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.