension for a number of years—a clause that would require a quinquennial inquiry into the situation as regards what amalgamations or extensions of the control over an enlarged area of common services was dictated by the facts brought out at that particular inquiry. I would be prepared to do that or earlier if between sets of the five-yearly periods any particular set of circumstances arose and that either the Council of the city or the council of the borough make application for that.

Deputy MacEntee talked of the uncertain things tending to unbalance local bodies such as excessive wealth. A local body is not a kind of thing that excessive money would unbalance. Lack of money would do it. While excessive money would not do it excessive space over which to travel would do it. That is the main reason why we do not propose to bring in the coastal borough. It is all very well to say: "To add a little coastal borough with its £171,000 valuation into the city is only doing a very little thing in addition to what we are doing."

Mr. MacEntee

That is the point. I was going to ask if the Minister would consider his argument in relation to the 5,000 acres of added rural area that he is putting in.

General Mulcahy

Certainly—five thousand acres of added rural area within a four mile limit of the city. What the Deputy wants us to do is to add an urban area to the city which is half the area of the present city but where the density of the population is 8.9 as against 38 in the present city.

Mr. Lemass

That is an argument in favour of adding it.

General Mulcahy

It is not.

Mr. MacEntee

What is the density of population in the added rural area?

General Mulcahy

The density of population in the added rural area is 2.4, but, as I say, it is within a four-mile radius of the city.

Mr. MacEntee

Would the Minister consider what would be the distance from the city to Blackrock and Dun Laoghaire if it were not for the accident that Rathmines and Pembroke were not included in the city when the city originally proposed to bring them in?

The President

If it were three miles further, can you not say?

Mr. MacEntee

If Rathmines and Pembroke had been brought in at the same time as Clontarf——

The President

Then we would have another job altogether.

General Mulcahy

If by a little melting process this four miles of coastal borough slipped round the circumference of the city, so as to form the connection here that Rathmines and Pembroke have, then I would bring it in. But you are asking to bring in an area which is half the present area of the city. It is an urban area requiring urban services as distinct from the position of the rural areas we are bringing in at present. With a density of 8.9 you cannot bestraddle and give sufficient urban services to a population that is not dense enough. So I am absolutely out against taking in the coastal borough at the present moment.

On the point that these urban districts ought not to be brought into the borough at the present moment, but that they should be taken in gradually, according as machinery here in Dublin is capable, or that it was thought desirable to do so, there are economies and efficiency and things that require to be done in the administration of these four urban districts now that can be done if they are amalgamated and if a suitable managerial system is set up there. I do not think the urban districts that have waited since 1924, because this matter was under general consideration then, should be asked to wait even for five years before setting up machinery that is going to be of material improvement to the situation.

Mr. Good

May I interrupt the Minister on that point? He proposes now to amalgamate these townships —four of them. But if his object is to take these authorities into the city, say inside the next ten years, why put them to the expense of amalgamation?

Mr. MacEntee

Why make two bites at the cherry?

General Mulcahy

There is no expense in amalgamation.

Mr. Good

I think the Minister has had experience enough to know that there will be expense for pensions, etc.

Mr. MacEntee

And when the amalgamated townships are brought in the expenses will be greater in proportion, because the pensions will be larger in view of the greater responsibility of the officers.

General Mulcahy

If they were all coming into the city now there would have to be a certain amount of superannuation.

Mr. MacEntee

You would have junior members of the staff who could be absorbed.

General Mulcahy

You are not creating any more vested interests than there are at present in the matter of staff, except you take on the manager. You are not piling up new vested interests and unnecessary pensions. You are doing a certain amount of clearing that would have to be done if you were taking them into the city. I would not like to prophesy that in ten years the City Council would want to take in the borough. I would not like directly to bank on that, but we will make every provision in the Bill to enable that to be done, and to simplify that being done, and there is nothing in this measure that will turn back the popular mind, so far as it is reflected by Deputies here, from desiring to see the whole area put into one city.

Mr. Lemass

May I point out to the Minister that when he said that in ten years time the City Council might not want to take in the coastal borough, he put his final and real objection to the proposal. I understand the Minister is willing to insert a section that every five years the position should be reviewed, and if at any time it should seem desirable that the two areas should be amalgamated, machinery will be provided for it.

The President

Or at any earlier stage.

Mr. Lemass

There is a case for amalgamation now much stronger than any case that could be made once the coastal borough is set up. I think the case made here and that has induced the Minister to offer this particular proposal is one based on the advantage of amalgamating the existing coastal townships into the city, and not a case for the amalgamating of the new coastal borough after it has been established. As Deputy Good said, the process of forming a coastal borough and subsequently amalgamating it with the city, will be very much more costly than the process of absorbing the existing townships under this Bill into the city. There will have been established in the meantime not merely specialised staffs for dealing with the problems of the townships, but there will be brought into existence duplicate machinery necessary for the working of street eleaning, road repairing, and matters of that kind. I think the case made here by Deputy Good and others is one for the amalgamation of these areas with the city now, or, at any rate, leaving the coastal townships as they are until the majority can be persuaded that amalgamation is desirable. The case is one against the setting up of the coastal borough, and thus erecting a barrier in the path of future progress. I think the Minister's proposal side-steps the case in favour of the amendment. It does not meet it at all. It merely appears to offer a concession which is not real.

The President

Is the Deputy not now speaking on another section?

Mr. Lemass

No. I am dealing with the amendment.

The President

You are bringing in Section 3, as to whether or not the coastal borough should be set up.

Mr. Lemass

My view and that of Deputy MacEntee and Deputy Corish, who are responsible for this amendment, is that the coastal borough should be amalgamated with the city.

The President

And alternatively that it should not be set up.

Mr. Lemass

And alternatively that it should not be set up.

The President

That is the point the Deputy is on now.

Mr. Lemass

No, I think it is better they should be amalgamated. If the proposal was against the setting up of a coastal borough I would still argue in favour of the inclusion of the coastal townships in the city. Possibly Deputy Good would not. We must recognise that the Bill proposes to set up a coastal borough. The Minister's proposal does not deal with the dangers and objections to that proposal which, in fact, makes it more dangerous and objectionable than originally. I would ask the Minister, therefore, seriously to consider the advisability of standing down from the position he has taken up. It may be a difficult thing but the interests of a very large number of citizens are at stake. There is, in fact, only an artificial demand for this coastal borough.

I think the majority of the citizens of the capital would prefer that it should not be established, and I think the majority of the citizens of the coastal borough are not convinced that they would gain by its establishment. There was an artificial agitation at one time that it should be set up. The Minister, no doubt, was influenced by that. I think now, after he has heard the Deputies of all Parties representing that area speaking against the proposal, he should have the moral courage to withdraw the proposal no matter how much he might favour it himself.

Mr. MacEntee

The Minister's suggestion has introduced a new element into this—whether it is better and more economical to proceed immediately with the amalgamation or to do it within five years time. The way I look on it is if you do not make two bites of the cherry, if you put the townships into the city now, you will be able to make greater reductions in the staff than you could afterwards if you simply set up a coastal borough now. The setting up of the coastal borough does not necessarily imply that the staffs are going to be dismissed, because the Minister in another section of the Bill proposes to bring in 5,000 acres of a semi-urbanised area which will require development and which in its development will require the employment of engineers and others.

It would seem to me that the practical thing to do now would be to bring in the townships and use the redundant staff, instead of dismissing them or having to pension them, in the development of the semi-urbanised areas which you are going to bring in. That would be better than having to employ new engineers later to do that work which you will have to do some time, if you leave the townships out now and bring in the added areas. That will possibly mean that you will have only to pension one or two senior officials, and pension them according to their present responsibility and rate of pay.

On the other hand, if you bring in the coastal borough you will not be able to dispense with your junior staff. They are going to have increased salaries because you are going to add considerably to their responsibilities, and when the question of amalgamation comes along at a later stage one of the factors that is going to act adversely on the amalgamation will be the fact that you are going then to have considerable responsibility to assume in the way of pensions for redundant officials with wider responsibilities than they have now. Therefore it would seem to me that the logical deduction from the Minister's own argument would be to anticipate that five years and make the amalgamation now if it is to be made at all. The Minister admits that within five years this question of amalgamation will have to be considered, and the right thing I submit would be to do it now.

Professor Thrift

It seems to me there is not a very great deal of difference between the opinion expressed by Deputy Good just now and that which I expressed earlier. In fact from the opinions expressed on both sides of the House I cannot help thinking that if Deputies sat around a table they would arrive at a conclusion pretty quickly on this matter. Deputy Good's proposal seems to be that you should bring all the areas under one title right away, or that you should leave the districts that would go under the coastal borough under their own administration separately until such time as the Minister thinks the circumstances and the position would justify their inclusion within the city. But the idea that I outlined, and which I think the Minister to a certain extent supported, was that the name should be put in the first instance and the development and unification should come later when inquiry shows that a proper stage had been reached for that unification to take place. There is very little difference between those two propositions.

I suggest to Deputy MacEntee that he should withdraw his amendment at the present stage and that he should seek a conference in order to get those two propositions put into proper shape in a new amendment which would lead ultimately to what I am glad to say all of us are trying to get in quite a non-Party way. We want to get the best out of this Bill, without considering the interests of one political Party or another. We have got an important matter before us and we should try between us to see what is the best solution. Deputy Good agrees with me that if you take Deputy MacEntee's amendment as it stands it will wreck the whole thing by clogging the wheels. That would be a serious matter. The subject requires very careful consideration and we should see in what way we can work this amendment so as to secure a really desirable result, namely, to bring about the amalgamation in stages.

Mr. O'Kelly

I would like to know if the Minister has any reply to make to the suggestion made by Deputy Thrift?

General Mulcahy

I do not see that Deputy Thrift's amendment leads us very far. We are here discussing whether we are going to take the coastal borough and put it into the city now. I think the first thing that we have to get clear on is whether we are going to do that or not. If we do not get clear that we are not going to do that, then I do not see where we can go in the matter of the discussion.

Professor Thrift

The difference was as regards administration. You have a perfectly separate and distinct administration until such time as the Minister for Local Government for the time being thinks it desirable to amalgamate.

General Mulcahy

I am terribly fond of the thing called the Dun Laoghaire borough, and I would not like to smother it under the name of Dublin. Except we dispose now of the question as to whether we are going to push the borough into the city I do not see where we can go in the discussion. I think we ought to take a decision on Deputy MacEntee's amendment, because if the House carries that amendment then we are gone beyond the stage of discussion.

Professor Thrift

My suggestion was that the amendment should be withdrawn. If the amendment is pressed I feel that I must vote against it, because carrying it into effect would clog the machinery.

General Mulcahy

If the amendment disappears now I do not know when we shall see it again.

Mr. O'Kelly

May we take it that the Minister definitely turns down the suggestion made by Deputy Thrift?

General Mulcahy

No, but I say the suggestion of Deputy Thrift can lead us nowhere if we are going to decide that the borough should come into the city. I think the Deputy will agree with that. From what both Deputy Thrift and I have said here, what we are going to discuss as far as I can see must be something other than that the borough shall come directly into the city. I do not think it would help us in any way to call a number of different things by one name. That would not help us at all. I would certainly like to dispose of this idea—whether or not the House wants the coastal borough to come into the city now. If the House decides on that, then we can see where we are likely to go.

Mr. Good

The difficulty is this: I think there are a number in this House who foresee that it is only a matter of time until this particular area should come within the jurisdiction of the city. This amendment will not settle that problem, and that is my difficulty just as it is Deputy Thrift's difficulty. That is why he suggests that possibly, if we had a conference on the subject, we might arrive at some decision that will meet the views of all.

Mr. Corish

It would appear to me that the Minister is not taking up a reasonable attitude in this matter. He is trying to defeat the amendment before he gives an answer to Deputy Thrift.

General Mulcahy

I have given my answer.

Mr. Corish

Appeals have been made from all parts of the House to discuss this Bill from a non-Party attitude in order to get the best possible results. That is the spirit in which we are all trying to approach it—all except the Minister.

General Mulcahy

I must enter a protest against that suggestion. Deputy Thrift understands the position. If the House does not decide whether the borough should or should not come into the city now I do not know what we can discuss. I offered to Deputy Thrift a quinquennial examination of the situation. I have stated that I saw reasons why the four urban districts should be allowed to come together into the borough now. The one thing I see in Deputy Thrift's suggestion is that, accepting that the four urban districts are not coming now into the city, he wants to discuss whether they should be left as separate urban districts so that in any of the examinations that would take place, or in circumstances that might make it appear that Blackrock alone ought to come into the city, there would not be a difficulty that would prevent that; or if circumstances showed that Blackrock or Dun Laoghaire should come in and Dalkey and Killiney should not come in, that there would not be anything to prevent that. That is the only point I see in Deputy Thrift's suggestion. Until we know whether the House is going to make the decision that these four urban districts are not going to come into the city now, we cannot go much further with that suggestion. I do not know whether it would be in order, having decided on the present amendment to Section 2, for us to discuss on Section 3 that particular aspect. It might be possible to give further consideration to the matter before we commit ourselves entirely to the principle.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is, to discuss on Section 3 whether the four districts should be included?

General Mulcahy

Yes. If we dispose of the present amendment and Section 2 then we can discuss the point raised by Deputy Thrift on Section 3.

Mr. MacEntee

If we were to withdraw the amendment what would be the Minister's attitude in regard to Section 3.

The President

I would like the Deputy to give this matter very careful consideration. If the amendment is withdrawn now, unless it is intended to wreck the Bill it cannot be re-introduced for the simple reason that the Bill is constructed on the basis that there is to be a borough. The consequences arising out of the passing of the Deputy's amendment would affect about 100 new amendments. In fact, the Bill would have to be withdrawn, and I am sure the Deputy will realise that.

Mr. MacEntee

The Bill will have to be recommitted, anyhow, after we have dealt with it on this stage.

The President

What would be required in the other case is that the Bill would have to be withdrawn; we would have to have an entirely new measure.

Mr. Lemass

Then the President's contention is that the borough must stand, and he is not prepared to consider any proposal that would result in its deletion?

The President

As far as this measure is concerned, that is so. It is obvious that the passage of this amendment would affect the four different parts of the Bill, certainly three parts of it. It would affect two parts so much that it would not matter whether it affected the third part or not. I am sure that Deputy MacEntee realises that we could not go on with anything else except the two points which arise as matters of principle—the Manager and the franchise. You could not go on with anything else to-night.

Mr. MacEntee

I do not see eye to eye with that point of view at all. To me it appears that the major principle in the Bill is the reconstitution of the Dublin Corporation and the enlargement of the boundary of the city, and the question of the establishment of the coastal borough, except it is a particular fad of the Minister's, is a comparatively minor matter. If the Minister was prepared to consider Deputy Thrift's suggestion there would be no obstacle to deleting, by agreement, Section 3 and the consequential sections to it.

The President

I will not say that it is the official view, but it is my view that if this amendment were to be passed the proper thing for the House to do would be to deal with the Corporation, as to whatever alterations might be considered necessary in its representation, and the Manager, leave it there and let the Corporation promote a Private Bill to carry out the extension of the boundary, having got practically a Second Reading from the House in favour of that. The financial complications resulting from a reduction of the valuation of the county from £940,000 to approximately £400,000 is something that you cannot have settled in a House like this. It is too big a proposition. The county and the city should be heard in regard to a matter of such importance. Whatever possibilities there are for accommodation between them, they ought to be the subject of negotiations between the two parties, but not here. I suggest if the House passes the Deputy's amendment that that is the course that ought to be adopted in fairness to the county council, to the present corporation in the city, and in fairness to Rathmines, Pembroke, Dalkey and the other places.

Mr. Corish

Supposing for the sake of argument that the amendment before the House is put and defeated and the Government win, is the President then prepared to go into the question of Section 3 as to whether the borough should be set up or not?

The President

That is another matter. I am not wedded to the same extent to that.

Mr. Corish

That is the real position. That is what Deputy Thrift's suggestion hinges on. The Minister has already stated that he has not turned down Deputy Thrift's suggestion, but the President has turned it down.

The President

No. If I were a member of the Dublin Corporation I would be prepared to stand for the amalgamation of Rathmines and Pembroke, but I would not recommend and I would vote against the proposal to take in Blackrock, Dun Laoghaire, Dalkey and Killiney.

Mr. Lemass

Does the President insist on the coastal borough?

The President

I insist on the coastal borough to this extent, that it appears to me to be a better proposition from the point of view of the further ultimate extension of the city and for the intermediate government of these places to have the coastal borough. But I am not committed to it to the same extent as I am committed to not extending the boundary of the city beyond the limits of Section 2.

Mr. O'Kelly

If I understand the President aright, his position is the same as that of Deputy Thrift's— that for the moment he is wedded to the suggestion in the Bill that the boundaries be only extended to take in Rathmines and Pembroke on the southern side, but that he is not wedded for the moment entirely to the setting up of a borough.

The President

What we call betrothed.

Mr. O'Kelly

Yes, betrothed and not wedded. That is Deputy Thrift's position. If the President would agree with the proposition that the immediate setting up of the borough would be dropped we would be prepared to withdraw Deputy MacEntee's amendment.

We are as anxious about this matter as Deputy Good who, if I may say so with all respect, made one of the most effective speeches which I have heard for a long time in this House on this section. We are not out to gain any Party advantage out of this Bill. We are anxious, as, I think is every Deputy who either lives here or who is interested in the city, to promote the welfare of Dublin. I know that the President has its interests at heart too and, knowing that, I am rather astonished that he takes the view on this matter that he does. In the past I think he always stood for a big Dublin, a Dublin of which we could be proud. As it is. Dublin is no mean city but it could have been much bigger and greater in the past were it not for political affairs over which we had no control. We have, however, control now and can make Dublin what it ought to be, a great city of a great nation. To my mind we are putting one obstacle in the way of making that city what it ought to be by setting up this borough. The President is a man who—without disrespect to anybody else—is probably the guide in this matter so far as the Local Government Department is concerned, and in my opinion if he reconsiders the matter and takes the view of a Dublin citizen, having the real interest and welfare of the city at heart, he will waive the suggestion that this borough should be set up now by the passing of the next section.

If this amendment is defeated there will probably be no chance of bringing it on again, and the next section will come along, setting up that borough, and thus we will be putting an obstacle, which does not exist at present, in our way. We do not want it, and if it does not suit the city council after examination to take in the additional areas of Dun Laoghaire, Blackrock and other districts this year or next year we do not want to force them. We do not want the borough set up because we believe that it would be an obstacle in the way, as there would be vested interests created which would fight hard to prevent absorption in the future. I believe that the President is anxious to see the city a worthy capital of the country, and I appeal to him not to set up this obstacle but to leave the matter open. Even though there might be some slight temporary advantage gained by the citizens under that head I think we should put it aside and give the new city council an opportunity of taking those areas in, one by one or two by two, if in their wisdom if, having taken counsel with the new bodies that will be added to them, they think it wise to do so. I think I have a large section of the House with me in urging the President to take that course.

General Mulcahy

We must clear out of our way the amendment to put the four urban districts into the city. Then, in regard to Section 3, I would make this case in favour of unifying the four urban districts. Blackrock rates for the coming year are higher than those in the city. Blackrock and Dun Laoghaire have a joint drainage system which, in spite of what is generally said, is satisfactory. It is discharged outside near the pier on the outgoing tide.

Mr. Brady

Only during the last few months.

General Mulcahy

That is the way it is going. Dalkey drains on the foreshore and that drainage could be linked up to Dun Laoghaire and Blackrock. You want that done under a joint body. I am not satisfied with the way in which Dalkey urban affairs are being administered. I do not want to go into the manner in which those affairs are being dealt with at present, but the position is most unsatisfactory. If we are going to hang on for a certain number of years, leaving Blackrock in the position that for one reason or another its rates are higher than those of the city, leaving Dalkey in the position in which, owing to want of joint control, it cannot link up its drainage with the other districts and in which you have complaints about the fore-shore, and also if Dalkey is perhaps to be run by a Commissioner, you will have a situation in the four urban districts which I do not think could be very well justified. I would argue on Section 3 that that general state of affairs needs to be pulled together. You need a unified mind working over the area and you need the manager system operating there to bring about improvements. That is the case I would make on Section 3 to bring about the amalgamation of these areas, but let us deal with Deputy MacEntee's amendment once and for all and them let us discuss anything we like on Section 3.

Mr. Lemass

I would suggest to the Minister not to move Section 3 at this stage to enable, between this and the Report Stage, the position to be discussed by the conference suggested by Deputy Thrift in order to see whether an agreed section could not be introduced.

The President

An agreed section as to what?

Mr. Lemass

As to the coastal borough, in order to see whether it is to be left as it is or what arrangement could be come to.

The President

Does the Deputy agree that if the valuation of the county is to be reduced by £500,000 that that is a case that calls for——

Mr. Lemass

I think the President misunderstands me.

The President

The Deputy is not on that point at all?

Mr. Lemass

No. The proposal is to set up a coastal borough. The county council position will not be affected whether the borough is set up or not. In either case, I take it that the Department of Local Government is satisfied that a workable arrangement is possible. The question is, if the amendment of Deputy MacEntee is not put, whether the Minister will agree not to move Section 3, which commits the House to the establishment of the coastal borough. Do I take it that that is agreed to?

General Mulcahy

It is suggested that, having defeated Deputy MacEntee's amendment——

An Ceann Comhairle

Is that the suggestion? That if Deputy MacEntee's amendment is defeated, Section 3, subject to agreement, will not be moved at the present stage?

Mr. Lemass

If no agreement is reached in the interval, the Minister could introduce it on the next Stage.

An Ceann Comhairle

What would Deputy Lemass do with the amendment then?

Mr. Lemass

Withdraw it.

The President

And it will never subsequently be heard of?

Mr. MacEntee

I beg your pardon, it will.

Mr. Lemass

If the conference decides that no agreement is possible we can return to the status quo.

The President

Oh, no.

An Ceann Comhairle

The real difficulty we are in is that if at this particular Committee Stage Deputy MacEntee's amendment were withdrawn, it could be brought in again on next Stage, and we would then begin, as we began this evening, and have it all over again, unless there is agreement in the interval. If the amendment were withdrawn and Section 3 were discussed and if it stood in its present form, you could not propose an amendment at this Stage putting the coastal borough into the city, because if we decided to leave Section 3 as it is, we would have decided that there would be a separate coastal borough. If there is withdrawal of the amendment it might be proposed again.

General Mulcahy

My suggestion is as follows: that we dispose of Deputy MacEntee's amendment, and subject to the ruling of the Ceann Comhairle on the matter of order, I am prepared not to commit the House to the principle of amalgamating the four urban districts under Section 3. I am further prepared to go on with such consideration of the Bill as is not involved in a decision one way or another on that point, and either at some other part of the Committee Stage—or again, subject to the ruling of the Ceann Comhairle—on the Report Stage decide the principle of Section 3 one way or another in accordance with whatever agreement may be arrived at at any conference.

Mr. MacEntee

My attitude in the matter is that I am willing to meet the Minister half way, but I am not prepared to allow him to walk over me as he suggests. If the Minister does not move Section 3 now, on the understanding that the conference which Deputy Thrift suggests should take place, I am prepared to withdraw the amendment——

General Mulcahy

No.

Mr. MacEntee

——and to consider our future position in the light of what transpires at the conference. My point of view is practically the same as that of Deputy Thrift and Deputy Good.

The President

I will mark a difference in a minute.

Mr. MacEntee

I think the Minister is taking an unfair advantage now. There has been a very reasonable suggestion which we have met in a reasonable way. We think that the status quo should be maintained and that we should have the right to withdraw the amendment now and to introduce it again for further discussion. Supposing Deputy Thrift, in the course of the discussion at the conference, was converted to my point of view, is he going to be prevented from supporting it by his vote in the House?

The President

He would be a pervert then.

Mr. MacEntee

That may be, but the President has not succeeded in converting Deputy Thrift or Deputy Good to his point of view yet. It is because he despairs of that that he is anxious to have this amendment disposed of in such a way that it would not come before the House again.

The President

I think I explained to the Deputy that as long as the Deputy's amendment remains, the Bill is in danger of destruction. His amendment will have to be defeated. I propose to defeat it to-night and if it is so defeated, not to take a decision on Section 3 but to leave it over for further consideration.

Mr. Lemass

I take it that the position is that Deputy MacEntee's amendment will be put and voted on and that if it is defeated, Section 3 will not be moved?

The President

Yes.

Professor Thrift

I am anxious to point out that I do not think that Deputy MacEntee realises the necessity for coming to a decision on that point as to whether the districts covered by the coastal borough are to be brought into the city now or not. It would be satisfactory if he withdrew his amendment and it would be clearly understood that that was a decision that these areas were not to be brought at the present moment into the city. If that can only be arrived at by a division that division must be taken now. I thought Deputy MacEntee's attitude was to let that decision betaken and then take up the position as to what is to be done with these areas.

Mr. Lemass

The position is that Deputy MacEntee's amendment must be withdrawn or defeated.

The President

We would not agree to its withdrawal.

Mr. Lemass

Therefore the proposal only stands in the event of Deputy MacEntee's amendment being defeated. Surely the President does not expect us to vote for its defeat?

Mr. MacEntee

There is one other point. If this amendment is disposed of and the Minister, as he states, is going to be in a position to argue on the lines that the Blackrock rates are so high, that the administration of Dalkey is unsatisfactory, and you have decided you are not going to bring these districts into the city now, what is left? Are you going to allow Blackrock, with its uneconomic administration, Dalkey with its unsatisfactory administration and Dun Laoghaire, to continue to exist as separate entities?

Professor Thrift

Possibly. It depends on counter-balancing advantages.

General Mulcahy

The cards are on the table.

Mr. MacEntee

They are. In view of the dilemma into which the House is going to be put by the Minister once my amendment is out of the way, the House ought to be able to retain liberty of action in the matter and be able to come to Section 3 with an entirely unprejudiced mind. The House should compel the Minister to permit the amendment to be withdrawn.

The President

According to the Deputy if certain Deputies, knowing what the Minister has said, vote for putting those districts into the city they will be taking a terrible responsibility.

An Ceann Comhairle

We must either put this amendment from the Chair and have a decision on it or Deputy MacEntee must agree that the area of the city will not be made any greater than it is by Section 2 by any further amendment. The withdrawal of the amendment, however, would have the same effect if the Deputy were to say that he would not again propose the amendment so as to put these four coastal boroughs into Section 2.

Mr. MacEntee

So as to put the whole area at present under the control of the four urban councils into the city. I submit that it is not right that the President should preclude the House from including Blackrock if it so desired.

An Ceann Comhairle

The President could not do it.

Mr. MacEntee

That is what he intended.

The President

The Deputy overestimates my power.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is a different question altogether. It is a question of order.

Mr. MacEntee

We would be still entitled to introduce an amendment suggesting that Blackrock might be included.

The President

It is your last chance.

An Ceann Comhairle

If the amendment is withdrawn the Deputy is in the position he was in before he moved it. If the amendment is withdrawn I would not be prepared to give a decision now, but he might be able to move the other amendment, that is, for the smaller area of Blackrock.

Mr. MacEntee

I will take that.

The President

Do not give him too much information.

An Ceann Comhairle

What is the Deputy doing then? I am not now ruling.

Mr. O'Kelly

We will take a vote on it.

Amendment 7 put.

The Committee divided. Tá, 54; Níl, 77.

Tá

• Aiken, Frank.
• Allen, Denis.
• Anthony, Richard.
• Blaney, Neal.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Boland, Patrick.
• Bourke, Daniel.
• Colohan, Hugh.
• Cooney, Eamon.
• Corish, Richard.
• Corry, Martin John.
• Crowley, Tadhg.
• Davin, William.
• Derrig, Thomas.
• Everett, James.
• Fahy, Frank.
• Flinn, Hugo.
• Fogarty, Andrew.
• French, Seán.
• Gorry, Patrick J.
• Goulding, John.
• Hayes, Seán.
• Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
• Houlihan, Patrick.
• Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
• Kent, William R.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Brady, Seán.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Broderick, Henry.
• Buckley, Daniel.
• Carty, Frank.
• Cassidy, Archie J.
• Colbert, James.
• Kilroy, Michael.
• Lemass, Seán F.
• Little, Patrick John.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• Moore, Séamus.
• Morrissey, Daniel.
• Mullins, Thomas.
• Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
• O'Connell, Thomas J.
• O'Kelly, Seán T.
• O'Reilly, Matthew.
• O'Reilly, Thomas.
• Powell, Thomas P.
• Ryan, James.
• Sexton, Martin.
• Sheehy, Timothy (Tipp.).
• Smith, Patrick.
• Walsh, Richard.
• Ward, Francis C.

Níl

• Aird, William P.
• Beckett, James Walter.
• Bennett, George Cecil.
• Blythe, Ernest.
• Bourke, Séamus A.
• Brennan, Michael.
• Brodrick, Seán.
• Byrne, John Joseph.
• Carey, Edmund.
• Coburn, James.
• Cole, John James.
• Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
• Conlon, Martin.
• Connolly, Michael P.
• Cosgrave, William T.
• Craig, Sir James.
• Crowley, James.
• Daly, John.
• Davis, Michael.
• Doherty, Eugene.
• Dolan, James N.
• Doyle, Peadar Seán.
• Duggan, Edmund John.
• Dwyer, James.
• Egan, Barry M.
• Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.
• Fitzgerald, Desmond.
• Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
• Gorey, Denis J.
• Haslett, Alexander.
• Hassett, John J.
• Heffernan, Michael R.
• Hennessy, Michael Joseph.
• Hennessy, Thomas.
• Hennigan, John.
• Henry, Mark.
• Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
• Holohan, Richard.
• Jordan, Michael.
• Kelly, Patrick Michael.
• Keogh, Myles.
• Law, Hugh Alexander.
• Leonard, Patrick.
• Lynch, Finian.
• Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
• McDonogh, Martin.
• MacEóin, Seán.
• McFadden, Michael Og.
• McGilligan, Patrick.
• Mongan, Joseph W.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• Murphy, James E.
• Murphy, Joseph Xavier.
• Myles, James Sproule.
• Nally, Martin Michael.
• Nolan, John Thomas.
• O'Connell, Richard.
• O'Connor, Bartholomew.
• O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
• O'Hanlon, John F.
• O'Higgins, Thomas.
• O'Leary, Daniel.
• O'Mahony, Dermot Gun.
• O'Reilly, John J.
• O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
• O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
• Redmond, William Archer.
• Reynolds, Patrick.
• Rice, Vincent.
• Roddy, Martin.
• Shaw, Patrick W.
• Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
• Thrift, William Edward.
• Tierney, Michael.
• Vaughan, Daniel.
• White, Vincent Joseph.
• Wolfe, George.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Gerald Boland and Cassidy; Níl: Deputies Duggan and Doyle.

Amendment declared lost.

Question: "That Section 2 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.

General Mulcahy

I move Amendment 8:—

"Before sub-section (5) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

"‘(5) The law in force at the passing of this Act in relation to the councils of boroughs shall, in so far as it is not inconsistent with this Act, apply to the Borough Corporation and for that purpose the Borough Corporation shall be deemed to be the council of a borough.'"

Amendment put and agreed to.

General Mulcahy

On the section as a whole I will undertake to bring that committee together that the Deputies mentioned. I wonder whether we could arrive at an understanding as to what the constitution of that committee will be. I understand that the different Parties in the House will desire to be represented on it. If there are any further representations from individuals they can be considered. We may have a preliminary meeting before the House adjourns on Friday.

An Ceann Comhairle

Meantime I will put Section 3.

Mr. O'Kelly

On the understanding that we are not taken as agreeing to it.

An Ceann Comhairle

There is no right under the Rules lost by that.

Section put and agreed to.

The following amendment stood in the name of Mr. T.J. O'Connell:

Before Section 4 to insert a new section as follows:—

"On the appointed day the council of the urban district of Howth shall be dissolved and cease to exist and thereupon the area of the said urban district and the rural areas set forth in the Fourth Schedule shall become and thenceforward be collectively a municipal borough by the name of ‘the Borough of Howth' being a part of the county."

Mr. O'Connell

I think this arrangement affects my amendment, because it is possible that after the conference there may not be a southern coastal borough. If there is not to be a southern coastal borough I think my proposal for a northern coastal borough would have to be reconsidered. This amendment would only be moved if Section 3 were definitely carried. I do not think that I could usefully enter into a discussion now on the question of a northern coastal borough until I am quite sure whether or not we are going to have a southern coastal borough.

Amendment not moved.

Section 4 put, and agreed to.

SECTION 5.

General Mulcahy

I move amendment 10:

In sub-section (1) 5, page 6, line 5, after the word "including" to insert the words "stock and."

This is a drafting amendment to ensure that the new corporation will be responsible for taking over the liability for stock issued.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 5, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Sections 6 to 15 inclusive, put and agreed to.

SECTION 16.

(Inclusion of certain rural areas in the city).

General Mulcahy

I move amendment 11:—

"To delete sub-sections 2, 3 and 4."

Amendments 11 and 12 go together. They are really drafting amendments. They will ensure that instead of there being created a map of the added districts the map that will be prepared will be a map of the complete new city, showing the added areas of Rathmines and Pembroke, and the area of the old city. The map will be a map of the complete new city.

Amendment agreed to.

General Mulcahy

I move amendment 12:—

Before Section 17 to insert a new section as follows:—

(1) As soon as may be after the passing of this Act the Commissioner of Valuation shall prepare in duplicate a map drawn to such convenient scale and in such convenient number of separate sheets as shall be approved by the Minister showing in suitable manner approved by the Minister the added rural areas as described in the First Schedule to this Act, the added urban districts, and the Existing City, and shall seal both duplicates of such map and shall deposit one of such duplicates in his principal office in the City and shall deposit the other of such duplicates in the offices of the City Corporation.

(2) The said maps when so deposited in the said offices of the said Commissioner and the City Corporation respectively shall be retained in such offices, and such maps or true copies thereof shall be open for inspection free of charge in such offices by any person at any time at which such offices respectively are open for the transaction of public business, and it shall be lawful for the said Commissioner and the City Corporation respectively to prepare and supply to any person requesting the same a true copy of the map so deposited with him or them or any particular part thereof and to charge for such copy such sum as the Minister, with the sanction of the Minister for Finance, shall direct.

(3) It shall be the duty of the said Commissioner and of the City Corporation respectively, whenever required so to do by any Court of Justice, to prepare and produce to such Court a true copy of the map or any specified part of the map deposited with him or them under this section and to verify such copy to such Court by the oath of one of his or their officers, and, upon any such copy being so produced and verified to such Court, such Court shall receive such copy in evidence and thereupon such copy shall be conclusive evidence of the boundaries (so far as the same are shown on such copy) of the areas comprised in the added rural area and in the added urban districts respectively, notwithstanding (in the case of the added rural area) any discrepancy between such copy and the description contained in the First Schedule to this Act or any ambiguity or uncertainty in such description or in the application thereof.

Amendment agreed to.

Ordered: That the new section stand part of the Bill.

Sections 17 to 21, inclusive, put and agreed to.

SECTION 22.

General Mulcahy

I move amendment 13:—

13. In sub-section (1), Section 22, page 12, lines 21 and 28, after the word "Council" to insert in each case the words "or of the Board of Health," and in line 29, after the word "Council," to insert the words "or the Board of Health as the case may require."

This is simply a drafting amendment. It enables transfers of officers from the county council or board of health.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 22, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

SECTION 23.

General Mulcahy

I am accepting amendments 14 and 15 which are as follows:—

14.—In sub-section (1), line 18, after the word "Council" to insert the words "or by a rural district council." (Richard Corish).

15.—In sub-section (1), line 20, after the word "Council" to insert the words "or such rural district council." (Richard Corish).

With regard to amendment 14, I may have to modify that to include the board of health, but in principle I am accepting it.

Mr. Lemass

Are we to take it that the Minister will introduce an amendment to include the board of health?

General Mulcahy

Yes.

Amendments moved and agreed to.

Section 23, as amended, agreed to.

Section 24 agreed to.

SECTION 25.

Question proposed: That Section 25 stand part of the Bill.

Professor Thrift

In connection with this section, I just want to point out to the Minister that as it stands it would probably conflict with an amendment, such as he suggested, when we were discussing Section 2. Does the Minister hold to the exclusion contained in that section, namely, the exclusion of any possible conjunction between the supposed coastal borough and the city?

General Mulcahy

I would like to have an opportunity of examining the question further. I do not think it would be advisable to amalgamate two local bodies by means of Provisional Order procedure. In practice I do not think that has been done. I can have the matter examined. If it were desired, say, to amalgamate the borough afterwards with the city, I think we would have to do it as a direct piece of legislation rather than as legislation of the Provisional Order type.

Professor Thrift

I think it would be necessary to delete the following words in line 40, sub-section (1) of Section 25, "and which does not form part of the borough."

Section put and agreed to.

Section 26 and 27 agreed to.

SECTION 28.

General Mulcahy

I move amendment 16:—

Before sub-section (5) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

"(5) The law in force at the passing of this Act in relation to the councils of county boroughs shall, in so far as it is not inconsistent with this Act, apply to the City Corporation and for that purpose the City Corporation shall be deemed to be the council of a county borough."

This is a drafting amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 28, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 29.

(1) The City Council shall consist of twenty-five members of whom twenty-one (in this Act referred to as ordinary members) shall be elected in accordance with this Act by the persons for the time being registered on the register of local government electors and four (in this Act referred to as commercial members) shall be elected in accordance with this Act by the persons for the time being registered on the register of commercial electors.

(2) Nine members of the City Council shall constitute a quorum.

An Ceann Comhairle

With regard to amendments 17 to 24 on this section, there are really four questions involved: the size of the council, the number of ordinary members, whether there shall be any commercial register, and how many persons shall be elected on the commercial register. We can take first the size of the council. There are various suggestions with regard to that. I shall then put the question that the words in the Bill—that is twenty-five—stand. Perhaps the Minister would tell us his attitude with regard to the amendments or size of the council.

General Mulcahy

I am prepared to accept the amendment in Deputy Doyle's name, fixing the total number of the council at 35, and the number of members elected on the commercial register as five.

An Ceann Comhairle

And the quorum as twelve?

General Mulcahy

Yes. Assuming that you had a council of 35, the suggestion is that there should be five electoral areas instead of three as provided for in Section 31.

An Ceann Comhairle

With regard to the number of the council, in order to avoid useless divisions, may I take it that there is agreement in the House to insert the figure "35" instead of "25" and to take the debate on that?

Agreed.

Mr. S.T. O'Kelly

I move amendment 17:

In sub-section (1), line 14, to delete the words "thirty-five" and substitute the words "forty-five."

After a discussion with a number of my colleagues who were interested in this, they succeeded in getting me to reduce the figure to forty-five. I wanted the number to be sixty. After a great deal of discussion, they insisted that forty-five would be an adequate number to get representation for all classes that should be represented on the council —a council which will include so many diversified interests. I realise, having had some little experience of the old municipal council of Dublin, which had a membership of eighty, that that number was too large if you like. My own personal belief is that a council consisting of sixty members would certainly be required to give adequate representation to all the interests involved. When you take in the added areas of Pembroke and Rathmines the council will be representing a population of almost 400,000 people. With a population of that size, and taking into account the diversity of interests that are to be found amongst the people in a capital city like Dublin and the various types of mind that will be clamouring for expression, I think it is a moderate request to ask that 45 members should form the council.

If you take, say, two or three big organisations, organisations that deal with purely civic problems and in which politics only enter in a minor way, you will have in these a clash of interests and points of view demanding expression that a number such as 35 will not provide adequate representation for on the council. A city with a population of 400,000 people may be said to be a large city. Under the new arrangement proposed in this Bill, if it goes through, the administration of the city will be in the hands largely of officials. The matter of appointment to the various offices, great or small, will be matters of administration and will be outside the purview of the council. Questions of legislation will be within the power of the new council, and when questions of legislation are being discussed the wider the number of points of view that can find expression inside the council the better the result will be, within certain limits.

The limit suggested in the amended form by the Minister would not, I am quite satisfied, be sufficient. Personally, I would rather have 60, so that minor interests might be able to elect a representative to the council, as such a representative might prove a most valuable member. It is extraordinary sometimes where one gets wisdom from—"out of the mouth of babes" as the old proverb says—and in my experience of public bodies very small and insignificant interests produced men who were of the utmost value in the corporation. Having in view that experience, I urge upon the House the necessity for enlarging the council to the suggested number—45. I think the city would benefit by that, and I am of opinion that we will not get adequate representation for the classes who are entitled to representation in a body in which such important interests are at stake as in the council of the capital of Ireland if we restrict the number to 35.

Mr. Byrne

I am in complete agreement with every word that Deputy O'Kelly has said. I would be glad if the Minister would see his way to accept the number suggested—45. If the Minister is of opinion that he cannot go the whole way to meet Deputy O'Kelly's amendment, I think the least he might do is to strike a happy medium and accept the number I have suggested and place the size of the council at 40. The old corporation, as Deputy O'Kelly pointed out, numbered 80, and the new council, if the Minister accepts my amendment, will be only half the size of the original body. The Minister ought to bear in mind the argument Deputy O'Kelly has put before the House, that in a city numbering almost 400,000 inhabitants, with great diversity of interests, every possible care should be taken, as far as humanly possible, to give the various kinds of interests representation on the council. I completely agree with Deputy O'Kelly when he says that if only 35 are elected on the council that diversity of interest will not be represented. Moreover, one has to remember that if such a small council as 35 is set up, and if that council is to function with any effect in the carrying out of municipal affairs, there would have to be a very regular attendance of those 35 members if the business of the city is to be properly conducted. In this House we have paid representatives, and Whips of the Parties know the difficulties they are faced with in keeping the different units of their Parties in attendance in the House. What will that difficulty be in the Council of Dublin, where there is no such stimulus as the Whips to have members present to carry out the business? In my opinion the minimum number that could possibly carry on the business of the council would be 40. I do not know if the Minister would go the whole way to meet Deputy O'Kelly. If he would I would be more grateful to him than if he accepted the number 40.

No doubt the small committees functioning in the new council will make for greater expedition and despatch in municipal affairs, but for adequate discussion of municipal affairs 35 is an insufficient membership, considering the number of problems they will have to deal with —problems of policy and finance and many other matters that will from time to time arise. If we send only a small number of representatives to the new council we will be burking reasonable discussion, and we will not be discussing the affairs of the city in the way they are entitled to be discussed. I would also ask the Minister to bear in mind that two areas which are being taken in, Rathmines and Pembroke, have succeeded in getting a particularly good type of councillors to represent them. If you enlarge the number of the new council you will be encouraging that particularly good type of councillors to come in, and you will be giving scope for the activities and experience of those members, which I have not the slightest doubt will not alone be in the interests of Dublin proper, but also in the interests of Rathmines and Pembroke when they come in under the Bill. I have no wish to have unnecessary discussion of ordinary municipal affairs, but I suggest to the Minister that with a population of almost 400,000 in the city to send in only 35 members to the council will not serve the interests of the city in the same way as if he accepted Deputy O'Kelly's amendment or the amendment in my name.

General Mulcahy

I would like to hear some comment from the Deputy on his amendment No. 23.

Mr. Byrne

There is a misprint in that amendment, and I do not intend to move it.

Mr. T.J. O'Connell

I ask the Minister to adhere to the number 35. That figure was put down after considerable thought over the matter. We felt that there are arguments in favour of a small council, but that the Minister had gone too much in that direction when he fixed the number at 25. I think 35, which is now the number in the Bill, is reasonable.

General Mulcahy

I have advanced from 25 to 35. I think that 35 is a reasonable number to conduct the business of the council properly. I think if Deputies look around and imagine 35 seats filled they will realise that it is a sufficient number to act on the council. In the new circumstances, in respect of such committees as the council desires to set up for technical education or libraries they are given power to appoint persons not necessarily members of the council, but persons interested in the matters for which the committees are especially required, that is persons with special experience, interests and training, the type of persons who would not go in for ordinary municipal affairs, and who would not face the electorate and incur the expense that necessarily arises in connection with that.

I am not impressed by the argument that there are various types of minds clamouring for expression and that they ought to find their way into the council. Some of these people might be doing fretwork or painting pictures for the Royal Hibernian Academy or something like that. What we want are elected representatives of the people who will go into the council for the purpose of discussing the business matters that arise there. A council of thirty-five should be sufficiently representative of the city to have the city's voice clearly heard. If there are minor notes, they will be heard as part of public opinion and, heard as part of public opinion, they will react on members of the council. People who are not represented in the council are not deprived of the power of arguing out their point merely by that fact. Public opinion exercises a considerable amount of weight with the members of a council carrying on the business of a city. The members of a council cannot, in fact, carry on the business of the council satisfactorily or properly except they are in touch with general public opinion. I suggest that a council of thirty-five is ample for our purpose.

Mr. Lemass

The proposal of the Minister that the council should be one of thirty-five members is more reasonable than the proposal contained in the Bill originally but I submit it is less reasonable than the proposal that the council should consist of forty-five members. The Minister asked us to imagine thirty-five persons sitting in the benches here in this chamber. I think it has been the experience of all of us that discussions here on any questions of importance are always much better when the actual attendance of Deputies is larger than it is, say, at the present moment. There is an argument in favour of setting up a council of forty-five that has nothing whatever to do with the number of voters each member would represent. I refer to the atmosphere that would be created in the council chamber when matters relating to municipal policy would be under discussion. The theory that a small council is best applies only to executive committees, of which this council will not be one. This council will be a legislative body. It will be discussing matters of policy only and it should be sufficiently large to give a proper air of importance to its deliberations, as well as to ensure that all interests of sufficient importance will be represented. A council of thirty-five implies only thirty elected members. I am rather surprised that the Labour Party should favour the smaller council in this case because the section of the community most likely to be deprived of representation in consequence of the reduction in the number of the council will be the section for whom the Labour Party claims to speak. I think it worked out in that way in the city of Cork. The candidates there who claimed to represent the business interests got a very much larger proportion of the seats than the candidates who stood in the labour interests.

A council of forty-five in the proposed new City of Dublin means one member of the Muncipal Council to every 9,000 of the population—I merely quote round figures. I do not think that that basis of representation is unreasonable. The original proposal of the Minister contained in the Bill made the representation on the Municipal Council correspond with the representation of the city in the Dáil. That is improved upon, I admit, by accepting the proposal to make the council thirty-five, but still I think that the fact that there should be a much wider basis of representation in local government than in national government would justify a further extension of the size of the council to forty-five. There are interests in the city concerned in the results of municipal administration which should be represented on the Municipal Council, but which may not be represented if there are only thirty elected members. There are limits, no doubt, to the size of the council. I do not think personally that forty-five is too small. I think it represents just the right balance between the necessity for getting a proper representation of all views and the undesirability of having a loquacious body discussing matters of policy. The loquacity of a body increases in proportion to its numbers.

There are other considerations which must be taken into account. I think it has been the experience of most people that intrigue and corruption are much more likely to develop in small councils than in large councils. The importance of the individual increases as the size of the council diminishes, and individuals are likely to be influenced by personal consideration. On the larger councils, it is groups and parties that exercise control, and groups and parties are less likely to be influenced by corrupt methods than are individuals. That point should be taken into account. Personally, I do not see that there will be much room for corruption in the new Municipal Council, with the limited powers which the Minister proposes to give it. At the same time, it is desirable that group policies should operate rather than individual views. There are certain principles which should determine the size of any legislative body, whether that body be a national body, like this Dáil, or a municipal body or county council. It is not correct, as the Minister appears to think, that the size of a council should vary in direct proportion to the volume of its revenue. Other considerations must be taken into account. I do not think any Deputy would hold that if this Dáil consisted of thirty-five members its business would be done in any better manner than it is done at present. Possibly it is too large at present, but at the same time, if we were to reduce its membership to thirty-five, we would merely have a committee. We would have much more scrappy discussions than at present on important matters of policy. Possibly, details of administration might be attended to in a better way, but important matters of policy and the ideas and ideals that influence administration would be considered in a much more scrappy way, if they were considered at all.

The Government's original proposal of twenty-five members was obviously only a bargaining proposal. They have proved themselves to be bad bargainers by advancing too soon. I wonder if we could get them to advance further? The number suggested by Deputy O'Kelly is not a bargaining proposal. It was the figure arrived at after definite consideration by this Party. Views were expressed in favour of a smaller number and views were expressed in favour of a larger number. Finally, we arrived at the conclusion that forty-five would be a reasonable number for the council, that it would secure proper representation for all interests and, at the same time, preserve an atmosphere which would ensure that matters of policy would be properly discussed when the council was in session.

Mr. P.S. Doyle

I rise to support the amendment providing for thirty-five members which appears in the names of Deputy O'Connell and myself. Past experience of a council of eighty suggested to me that thirty-five would be about the proper number for this council. Under the council of eighty, a considerable amount of business was carried on by various committees. I take it that, under the scheme of city managership, a lot of this administrative work, which was formerly performed by committees, will be discharged by the City Manager. As a result, it will not be necessary to have a very large council. I think, with Deputy O'Connell, that thirty-five members is quite a reasonable number.

Question put: That the words "thirty-five" stand part of the Bill.

The Committee divided: Tá, 81; Níl, 44.

Tá

• Aird, William P.
• Anthony, Richard.
• Beckett, James Walter.
• Bennett, George Cecil.
• Blythe, Ernest.
• Bourke, Séamus A.
• Brennan, Michael.
• Broderick, Henry.
• Broderick, Seán.
• Byrne, John Joseph.
• Carey, Edmund.
• Cassidy, Archie J.
• Coburn, James.
• Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
• Conlon, Martin.
• Connolly, Michael P.
• Cosgrave, William T.
• Crowley, James.
• Daly, John.
• Davin, William.
• Davis, Michael.
• Doherty, Eugene.
• Dolan, James N.
• Doyle, Peadar Seán.
• Duggan, Edmund John.
• Dwyer, James.
• Egan, Barry M.
• Esmonde, Osmond Thos. Grattan.
• Everett, James.
• Fitzgerald, Desmond.
• Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
• Good, John.
• Gorey, Denis J.
• Haslett, Alexander.
• Hassett, John J.
• Heffernan, Michael R.
• Hennessy, Michael Joseph.
• Hennessy, Thomas.
• Hennigan, John.
• Henry, Mark.
• Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
• Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
• Holohan, Richard.
• Jordan, Michael.
• Kelly, Patrick Michael.
• Keogh, Myles.
• Law, Hugh Alexander.
• Leonard, Patrick.
• Lynch, Finian.
• Mathews, Arthur Patrick.
• McDonogh, Martin.
• MacEóin, Seán.
• McFadden, Michael Og.
• McGilligan, Patrick.
• Mongan, Joseph W.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• Murphy, James E.
• Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
• Myles, James Sproule.
• Nally, Martin Michael.
• O'Connell, Richard.
• O'Connell, Thomas J.
• O'Connor, Bartholomew.
• O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
• O'Hanlon, John F.
• O'Higgins, Thomas.
• O'Leary, Daniel.
• O'Mahony, Dermot Gun.
• O'Reilly, John J.
• O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
• O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
• Reynolds, Patrick.
• Rice, Vincent.
• Roddy, Martin.
• Shaw, Patrick W.
• Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).
• Thrift, William Edward.
• Tierney, Michael.
• Vaughan, Daniel.
• White, Vincent Joseph.
• Wolfe, George.

Níl

• Aiken, Frank.
• Allen, Denis.
• Blaney, Neal.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Bourke, Daniel.
• Brady, Seán.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Carty, Frank.
• Colbert, James.
• Cooney, Eamon.
• Corry, Martin John.
• Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
• Crowley, Tadhg.
• Derrig, Thomas.
• Fahy, Frank.
• Fogarty, Andrew.
• French, Seán.
• Corry, Patrick J.
• O'Reilly, Thomas.
• Powell, Thomas P.
• Ryan, James.
• Sexton, Martin.
• Goulding, John.
• Hayes, Seán.
• Houlihan, Patrick.
• Jordan, Stephen.
• Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
• Kent, William R.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Kilroy, Michael.
• Lemass, Seán F.
• Little, Patrick John.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• Moore, Séamus.
• Mullins, Thomas.
• O'Dowd, Patrick Joseph.
• O'Kelly, Seán T.
• O'Leary, William.
• O'Reilly, Matthew.
• Sheehy, Timothy (Tipp.).
• Smith, Patrick.
• Walsh, Richard.
• Ward, Francis C.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle; Níl: Deputies G. Boland and Allen.

Question declared carried.

Progress to be reported.

The Dáil went out of Committee.

Progress reported.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.38 p.m. until Thursday, 10th April, at 3 p.m.