Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 27 Feb 1935

Vol. 55 No. 1

Local Government (Dublin) Bill, 1933—Motion under Article 38A of the Constitution.

Minister for Local Government and Public Health (Mr. O Ceallaigh)

I move:—

Beartuightear leis seo, fé Airtiogail 38A den Bhunreacht, an Bille Rialtais Aitiúla (Baile-Atha-Cliath), 1933, do chur go dtí Seanad Eireann arís.

It is hereby resolved, under Article 38A of the Constitution, that the Local Government (Dublin) Bill, 1933, be again sent to Seanad Eireann.

The position with regard to this Bill is somewhat similar to the one that we have been discussing. This Bill was sent to the Seanad on the 7th June, 1933, and rejected. The statutory period defined under Article 38A of the Constitution expired in December last. 1, accordingly, move that the Bill be again sent to the Seanad.

General Mulcahy

Again, the Minister has not attempted to underline his conviction, that this motion should be passed, by any statement to the House. The valuation of the City of Dublin is probably about £1,900,000 at the present time. When the Greater Dublin Act was passed its valuation was about £1,200,000. It was estimated that in or about £600,000 of that represented the valuation on commercial or business premises, and that the greater part of that valuation was not directly represented by a local government electoral vote. Rates were raised as fully on that valuation of £600,000 as on the remaining part of the city valuation. We have not been informed by the Minister what is the present valuation on business and commercial premises in the city. If the entire valuation of the city is £1,900,000, we may take it that the valuation of commercial and business premises is at least £800,000. The Minister's proposal is that the people who pay rates on that valuation will have no representation directly on the Dublin Corporation.

The Greater Dublin Act made a certain amount of provision in that respect. It gave five representatives, on a council of 35, to those elected on a commercial franchise based on the commercial and business valuation of the city. Since the Minister put this measure before us the Oireachtas has passed an Act which is extending the Dáil franchise to local government electors. Therefore, while the franchise, which is, more or less, directly related to rate paying, and the valuation of the city is now extended, I suppose, by 40 per cent., the Minister is depriving property, the valuation of which is about £800,000, of representation on the Dublin Corporation. I think the Minister should tell the House how he thinks it right to do that. That property, bearing the full city rate, will now have no representation on the City Council. It seems to me to be a very extraordinary thing to happen. It is a matter that the Minister ought to deal with when asking the House to pass this motion.

Mr. Cosgrave

It might be well if the Government were to reconsider its decision on this matter. Apart from what Deputy Mulcahy has said, it should also be borne in mind that during the last couple of years Government policy has been directed to pretty large borrowings. Amongst a number of big institutions seeking money in the market now is the Dublin Corporation. One might naturally expect that people having extensive property in the city would be interested in the successful flotation of loans by the Dublin Corporation for housing and other schemes. Consequently, it is advisable that they should have representation on the body whose property—their property and the property of others whom they represent—is pledged as credit for these loans, and that an endeavour would be made to have co-operation between them and other interests on the municipal body.

In the case of the Cork City Act, when it came before the House some few years ago, representations were made, but at too late a date, to provide a franchise for the business community. The result of what is now proposed is that property in the city of high valuation will have no representation on the City Council. The question arises: has there been any objection from other sections of the community to the representation on the City Council which it is now proposed to sweep away? So far as one can judge, harmonious relations have existed between those elected on the commercial register and the other members of the City Council. Apart from all that, if it be intended to deal with a big question like that of housing, it is inevitable that sums of money be borrowed. The better the response of the public to the offering of these loans and the better the rates at which money can be procured by bodies which have to borrow, the better for all classes of citizens. It might, perhaps, help the present loan if it were known that this matter was receiving reconsideration by the Government.

Mr. Belton

Deputy Cosgrave has touched upon a very important point, which the Minister should consider. I am not as undemocratic as the Minister, measuring the Minister's democracy by the last motion and his view thereon. I remember, a few years ago, when the Minister asked in the Dublin Corporation: "Why stop at 500 houses for the people; why stop at 1,000, why not 10,000? I agree with him. The Minister is probably aware—if not, the Minister for Finance will tell him—of how easy or how difficult it is to get money to finance housing schemes. He is probably aware that the loan now being floated for £1,350,000—the loan referred to by Deputy Cosgrave—could have been floated a year ago at a cost of £40,000 less. Money is cheaper in the world market to-day than it was then. We could float a loan of 3½ per cent. stock then with every hope of its being subscribed—in any event, we were able to get responsible people to guarantee that stock at an issue price of £96—but to-day we can only obtain a guarantee if the stock is issued at £93. I wonder if the fact that this Bill is on the stocks has anything to do with that. The British municipalities can get money at 3 per cent., issuing their stock at par. Why should we have to pay £3 10s. for every £93? The Minister is probably aware that, even then, no provision is made and no money will be available for the building of a solitary house under the 1935 programme. The sum realisable by this loan will be £1,336,000, contracts for the whole of which have been placed, with the exception of one item of £75,000 for the widening of South Great George's Street. All the housing contracts have been placed and will be completed by next September. Take the case of the Crumlin area, where a £500,000 contract is in course of execution. Land has been developed for a housing scheme to cost £1,000,000 but we are making no provision for that in this loan. I do not want to say anything here that I should not say and I do not really know where the danger point is——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is very near it.

Mr. Belton

In any case, we have not any money to build houses on this developed land at Crumlin. We are making no provision in this loan for the building of houses there. I am sure the Minister is aware that the Dublin Corporation has discontinued the lending of money under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act and that no provision is being made in this loan for the financing of this Act. The Minister shakes his head. I know all the operations. Provision is made for £250,000 in respect of the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act but that money has already been advanced from other allocations and, when the borrowed money comes to the credit of the Small Dwellings Act Account, it will have to be transferred to the other accounts from which that sum has already been borrowed.

Therefore, this loan will make no money available for the operation of the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act. I do not know whether or not the Minister would advance the money but, in any event, the price would not be a practical proposition because it would be £4 15s. per cent. The Minister is aware of the position and I am sure appreciates it.

If the withdrawal of this Bill would help the credit of the Dublin Corporation, it would be a very good piece of work for the Dublin Corporation and for local government generally. Certain of the added areas require water and sewerage schemes but they are not going to get them. Provision is not being made for them in this loan. If the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act be discontinued, 80 per cent. of the building activities in and around the City of Dublin will cease. The building trade is the trade which is giving most employment in the city to-day. It is giving more employment than all the factories put together—I do not care how numerous they may be represented to be. Anything that will help our credit in the Dublin Corporation should be considered by the Minister in present circumstances. If he is convinced that the withdrawal of the Bill would not help our credit, then my argument collapses but I am of opinion that it would help our credit. Another thing that is necessary is either a second main from Roundwood, giving an increased water supply, or the alternative water supply scheme which has been suggested and which is now supported by the engineering staff in the Corporation. But £500,000 will be required for it, anyway. That has to be procured. To carry on, in even the comparatively small ambitious way in which we were carrying on, in housing and general development in the city, another loan on top of this one is practical politics. So, the Minister will perceive from that the absolute necessity of this loan being a huge success, even though the price is pretty high. It is good to be able to get money even at that price, and if it is not a success it will be serious.

Again, however, I would ask the Minister to consider if anything he could do with this Bill, either by holding it up or scrapping it, would help the credit of the Dublin Corporation. He should seriously consider that before he takes the final step of having this Bill enacted into an Act.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister to conclude.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I do not think there is anything in the suggestion put forward by Deputy Cosgrave or by Deputy Belton that the holding up of this Bill would affect the financial credit of the municipality of Dublin. I cannot see it.

Mr. Belton

Does it not affect the rates?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I cannot see how the holding up of this Bill will affect the rates. If anything that I could do here would help the Dublin Corporation to get money for housing more easily or at any considerably cheaper rate, I should be very happy to do it.

Mr. Belton

I am sure of that.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I cannot see, for the life of me, how the putting of this Bill into operation, or the holding up of the Bill, or the holding up of any matter dealing with this particular Bill, is going to affect the credit of the city. I have known, as I know that Deputy Cosgrave has known, the Dublin Corporation for a long time, and, as long as I can recollect, I think I can say with truth that the commercial interests of Dublin were always represented there in some way or another. People connected in a very intimate way with the big commercial interests of the city were always to be found amongst the members of the Dublin Corporation—not in great numbers, perhaps, but you always had a fairly substantial representation there in the membership of the municipal council. It does not seem reasonable to me to suggest, therefore, that the addition or the elimination of five members, one way or the other, is going to affect the financial credit of the municipality. I do not think that it would take half of one per cent. off the loan price if we agreed to allow this Bill to remain suspended. I do not believe that it would have any effect, good, bad or indifferent.

What will affect the credit of the city is that the money that is to be raised in this loan, which Deputies have mentioned, and moneys to be raised in future loans, will be spent wisely and well. I am satisfied that the credit of the municipality stands high and deservedly high: that the business of the Dublin Corporation is well run and has been well run. I have no fault to find with the way it has been run, as a Minister at present, or as a citizen, or as a member of the Council in the days when I was a member. We all criticise municipalities, and perhaps there is room for criticism of municipalities to-day, just as there is room for criticism of other bodies of greater or less importance; but on the whole I am satisfied that the municipality of Dublin is well run, that its financial business particularly is well run and managed, and I believe that the credit of the municipality stands high, and that its loans are the best possible form of security and should be well invested in by the citizens.

Again, I cannot see what effect, adverse or the contrary, the action of the House here on this Bill is likely to have in so far as the financial credit of the city is concerned. I believe that when it was introduced and passed here it was a reactionary kind of measure, and one that is not in keeping with the spirit of the times. I believe that the individuals who have their money invested in the commercial houses and commercial properties of the city are all entitled to their votes and to their representation in their various spheres, and the commerce of Dublin gets its due representation when the former system ceases. I do not believe that it is going to be adversely affected by the elimination of the special franchise which now operates.

Mr. Belton

Would the Minister consider it wise to have a consultation with the people who are up against this money raising? After all, we have this before us. It affects us three points in issuing similar stock when money in the world money market is cheaper than it was. Would the Minister think of having a consultation between the Finance Committee of the Corporation that negotiated this, and its able chairman, as elected on this registered franchise——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is this a second speech?

Mr. Belton

No, Sir, I am only making a suggestion. Would the Minister consider a consultation between the people I have mentioned and the banks and the City Manager? I am not endeavouring to make a point at all, and I welcome the way in which the Minister took it, but I think that a good purpose might be served by such a conference.

Question put.

The Dáil divided:—Tá, 59; Níl, 38.

Tá

• Aiken, Frank.
• Beegan, Patrick.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Bourke, Daniel.
• Brady, Brian.
• Brady, Seán.
• Breathnach, Cormac.
• Breen, Daniel.
• Concannon, Helena.
• Cooney, Eamonn.
• Corish, Richard.
• Corkery, Daniel.
• Crowly, Timothy.
• Daly, Denis.
• Davin, William.
• Derrig, Thomas.
• De Valera, Eamon.
• Doherty, Hugh.
• Everett, James.
• Flynn, Stephen.
• Fogarty, Andrew.
• Geoghegan, James.
• Gibbons, Seán.
• Goulding, John.
• Hales, Thomas.
• Hayes, Seán.
• Houlihan, Patrick.
• Keely, Séamus P.
• Kehoe, Patrick.
• Kelly, James Patrick.
• Kelly, Thomas.
• Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
• Keyes, Michael.
• Kilroy, Michael.
• Kissane, Eamonn.
• Little, Patrick John.
• Lynch, James B.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• Maguire, Ben.
• Maguire, Conor Alexander.
• Moane, Edward.
• Moore, Séamus.
• Moylan, Seán.
• Norton, William.
• O Briain, Donnchadh.
• O'Doherty, Joseph.
• O'Dowd, Patrick.
• O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
• O'Reilly, Matthew.
• Pattison, James P.
• Pearse, Margaret Mary.
• Rice, Edward.
• Ryan, James.
• Ryan, Martin.
• Sheridan, Michael.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Victory, James.
• Walsh, Richard.
• Ward, Francis C.

Níl

• Beckett, James Walter.
• Belton, Patrick.
• Bennett, George Cecil.
• Bourke, Séamus.
• Brennan, Michael.
• Burke, James Michael.
• Doyle, Peadar S.
• Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
• Fagan, Charles.
• Fitzgerald, Desmond.
• Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
• Good, John.
• Haslett, Alexander.
• Keating, John.
• Lynch, Finian.
• MacDermot, Frank.
• MacEoin, Seán.
• McFadden, Michael Og.
• McGilligan, Patrick.
• Burke, Patrick.
• Cosgrave, William T.
• Costello, John Aloysius.
• Curran, Richard.
• Davis, Michael.
• Dillon, James M.
• McGovern, Patrick.
• McGuire, James Ivan.
• McMenamin, Daniel.
• Minch, Sydney B.
• Morrisroe, James.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
• O'Leary, Daniel.
• O'Reilly, John Joseph.
• O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
• Redmond, Bridget Mary.
• Thrift, William Edward.
• Wall, Nicholas.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Little and Smith; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Bennett.

Question declared carried.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Ceann Comhairle is certifying the Bill under Article 38A of the Constitution, as containing only such modification as is necessary owing to the time which has elapsed since the Bill was first sent by the Dáil to the Seanad.