Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 26 May 1965

Vol. 215 No. 15

Local Government Provisional Order Confirmation Bill, 1965 [Seanad]: Second Stage.

Minister for Local Government (Mr. Blaney)

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time.

The County Borough of Cork (Extension of Boundary) Order, 1965, provides for changes in the Cork city boundary for the purpose of taking into the city certain adjoining areas of the county. The Order requires the confirmation of the Oireachtas. The object of this Bill is to secure such confirmation. The Bill was before the House on Second Stage prior to the dissolution and has been restored to the Order Paper by Resolution of the House. On the passing of the Bill the Provisional Order will become effective from a date to be determined by Order of the Minister. The present objective is to make the extension effective on 1st July this year.

In essence the case for a review of the existing boundary is that the city has outgrown its present administrative limits. The question of extending those limits has been considered on and off for many years. There was a minor extension in 1955 the chief effect of which was to take into the city land on which the corporation had already built houses. Otherwise there has been no change since the boundary was established in 1840 despite the great growth in the built-up area since then. The extent of the suburban growth over the years is reflected in the fact that almost one-third of the population of the built-up area at present lives outside the city limits. This growth is due in no small measure to slum clearance and re-housing operations by the corporation itself.

The city and its suburbs are an urban unit and the administrative boundary should reasonably reflect this unity. In practice the unity of the Cork built-up area has been recognised for a number of legal and administrative purposes including health services, planning, water supply and fire-fighting services and, to an extent, local elections. Indeed, most local government services are best and most efficiently administered on a unified basis in a large urban area.

Most people who live in the suburbs are people who work in the city and their dependants. They number about 35,000 in all. Socially and economically these people are orientated towards the city rather than towards the county. They enjoy the benefits of city living, including the specialist shopping, commercial, social and recreational facilities which are normally to be found in the central area. These people have a right to a say in city affairs. The city has a right to expect them to contribute to the cost of the services it provides.

The corporation has all the problems which particularly beset a local authority in a large urban area—the problems of housing, water and sewerage services, traffic circulation and carparking, public lighting and other amenities, health and social welfare services. In addition, there are some special problems. For example, the proportion of the population housed by the corporation is high and is likely to increase further as the housing programme develops. The corporation maintain that because the built-up areas on the perimeter are outside their rating jurisdiction it is not possible for them to provide and maintain the full range of services which the people in a modern city expect the local authority to provide.

The fact that the Provisional Order did not come into force on 1st April as was originally envisaged operates in favour of the county council. In effect the proposed boundary extension will make no difference in the rating areas in the current financial year. The county council will receive the rate revenue of the extension areas for the full year even though they will not have to provide services there once the extension becomes effective. The corporation on the other hand will have to provide services in the extension areas from the date of the extension but will not have the benefit of the corresponding rate income. No doubt the corporation will feel that this situation ought to be considered in due course in the financial settlement, but from the county council's point of view the position is that there will be no increased rate burden on the county ratepayers this year as a result of the extension. The county council will indeed make a considerable "profit" from the extension areas, in the current year. It follows also that the county council can rely on the rate revenue from the extension areas to meet the relevant part of the expenses of the Cork Health Authority in 1965-66 and that the problem which had previously arisen in this regard no longer exists.

The county council are not in favour of the proposed extension because they do not like to see the rateable valuation of their area reduced. There is also the point that the extension may mean an increased rate burden on the ratepayers in the rest of the county in future years. To meet this point, and to enable arrangements to be made in regard to financial matters generally, there is provision in Article 6 of the Order for a financial adjustment between the county council and the corporation in any matter that requires to be adjusted between them in consequence of the boundary extension. Compensation will be paid to the council in respect of any increased rate burden thrown on the county ratepayers by the extension. The compensation, which may amount to as much as ten times the annual amount of the increased rate burden, may be paid in one sum or in instalments. Instalments would carry interest in respect of the deferred payments. It has been suggested that the proposed provision for compensation for added rate burden is less favourable to the county than the treatment given to the Dublin county ratepayers when the Dublin city boundary was extended in 1953. I would like to make it clear that this is not so. In the Dublin case in question the financial consequences of the extension were agreed between the two authorities concerned. It was agreed that compensation for added rate burden would be paid to the county for each year for fifteen years, but there was no provision for payment of interest. In the present case if compensation is paid in one sum it will be open to the county council to invest that amount and to earn interest on it. Alternatively, a settlement payable in stages and based on ten times the annual increase in rate burden with interest in respect of the deferred payments, would be no less favourable and might be more favourable than a settlement based on fifteen times the annual increase in burden with no provision for interest.

I have discussed the financial aspects of the proposed extension in a meeting with the Cork Senators and Deputies and, as a result, the county council and corporation agreed to open negotiations on the financial settlement. It is my hope that a large measure of agreement on the financial matters will be reached through negotiations. If an area of disagreement should remain the Order provides that a final settlement will be made by me on the application of either party. If the matter should come before me in accordance with this procedure a decision will be taken with all possible speed.

In the light of this situation I see no reason why, following the extension, the county ratepayers should have to meet any expenses which would not have arisen for them if there had been no boundary adjustment.

The extension of the boundary was the subject of a petition by the corporation under section 25 of the Cork City Management (Amendment) Act, 1941.

There was a protracted public inquiry locally into the corporation's petition at which the corporation and county council as well as other interested parties made detailed submissions. The extension proposed is, I think a reasonable compromise between the conflicting views expressed. The corporation sought to take in a total area of 9,590 acres of the county, exclusive of a large area which is subject to tidal cover. The land which would be taken into the city under the Provisional Order is made up of three separate areas, a total of 6,278 acres apart from certain tidal areas. They include on the east of the existing boundary the townlands of Ballina-mought East and Lotabeg and the land between the rivers Lee and Douglas; on the south the lands north of the Tramore and Glasheen rivers; on the west most of the townlands of Ballinaspig, Inchigaggin and Knocknaheeney, and on the north the townlands of Commons and Kilnap and portions of Kilbarry and Ballyvolane townlands.

In general, areas which are developed, or on which building is likely to take place soon, will be taken in as well as a reasonable margin for further city expansion in the future. Areas such as Douglas and Donnybrook, which are built-up but which retain a certain social or historical identity, will not be taken in. It is important that the city should be given room to expand within the administrative boundary. This concerns the people in the city and in the suburbs, but it also concerns the whole county and region. As the second largest city in the State, Cork is the centre of an area of substantial industrial, commercial and social growth. If the city is to maintain its prominent position and to develop as a major centre of economic and social advancement in the region, it is important that the local authority should be in a position to plan for the development of the urban area as a whole and should have reasonable room for the accommodation of further expansion at the perimeter.

This is not to suggest that an indiscriminate sprawl of the built-up area is to be encouraged. The corporation will be expected to make proper use of the new powers conferred on them by the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963, to ensure that the future expansion of the city will be well planned and well balanced. I have already brought to the attention of the corporation the wide scope and urgent need for tackling the problem of obsolete areas in the city and for promoting the renewal of such areas as provided for in the Act. Only by full use of their new powers of positive planning in relation to development both in the central and the suburban areas of the city can the corporation hope to create civic and environmental standards befitting a city of the size and stature of Cork.

There is at present a considerable margin between the rate level in the city and in the adjoining county area. It is recognised that it might involve hardship for some people in the proposed added areas if the rate in the £ there were adjusted to the level of the city rate immediately on the corporation becoming the rating authority for these areas in 1966-67. I suggested to the corporation, therefore, that this adjustment should be spread over a number of years and the corporation have agreed to this. The Order provides in Article 14 and the Second Schedule that the rates on property in the added areas will be scaled up to the level of the city rate gradually by annual increments over five years. Agricultural land brought into the city will no longer qualify for the agricultural grant. Instead the valuation on such land will be reduced by 50 per cent and, in addition, the gradual adjustment process by which the gap between the city and county rates will be bridged over five years will apply to agricultural land also.

The county council would like to see the site of the proposed new council offices excluded from the extension area. This site is well within the proposed new boundary. It is not practicable in a broad adjustment like this to fix a new boundary by reference to the effect on particular properties or sites, which for one reason or another it might be said should not be included in the city. Any attempt to do this would give an inconsistent and irregular result. The headquarters of both Dublin and Limerick county councils are situated in the adjoining county boroughs and it is true of county councils in general that their head offices are outside their rating jurisdiction being located in the county town.

The Order contains a number of miscellaneous provisions arising from the proposed boundary extension. There is provision for the preparation by the Commissioner of Valuation of new city maps; for continuing in operation county council resolutions and orders where appropriate; for arrangements in regard to jurors books, registers of electors, employment and hours of trading regulations and polling districts. The corporation will in future be paid the amount of the agricultural grant relevant to the added areas and the grant to the county council will be adjusted accordingly from 1966-67. There is a saver from disqualification for county council members in the added areas for the duration of the present council.

Mr. Corry

I regret that I have to move the rejection of this Bill. I do not do it lightly. I had hoped that the hold-up during the past few months would have been availed of by the officials of the county council and the corporation and of the Department to carry out a factual investigation of the figures and arrive at an assessment of the loss of income to the county council. However, though at my request the accountant, the manager and the officials of the county council met the corporation on several occasions in this matter, the attitude adopted by the corporation was exactly the attitude adopted previously, namely, no agreement.

We had a very nice story from the Minister as to the reasons why this extension is necessary and why the area is being taken over. The reasons are contained in a statement made by the City Manager on Friday, March 19th, and published in the Cork Examiner on Friday March 19th, 1965. Cork rate will go up by 7/- in the £ if the boundary is not extended in time. That is the reason, and the main reason. It is revenue for the city plutocrats at the expense of the unfortunate district they are taking in. It is 7/- in the £, in addition to their own rates for the poor people of Cork city.

As I stated, we endeavoured to get this matter cleared up and to get some agreement in the period left to us by the dissolution of the Dáil. On 4th March, 1965, our manager wrote to the City Manager and in those proposals, Sir, he stated:

Arising out of the discussion which the Minister for Local Government had with members of the Oireachtas from the City and County a special meeting of the Council was held today at which it was unanimously agreed that as recommended by the Minister for Local Government the Corporation and County Officials should meet at the earliest possible date to consider the effect of the proposed extension of the borough boundary on the County in the financial year 1965/66. The Council decided to request the Cork Corporation to agree to the following:

1. "That the Cork Corporation pay immediately to the County Council a sum equivalent to the increased burden falling on the County Rates in the year 1965/66 as a result of the proposed extension."

In support of this request members referred to the statement made by the Minister for Local Government during the discussion in the Senate on the Confirmation Bill, 1965, as follows:

"The Corporation accepted in principle that they should compensate the County Council forthwith for the extra burden which would otherwise fall on the county ratepayers in 1965/66."

2. "That the Cork Corporation pay to the County Council in each succeeding year a sum equivalent to the increase of burden falling on the ratepayers in the reduced County in the particular year as a result of the extension of the boundary.

3. "That the sum indicated at (2) be paid each year for a period of 15 years."

It was noted that the Minister at the discussion with the Members of the Oireachtas had indicated that he would amend the Provisional Order accordingly if the Corporation would agree.

The Minister's statement in that respect was that when the extension of Dublin city came about, it was agreed that purchase of the burden should be a 15-year one, not a ten-year one. The Minister said: "If you can get agreement with the corporation on this everybody will be happy". However, the Minister did not say whether the corporation would get agreement with the county council on the 15 years. I went to the trouble of looking up the reasons for this amazing fraternisation between the members of Dublin County Council and the city and I found that in 1953 the manager for Dublin city was also the Manager for Dublin county, and he agreed with himself.

I would suggest to the Minister that there are several reasons, very cogent reasons, why this Bill should not be introduced now. I shall give them as briefly as I can, but I would suggest to the Minister that when the responsible man, the manager of both city and county, holds the scales of justice fairly as between the city and county decided that a 15-year purchase was a reasonable agreement, the same should be accepted in so far as the present proposals are concerned.

I would further suggest to the Minister that a far stronger case can be made by the city of Dublin against a reduction in the purchase amount than can be made by Cork city, for, after all, Dublin city was revalued. Cork city was revalued 113 years ago. I would suggest that that is very definitely a further reason. The Minister also stated: "Oh, we did agree to ten years before". Yes, we did. Cork Corporation built a number of houses outside the borough boundary of Cork. Those unfortunate people were for a long number of years in the position you read about long ago in the old Bible story of the man who was driven outside the walls of the city. Under special social services existing here, those unfortunate men who were driven outside the boundaries were classed as country boys and were not entitled to unemployment assistance from the month of May until the following November and the Cork City Manager sat inside quietly and enjoyed it, having driven them out.

That matter was fixed up by me as Chairman of the South Cork Board of Assistance and I succeeded with the assistance of my rural colleagues, in making up the difference to them, over the county rates. Then the application was made for the boundary to be extended to cover those houses that were built by the Corporation. The case was a reasonable one and the county council unanimously agreed to it. A change came then and they agreed to give reasonable compensation. That compensation was assessed by our accountant and officers at £26,000. The following years were spent in question and answer in this House, and appealing to the Minister, because it had been referred to the Minister. After it had been lying in the musty files of the Department for six long years, some genius over there said: "We will give them something," and out of the generosity of their hearts, we got £11,000 out of that £26,000, and the value of the £ was 12/6 as compared with what it was when the area was taken over. That is the record of Cork Corporation up to the present in their dealings with Cork County Council, and that is why I am opposing this Bill.

I have to ask you, Sir, to bear with me a little because I understand that the Government have briefed Deputy Barrett in this matter. When I want to win a case, I always employ him myself. The application for the boundary extension was made in March, 1960, and it was rather notable that the Department of Local Government who were the arbitrators in the previous compensation for boundary extension did not wake up and pay for the old job until the new one was applied for.

The valuation of Cork city is £363,000, and back over the past 113 years it has been somewhere around the same valuation. An inquiry was held in January, 1962, and a decision was given in August, 1964. The valuation of Cork city did not increase. During the period from the application to the decision of the Department, the valuation of the area proposed to be taken in increased from £133,984 in 1961-62 to £152,763 in 1965-66, an increase in valuation of £18,779 in three years. The valuation of the area proposed to be taken in was assessed under the modern valuation system by the Commissioners of Valuation over the past 20 years.

No one in his senses will say that the present day basis of valuation has any similarity with the basis of the Griffith valuation. You have the anomaly of small shops in the area proposed to be taken over carrying a far higher valuation than the large shops in the principal streets of Cork city. This area is now to pay rates on a common valuation basis with the city plutocrats. I therefore consider that in mere justice to both parties, there should be an up-to-date revaluation of Cork city before the Provisional Order is passed by this House. Otherwise, this House will be doing something which, in my opinion, is repugnant to the Constitution of the State.

We heard the Minister read out all the nice things they were going to get when they came in, but it is clearly stated here that the rate will go up by 7/- in the £ if the boundary is not extended. Our county council have done their duty by this area in generous grants for new houses and the reconstruction of old houses, and 100 per cent State grants. In fact, direct grants from the county council for the building of new houses in that area have cost the ratepayers of the county, at a very conservative estimate, between £200,000 and £300,000.

After careful examination, Cork County Council have lent some £5 million to people who are desirous of building their own homes, and we find that £4 million out of that £5 million has been lent to people in that particular district, whereas, if they came under the city, they would not get 5/-, because they have not got it. They have no loans scheme. I think Deputy Barrett told us in the past fortnight that they were abandoning their scheme of loans for housing.

Mr. Barrett

I did not say that. I said the Minister would not subsidise low interest rates.

Mr. Corry

They would carry on if the Minister paid the interest. We do not look to the Minister. In a statement published by your city manager in the past few days——

An Ceann Comhairle

Not my city manager.

Mr. Corry

By the city manager for Cork. He drew in his horns in regard to the loans. That public statement is in the papers for anyone to read. Therefore, if those people are to build any more houses, they will be left to the tender mercies of Cork Corporation. Having lent £4 million to people desirous of building their homes in that area and having absorbed the loss in rates over the first seven or eight years, the Cork Corporation will come along and say: "Come into my parlour and I will deal with you."

Mind you, when we hear of the Corporation leaning backwards in their anxiety about the rights of those people, we should examine carefully what they are prepared to do. Let us see what their attitude has been towards those people and examine the whole question on that basis. The Corporation met, and finding that through my activities in this House they could not collar the new area in time to levy rates on it, they got a new brainwave and said: "Let us borrow £127,000 to reduce the rates in the city this year by 7/- in the £."

They did that and I had to ask the Minister for Local Government a question in connection with it a month ago. I am glad to see he has not sanctioned it, yet, anyway. What was the meaning of that? Would anyone like to know? I shall tell them pretty quickly. Those people were leaning backwards to take into the fold the country fellows. The principal and interest of that sum were to be repaid by the new city. In plain language, the unfortunate people living in this area proposed to be added, with double and treble the valuations of the same property, houses and shops, in the city, would pay it. They were to be made pay the principal and interest on the £127,000 the city was borrowing this year to relieve the ratepayers.

That is an earnest of the treatment those unfortunate people will get when they go into the city if this Provisional Order passes through the House. Let us get clear on what is happening, on the meaning behind every step being taken by Cork Corporation in this matter. I am sure that, going on the legal advice of Deputy Barrett, they had the brainwave of borrowing the £100,000 odd and that the fools will be paying it back for the next ten years when they are brought into the city.

Mr. Barrett

The Deputy should not attribute these things to me at all. I could not think that up in a thousand years.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

Deputy Corry is focusing too much attention on Deputy Barrett.

Mr. Barrett

It will not do me any harm.

Mr. Corry

Did Deputy Murphy not know he would be briefed in the case, that it is seldom the Government brief any member of the Opposition?

Mr. M.P. Murphy

Very seldom. That is interesting.

Mr. Corry

There is another serious matter which gravely concerns those of us interested in the housing of the working classes in this country. In the area to be taken in there are roughly a thousand county council cottages and houses. In fact, I had the honour a long time ago of proposing the first non-municipal scheme ever put into operation in the Republic. That was the Dublin Hill scheme of 77 houses. I had good help from the late Deputy McGrath who was responsible for a further large non-municipal scheme in the area of Beaumont, Blackrock and Glasheen, involving a total of 350 houses. The late Deputy Desmond also worked strenuously in that area and succeeded in getting a very large number of houses built.

What will happen to those houses? There are more than 200 agricultural labourers' cottages there. Those tenants surely have some rights? Under legislation passed by the House the cottiers were entitled to purchase at a 50 per cent reduction in price. The county council brought in very attractive proposals in respect of non-municipal tenants. Under this proposed Provisional Order, the whole of that property would go into the Borough of Cork and the tenants would lose all the benefits they now enjoy under the Labourers Acts and the Housing of the Working Classes Acts.

I gave the answer here in the House already. After a sworn inquiry, two schemes of houses were built in Cobh, one of 24 houses by Cork County Council on one side of the road and the other of 52 houses built by the Cobh Urban District Council on the other side. Both were occupied by the same class of tenant—workers in Irish Steel at Haulbowline. Both schemes were built in the same year from the same plans and were let to the same class of tenant at the same rent, 11/- a week plus rates. We brought in a purchase scheme for our 24 under which tenants could purchase and instead of paying 11/- a week rent, they paid 9/- a week annuity, a reduction of 2/-. That was taking full advantage of the subsidy.

When I came as a member of the Cobh Urban Council to examine the position of their comrades in the urban area, I found that the subsidy ceases on purchase and the best that could be done for those tenants was to give them the right to purchase at 32/- a week, as from 11/-. I am not responsible for the anomalies brough into this House from time to time by geniuses here but certainly this is one anomaly. What effect is that going to have on the 1,000 families who are now being dragged into the city by this Provisional Order? Where do they stand in regard to purchase if this House agrees to that Bill? Let us examine it from that point of view. To give those tenants the same privileges as they enjoy at present would cost, as I have already proved at the inquiry, 6/- in the £ on the city rates. Do you think that the gentlemen who tried to borrow £120,000 odd this year and to throw the burden on to those unfortunates are going to pay 6/- to bring those people into as good a position as if they were still in the county?

I suppose I will be told that provision will be made but nothing can be done for them without legislation, legislation that I have looked for in vain for the past ten years. If the House passes this Order, the gentlemen in the Corporation will sit down behind it and will say nothing and the people will get nothing. But what is in the Provisional Order? No steps are being taken in any way by the Department of Local Government about these unfortunate 1,000 families and it should be the Department's primary consideration to protect these people. There is no guarantee in the Order that the financial conditions of those unfortunate people will not be very gravely worsened. The time to make provision is now in this Bill and not at any other time. I suggest it is the Minister's bounden duty to see that those unfortunate families, ordinary workingclass families, are fully protected before he puts the Bill through the House.

As I said, Sir, it is no pleasure to me to come up here and oppose this Bill. I am doing this not alone as a Deputy but also as the chairman of Cork County Council and because of the duty entrusted to me by my colleagues and my duty to the ratepayers of the county. I have been 30 years here and I have always put my constituents first.

Mr. Barrett

No doubt Deputy Corry has a duty to the ratepayers of his county. I say that discussions on this matter would better be confined to private discussions between Cork Corporation and Cork County Council where every co-operation will be forthcoming from both sides. Anything that should be said here should not be said with a view to exacerbating any bad feeling that may exist between Cork County Council and Cork Corporation in regard to the extension of the boundary. Speaking as a former Lord Mayor of the Cork Corporation, and in the presence of the present Lord Mayor of the Cork Corporation, I think I can say that there is no bad feeling of any description. The extension of the borough boundary was as inevitable as the following of night by day.

The city has grown. There is no doubt in the world about that and due to the fact that the county council of which Deputy Corry speaks from time to time has not seen fit properly to cater for those people, who may be called commuters into the city, people living in suburbs such as Blackrock and Douglas, regarded themselves as a part of the city. They worked in the city and made their living in the city. They shopped in the city because the county council of which Deputy Corry has the honour to be chairman, the county council which looks after the people, did not provide shopping centres. The people came into the city and went to the vocational schools provided by Cork Corporation because the amenities provided by Deputy Corry and his colleagues were not always what the people wanted. They also came in for their entertainments because again there was no provision by the county council for areas in which they could entertain themselves. In every sense of the word, they were citizens of the city of Cork, in everything except name.

It is a strange thing that the 1956 census of Dublin showed that there were 589,000 people in Dublin and 45,000 in the suburbs which showed that seven per cent of the combined city and urban areas lived outside the borough of Dublin. In Cork the position was that 81,000 lived in the city and 34,000 odd lived in the suburbs, or 30 per cent living outside the borough, people who thought in terms of the city, but did not get the amenities they desired. Their open spaces were neglected and are neglected to-day. Deputy Corry might not know that but it is a fact, and people living in the suburbs do find that their open spaces are neglected and they look forward to coming into the city because they believe they will get other amenities which the people enjoy, such as public parks.

The real reason Deputy Corry stated that he objects to this move is that in 1955 when a certain area in the county was added to the city there was some delay by the corporation in compensating the county council. Deputy Corry has already been assured by the corporation—and I think I can assure him again on their behalf—that in regard to compensation we are ready to meet them as promptly and generously as possible. We have already made a proposal to Cork County Council which will more than adequately meet any misgivings Deputy Corry might have.

I do not intend to follow him down all the misleading avenues he opened up here today without making any investigation as to truth or falsehood. He did not mention the name of the place or give the facts when he said the new small shops in the county had double the valuation of the shops in the main streets in Cork. I doubt that so gravely that I think I could say the Deputy said that without any proper investigation of the matter. I doubt if he has material which would bear out what he said.

He also said the city had not been revalued. The Deputy is not a fool, as Deputies on both sides are well aware, the Taoiseach among them. Deputy Corry knows that most of the big business houses in Cork, many of the small ones and many dwellings in the city have been revalued by valuation officers over the years and while there was no general revaluation, it is a fact that nearly every business premises in the main business centres has been revalued by the Valuation Commissioners. If you painted a window your premises were almost revalued.

Typical of the misrepresentation we get from Deputy Corry was his insistence on calling the people who are coming in "country boys". Nobody will be less obliged to Deputy Corry for that description than those who are coming in. They are people, as has already been pointed out, who are Cork city bred and are Cork citizens in thought, in mind and in deed. The only anomaly I find about all this procedure and about the regularising of this Order is that the Minister brings all these people into the city and goes to great trouble to do so now but the same Minister not so long ago took great pains to get them out of it and put them into another constituency for political purposes. The people who, as Deputy Corry would describe it, are now being dragged into the corporation area could have been said when the last Electoral Act was being passed to have been dragged out of the city area.

I do not intend following Deputy Corry down these avenues of discussion. The Minister has made the case for the Bill that I would make. It has been discussed by the corporation and the county council and minutely examined by the inspector sent down for the public inquiry which was held. But there are certain aspects of the Provisional Order to which I should like to draw the Minister's attention. At the risk of particularising in what should be a general debate, I want to say that there is no need for Article 15. That could be taken as a general aspect of the Bill. Article 15 was put in for such circumstances as obtained just before the general election. It is a very objectionable proposal. It seeks to cut down from five weeks to two the time a returning officer, a local authority or Deputy may have to propose an alteration. If the Minister looks at the article, he will see there is no need for that now. There could have been a need earlier if there had not been a dissolution of the Dáil. Due to the fact that the Minister's officials who conducted the inquiry took so long to make thir findings, it might have been necessary to truncate these times.

Even if it had to be done under emergency conditions, I would have opposed it because it is important that the rights of people such as Deputies should be maintained and should not be subordinated to the convenience of Departmental officials who failed to bring in their findings on a matter such as this inquiry into the borough boundary in time conveniently to provide for the holding of local elections if these elections were to be held this year. The Minister will find that Article 15 was particularly introduced into the regulations for that purpose and that there is no need for it now. For that reason it should be dropped at this stage if possible.

I should like the Minister, when replying, to explain in more detail what is meant by Article 13 which leaves me, and I think everybody who reads it, guessing. It simply says:

In the register of electors for the County which came into force on the 15th day of April next before the commencement of this Order the various portions of the added area shall be shown separately in such manner as shall be directed by the Minister.

The Minister should be able to tell the House the manner in which he intends to direct that to be done. I think he should not ask us to acquiesce in passing this proposal without telling us what he has in mind.

Another matter that will arise after the passing of this measure is the division of the new Cork Corporation area into wards. I do not know what the Minister has in mind. It is a very radical departure in regard to corporations since the foundation of the State. In the old days and under a very restricted franchise there were wards in the city of Cork and there were wards in Dublin but Dublin has over 500,000 of a population whereas in Cork under the new dispensation, if this Order is passed, there will be something like 111,000. If the Minister sees fit to divide the city into wards I should like to know by whom it will be done. Is it to be done by a Minister from Donegal or by backroom boys from Dublin or by the people who know best the needs, anxieties and necessities of the people of Cork? I have asked that because Cork Corporation have made many representations to the Minister and the Minister, so far as I can see, sees fit to reject these representations.

In February of this year I asked him if he would have discussions with the corporation on this matter and he said he felt there was no special discussion necessary with the corporation. If the Minister is to effect a division into wards which is compatible with local desires, local topography and local needs, surely there is nobody else with whom he should discuss this. We asked unanimously in Cork Corporation that he should not divide the city into wards but that if he had to divide it, he should divide it into two wards separated by the South Channel which is the natural division of the city. In that way the city would be divided into two wards of about 35,000 each. That proposal was put to the Minister unanimously by the corporation which has a majority representation of the Minister's Party and includes the city's Lord Mayor and seven ex-Lord Mayors, all of them intimately aware of what the people of Cork need and what would make for the best administration of the city as a local government unit.

Section 87 of the 1963 Electoral Act empowers the Minister to act without consultation but if there is any democracy living in this House, if there is any democracy living in our system, the Minister will have recourse to us and will listen to what we have to say and pay attention to what we say because, no matter what Deputy Corry may say, there is no body of persons on this earth more intimately concerned with or better informed on the question we are discussing.

In an area of 70,000 to 80,000 people, we would have two wards of between 35,000 and 40,000 voters if the Minister agrees with our proposals. Contrast that with the wards in Dublin city. In Dublin city in the No. 1 area, there are nearly 50,000 voters, in the No. 2 area, 31,000 voters, in the No. 3 area, 34,000 voters, in the No. 4 area, 33,000 voters, in the No. 5 area, nearly 40,000 voters, in the No. 6 area, 33,000 voters, in the No. 7 area, 43,000 voters —nearly 44,000; in the No. 8 area, 32,147 voters. If the Minister divides Cork city into six wards, he will divide the people of six areas into areas of 12,000 voters each. What prompts the Minister to do it, I do not know; what prompts the Minister to do it, very few, if any, members of his own Party in Cork Corporation know. The Minister should tell us if he intends to do it and why he intends to do it.

I believe that such a proposition is inimical to good local government. It would break the corporation of 31 members into six groups, each of them sectional, each of them very sectional in a very small sense inasmuch as they would be catering for between 12,000 and 15,000 electors and all of them would naturally tend to pay more attention to their own areas than they would to the larger area if they were elected on a larger franchise. In that way, in my opinion, lies the hope of bureaucrats who, by sectionalising interests in local government bodies such as Cork Corporation, will be able to entrench themselves through city managers, assistant city managers and officials who will not have all the guns of the corporation trained upon them on matters which are of general importance and interest to Cork Corporation.

I would ask the Minister at this stage, before the House passes this Bill, to make plain to the House and certainly to the Cork members of the House and more particularly to the members of this House who are members of Cork Corporation, his intentions in this regard and to tell us why he is doing it and give us one cogent argument as to why he is doing it.

The proper and sensible approach to this is, if Cork is to be divided into wards at all, to divide it into two wards of between 35,000 and 40,000 voters each. I know the Minister will tell us that on the last occasion there were 78 names on the ballot papers and that of course it was impossible for a voter to adjudicate upon the candidates when there were 78 candidates. Seventy-eight candidates is a large number but is the Minister really telling us that citizens cannot give five minutes once every five years to scrutinising 78 names? They go in with predetermined intentions as to the candidates they will support. In that way you are giving the intelligent voter an advantage, which is a very good thing for the outcome of the election because if a man has not the intelligence to pick out five or even 20 or 21 names out of 78 I doubt very much if he has the right to claim as big an impact upon the composition of the corporation as the voter who has the intelligence to go in and look at 78 names and decide which 21 of them he will elect.

There is no validity in the argument which the Minister might put to us, more particularly because if the electoral area is divided into two sections you are not likely to have a ballot paper of 78 names next time but I can assure the Minister that the average Cork man or woman is not going to be appalled by the prospect of being faced with a ballot paper containing 50 names, when one considers the electoral systems of other countries. If you consider some of the ballot papers on which the American voter has to adjudicate, you will realise how lucky we are in this country that we have to adjudicate only on simple matters of separating in the case of, say, 50 candidates 15 or 16 of them and saying: "We will elect these".

I know I am talking for the majority of the members of Cork Corporation —and I say that because it is quite possible that the members of the Fianna Fáil Party who are also members of the Cork Corporation and simultaneously members of this House might find themselves embarrassed by having to say the same thing—but there is no doubt that, be they Deputies sitting behind the Minister or otherwise, as members of Cork Corporation, they unanimously subscribed to the idea and the suggestion, the very serious suggestion, reached after great thought, that the city should not be divided into more than two wards, and if the Minister divides it into more than two wards, he will have to tell us why and he will have to tell us where he got the advice because, this is quite certain, he did not, will not and cannot get it in Cork city, and we go back to the original question I asked: In matters like this are the decisions to be taken by a Minister from Donegal or some backroom boys in Dublin?

I am taking this opportunity—it may not properly arise—to indicate to the Minister that if he does take the step that I am told he is going to take, of dividing the city into six wards, he will have to make a very good case for it and I do not believe he can do so. If he does not make a very good case for it, then much of the validity of all this proposal to extend the city boundary will be lost upon the people who are anxious to have the boundary extended. I believe it would make for proper local government if the Minister were to adopt the suggestion, not made in a sectional or in a political sense, put to him unanimously by the Cork Corporation.

I see no reason why the Minister should not at this stage again discuss the matter with Cork Corporation. I see no reason why the Minister should have replied to me on 11th February last, in a lordly, overbearing way, that it was not intended that there should be any further discussion with Cork Corporation on this matter. Why not? With whom else should this matter be discussed? Who else knows as well the intricacies of the problem as the members of Cork Corporation? I am speaking for the citizens. I consider it an affront to the citizens of Cork, and I know that they would so regard it, if they are to be told at some stage that, despite the unanimous wish of their local elected representatives, the Minister sees fit to do something which nobody has asked him to do.

Mrs. Desmond

Like Deputy Corry and my other colleagues on Cork County Council, I am gravely concerned because of the added burden which the passage of this Bill will impose, in the first instance, on the ratepayers of the area proposed to be brought into the borough of Cork and, in the second instance, on the ratepayers of the county as a whole and, like Deputy Corry, I feel that this Bill should not at this stage be introduced in the House. What it proposes to do is, in fact, to infringe the constitutional rights of 250,000 people as represented by Cork County Council. I think it will be generally agreed that local government and, indeed, all forms of government, have as a primary object or aim the promotion of the common good. I cannot see how the common good can be said to be promoted or advanced when Cork Corporation representing 80,000 people can make a claim which results in very severe hardship on three times that number of people as represented by Cork County Council.

The residents of the proposed larger area did not at any time seek this extension, despite the fact that Deputy Barrett might imply that they actually want to be included in the borough. They did not seek this extension. The extension was sought by Cork Corporation simply because this is a high rate-yielding area, making very few claims on the public purse. Cork Corporation had no case. They told us that the inclusion of this area would enable them to raise on an equitable basis the amount required to be raised by the borough in order to provide at a reasonable cost the services which they were under an obligation to provide. That is their chief explanation as to why this borough should be extended. The net result is that these people, for the most part occupants of highly-rated new dwellings which have now reached or are about to reach full rates, will have to pay the extra poundage required by Cork Corporation and share the burden of the cost of the services of the city.

The provision in the Second Schedule of this Bill indicates the proportionate valuations, and the full valuation is reached in the fifth year. This is inserted with a view to easing the immediate impact, but the impact is there already and it will be there in full measure after a period of five years.

The method by which compensation is proposed to be paid in this Provisional Order is most unjust. Subsection (4) (b) of section 6 of the Schedule, which deals with financial adjustments, reads :

regard shall also be had to the length of time during which such increase of burden may be expected to continue;

Then it goes on to say that the burden cannot be expected to continue longer than ten years. I do not know who decided that after 10 years the county council would suffer no further loss. It will go on suffering loss into the future, and compensating Cork County Council on the basis of ten years is not adequate. It is preposterous to suggest that the area itself should be required to compensate Cork County Council for its own loss.

I think Mr. Cooke described that situation very accurately at the inquiry into this whole case in 1961 and 1962 when he said these people would be stuck for the cost of cutting their own throats. Here are the reasons which the Corporation suggest as to why these people should be stuck for the cost of cutting their own throats. First, it is said they derive their income from activities within the borough. Cork County Council, in the case they presented to the inquiry, proved that three out of ten of those people had no connection whatever with the Cork borough but, even assuming that the other seven did have—and that was not established either—they are not the only people who have connections with the Cork borough. People as far out as 20 or 30 miles derive their income from activities within the borough of Cork. Also business people, traders and industrialists within the borough derive their income in no small measure from customers who are very far outside the borough. Therefore, I do not think that argument should have been advanced, nor can it be justified.

We are also told that these people enjoy the amenities of the city of Cork. Amenities of this nature are paid for anyway. If these people enjoy such amenities, they pay for them, and there is no reason why they should be asked to pay on the double, through their rates and in the normal way, for the amenities of the city of Cork. It is also said that the Corporation of Cork supply water to these people. If the corporation supply water to these people, it is at the rate of 3/- in the £ on the rateable valuation and one can assume they make a profit on the transaction. Therefore, these people are in no way indebted to the corporation for the fact that water is supplied to them.

Another argument advanced was that Cork Corporation provide a fire brigade service to this area. This can generally be accepted as a humane sort of service, one that knows no limitations or boundaries. When a fire starts in Cork city, even fire brigades in areas under the jurisdiction of Cork County Council will rush to the scene. That argument should not be advanced for claiming this area.

The argument has also been made that Cork Corporation provide vocational education which is of a higher standard and which can be availed of by the people of the proposed added area. These schools which are referred to as regional schools are paid a much higher grant and subsidised to a much greater extent than the county schools. For every £100, they receive a grant of £80, whereas in the county the grant is only £50. Therefore the people of the county as a whole and the people of the country as a whole are subsidising vocational education in Cork city to a much greater extent than it is subsidised in the county.

Notwithstanding all these arguments, the Minister has acceded to the request of Cork Corporation. On the other hand, the Minister forgot to accede to the very simple request of Cork County Council, to discuss the matter prior to the coming into operation of the Provisional Order. I would suggest now to the Minister that he have regard to the pattern set by his predecessor in 1948 when Limerick Corporation made a claim for the extension of their borough. The Minister at that time stated that the financial considerations would not justify the extension they sought. The financial considerations were almost identical with the financial considerations before us in this claim here today. They were to the effect that the people of the area surrounding Limerick enjoyed its amenities, that the burden of local rates should be more equitably spread. The Minister thought these considerations were not sufficient to justify the extension of the boundary.

No case has been established for the imposing of this burden on the people affected. I would not go as far as Deputy Corry, who made a tremendous case for the county council, in telling the people of the borough of Cork they should revalue their city, although I think he is quite right. That is their own business but when they find themselves in financial difficulties, they should not seek to compensate themselves from the assets of Cork County Council.

Mr. Wyse

I have been amazed at the case made by Deputy Corry this morning. The city members from Cork feel like villains; the poor people are being handed over to the villains of the Cork Corporation. Cork is a growing and progressive city and, as such, greater demands are made on the local authority to provide housing, industrial sites and all the other amenities required for a city. When we as public representatives speak of the city of Cork, we always naturally include the added area that is now in question, such places as Blackrock, Douglas, Ballinlough, Model Farm Road. We always consider those areas as part of our city and the people living there consider them as part of the city. Therefore, I was amazed to hear what has been said here this morning about this extension. We were not told, of course, that the great majority of the people in the area depend on the city for their livelihood. They work in factories like Dunlops, Fords——

Mr. Corry

And Rushbrooke Dockyard.

Mr. Wyse

——Sunbeam, and so on. I did not interrupt Deputy Corry though he bored me at times. I am a new Deputy and I am trying to do the best I can for my city. I hope I shall make a stronger case than that made by Deputy Corry.

Mr. Corry

Go ahead.

Mr. Wyse

Take our national schools: 70 per cent of the children attending the schools come from the area that we are now asking should be added to the city of Cork. Is it not a fact that quite a large number of the people mentioned by Deputy Corry avail of every possible facility afforded them in the city, such as the School of Art, the School of Music, and School of Commerce, the technical schools? Early in the morning anything from 5,000 to 6,000 motorists cross the borough boundary into Cork city where they are employed. We have not been told, of course, about the large number of people in the area in need of housing. We might as well be truthful and face facts. It is wrong that the citizens of Cork should be burdened year after year with heavy rates while practically 35,000 people availing of the facilities and amenities provided by the rates pay not one penny towards the cost of these amenities and facilities. We know that a very exhaustive examination was carried out into this whole matter and any fairminded representative, be he city or county, must agree that there is urgent necessity to extend our borough boundary. Despite the case made by Deputy Corry this morning, I know that in his own heart and soul he knows the need is there. I think the matter has been summed up correctly by the Minister in the correspondence with the corporation. This is a letter dated 31st August, 1964:

The suburban areas with a population of approximately 35,000 people have not in themselves the facilities and amenities required by a population of this magnitude and it is manifestly more advantageous in economy and efficiency to utilise and develop the range of facilities and services available in the city than to provide the same facilities and services in the suburban area. While a certain measure of co-operation had been achieved between the two Authorities in some fields, such as vocational education, town planning, water supply services, the effectiveness of this co-operation is restricted by the division of ultimate responsibility between the two Authorities concerned.

We, in Cork Corporation, are at all times ready and willing to meet the Cork County Council and to discuss our problems with that body in an effort to find some solution acceptable to both authorities. It was wrong for anyone to say here this morning that certain requests made to Cork Corporation had been refused. As a member of Cork Corporation, I cannot agree with the statement made by Deputy Corry. We are all the time waiting to meet the county council and discuss these problems with them. Hard words used in discussion here will not help to bring about the friendliness and co-operation essential to the solving of the problem confronting both authorities.

Mr. Burton

I also oppose this Order as a rural Deputy and a member of Cork County Council. I was rather intrigued by the Minister's opening speech. One would imagine he was conferring a very big benefit on us by taking 5,600 acres from our county. There is no justification at all for this Order. As far back as the inquiry, it was proved that the proposed added area is not required for any local government purpose. There was no demand for this extension from the people in the added area. This idea was actually conceived in the mind of the corporation because, if successful, it would add considerably to their finances. There is no doubt but that they had sinister motives in putting forward this demand and application. It can be described only as a financial grab from the county. That is proved by the statement made by the City Manager, which was quoted this morning, to the effect that, since the Order was not made before 1st April, the rates would be up by 7/- in the £. That is a clear admission that the real interest was in the financial side. Added to that, they made an application to the Minister to borrow something like £127,000 in order to cushion the increase in rates this year. That has not been finally dealt with yet.

The Council are naturally keenly interested in and worried by the financial implications of this Order. The area involved on 31st March of this year has a valuation of £147,639. That represents 12 per cent of the county valuation and 22½ per cent of the South Cork area, actually nearly one quarter. In 1960, when the inquiry was held, the valuation of the area claimed by the corporation was £140,942. That was the original demand and £127,134 was included in the area now under discussion. In the intervening period of five years the smaller area increased its valuation considerably. Naturally it will continue to increase.

Statements were made here by Deputy Barrett that the areas in the suburbs were neglected. I can draw his attention to the fact that the heart of the city is very neglected. I should think it would provide scope for a great deal of planning and work for the corporation as against grabbing this suburban area. We have provided services in the area—sewerage schemes, public lighting, roads, scavenging—and as already stated by Deputy Mrs. Desmond, the corporation are selling water to us at 3/- in the £, thereby making quite a big profit.

During the inquiry—the Minister referred to it afterwards—it was stated that the ribbon development of the city suburbs was unsightly and should not be allowed. The corporation, at their own request, were the planning authority at that time and there was no objection. Yet they criticised the council during the inquiry for allowing this ribbon development.

The Minister told us here that the county council were not in favour of the proposed extension because they did not like to see the rateable valuation of their area reduced, and he added that "there was also a point that the extension may mean an increased rates burden on the ratepayers in the rest of the county in the future." It was an extraordinary term to use, "may mean". It is well known that the extension is going to create an added burden on the remainder of the county because services, such as water and sewerage, which might have cost 1/- in the £ previously will undoubtedly cost from 1/3 to 1/6d. It is well known that the rates will increase year after year and the rating revenue of the council will be very much reduced.

Evidence was given at the inquiry on behalf of almost all the urban councils, who lodged objections, and all the rural associations, development associations, parish councils and so on. They all realised that the extension was going to create hardship for them, especially in the rural towns and villages, and that there would be no relief. Ten years will not compensate anyone because this will go on forever. It is extraordinary, therefore, that the Minister should use such a word as "may".

Compensation is, of course, the important matter we are interested in now. In preliminary talks the corporation told us they would lean over backwards to meet our wishes. However, in a letter from the corporation to the secretary of the county council of 10th March, 1965, putting forward certain proposals, it is also stated:

It must be clearly understood that these payments are to be without prejudice in any way to the final settlement of the claim for compensation.

I think that is very significant. Naturally, that would be the easiest way out of the difficulty. But, if the county council were foolish enough to accept that statement, they would be tied hand and foot. When the final settlement would come the corporation would have their own ideas about compensating the council fully.

If adequate compensation is to be paid, it should leave the ratepayers in the remainder of the county in as good a position then as they are now. The extensions in Limerick in 1951 and in Waterford in 1955 were based on the same compensation level, which was not very generous. In those cases the extensions were required for local government purposes, but in Cork it was emphatically stated by the city manager that the extension was not required for local government purposes. That is the big difference. The position has not changed since.

Normally, the amount of local compensation is a capital sum, but such a payment would be useless to the county council unless it was sufficiently large that, if invested, it would approximate to the increasing burden of rates. That might then be considered as compensation. But we must remember that when the period expired in ten or fifteen years the council would be still faced with an increasing burden.

It is no wonder we in the county council are highly suspicious of what might happen in this case because of the experience we had on the previous occasion. At that time, it was a ten year purchase by agreement, the capital sum being £26,000. After eight years we got £11,000. In between, when regular inquiries were made to the council, it was even suggested by some of the probably not very responsible members that the corporation owed us nothing and we should not be wasting our time. It worked out to be a four year purchase for something like 40 per cent. If that is going to apply in this case, it cannot be called anything but highway robbery.

In any business deal the contracting parties have an understanding and know where they stand. The seller knows what he is getting before he puts his pen to paper, and rightly so. It is an extraordinary fact that when such extensions of borough boundaries are taking away a large slice of the county, they want us to agree to them first and ask us to see what we will get afterwards. That would be a rather foolish attitude to adopt. I am rather surprised that such regulations, whether they be Local Government, Finance or what have you, can be made.

This represents, as I said before, a grab of 6,500 acres of the county with a valuation of £147,500 odd in 1964. Surely the council are entitled to know what is the final sum before the Order is made. Each and every member is deeply concerned because, as I have already stated, we have a rather sad experience of the last occasion. Further, on that occasion, I would like to mention that when the council mentioned a figure of £11,000 and inquired how that was arrived at, we were told we would not get the information. We asked for a breakdown of the amount and were refused the information. That is very wrong and should not be applied on this occasion. If, as it may happen in the pattern of things, we have been fobbed off with something like another four years in the purchase of 40 per cent of our demands, we are left holding the baby. I appeal to the Minister not to allow a situation like this to be created and to hold the scales fairly, evenly and justly between the cities and the counties.

The Minister should be concerned with the overall jobs. Naturally, we are interested in the financial side of it but it would help if the matter were agreed or a decision arrived at by agreement, and if a substantial, generous sum of at least a 15-years purchase were given, we might go along with the corporation and wish them well. While I do not want to create any bitterness or indulge in personalities, the provision in this Order for ten years will be unfair and unjust to the county council. I appeal to the Minister, even at this late stage, to have another look at this and at least make it 15 years purchase. I believe 25 years would not even compensate us but at least 15 years would be just and would make us a little more happy than we are.

I consider, in the event of nonagreement, that an independent outside arbitrator should be appointed. While you have good men and officers in the Department of Local Government, they are a little prejudiced when it comes to making a decision between one authority and another. It would relieve the Minister of a great deal of controversy in future if, as an arbitrator—if it is necessary to appoint an arbitrator—an outside independent man were appointed and we would all abide by his decision.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

I wonder why this Bill was ordered for today because it is evident that the Minister is engaged on some other business. He came along here, read his statement and then left the House immediately afterwards. He has not come back since but he is represented by his Parliamentary Secretary. I understood the Minister personally was dealing with this matter and if that is the case, he has treated the House with gross contempt in leaving as soon as he read his statement and not returning to hear the points mentioned by the various speakers on this question.

This is an affront to Parliament and one that should be vehemently objected to by this House, that any Minister of State can make a statement on a particular Bill and then leave the House without troubling himself to listen to the points which Deputies have to make. If that is the condition our Parliament is falling into, it is a disgrace. If that is to be a headline for what is to take place in future, democracy will end in the not too distant future. I want, as a member of this House, to protest against that type of action. If a Minister is otherwise engaged, every one of us is more than willing to facilitate him. This matter could have been adjourned to next week or the week after, if the Minister was otherwise engaged.

It is the Government who order the business of the House and if the Minister who was to take this particular Bill had another engagement, then it could have been left over for a future date. I want to protest in no uncertain terms against the procedure adopted by the responsible Minister dealing with this Bill of not being present. When Deputies make statements and express their points of view, they are entitled to be heard. No notes of any kind have been made by the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary on the points that have been made. This is not any reflection on the Parliamentary Secretary. I have known him for a number of years in this House and I know he is a very efficient and capable Deputy but he has not been dealing with this Bill.

Having said that, I regret there has been a clash of opinion between Cork city and Cork county representatives on this question. I feel the question at issue could have been dealt with by a committee or through discussion at a more local level and with better results than the discussion we have here to-day. We have had several discussions on this proposed extension for a protracted period now and many views have been expressed by many of my county colleagues on this question. My views have not been in accord with some of those of my colleagues because I feel that the city should be administered as a unit. This has been my feeling all the time. I consider, first of all, it is a good thing that Cork city is expanding and has been expanding very much during the past 50 years. I believe it is not big enough to be divided into two administrative districts. If you come into Cork from the Bandon side, you have to travel for a mile or a mile and a half through a built-up area before arriving at the city proper. All this has happened during the past 50 years. This area has been built up during the past 50 years and it is now highly developed. The valuation is now more than £152,000.

I have always advocated, so far as this particular measure is concerned, that it should be agreed, before any measure comes into the House, at local level, what compensation should be paid to the county council to offset the loss which the extension of the borough boundary will entail for the county ratepayers. We should also ensure that the people resident within the area to be included in the city are assessed justly and fairly so far as the financial side of the business is concerned.

We are told that the additional rate which the extension of the borough boundary will impose on the county is in the neighbourhood of 7/- in the £. I believe that the corporation, getting this highly developed district, should pay in full such compensation as will ensure that there will be no loss to the county rates. I believe that should be their first obligation. I know that the county council have spent millions of pounds in developing every aspect of this area. They have provided help for housing by way of loans, planning and so forth. They have provided services all over this area and these services have cost a good deal of money. By virtue of all that expenditure, this area is now, so far as revenue and income are concerned, the plum district in the county of Cork. There is no doubt about it.

This area which is to be included in the county borough of Cork is one from which a big revenue will be drawn by the corporation in the future with very little outlay by virtue of the fact that it is reasonably well developed as it leaves the county council. It is a highly profitable area: there is no doubt about that.

What I am finding fault with is the compensation that has been offered for this district. There is no justification in the wide world for basing compensation on a ten years purchase of rates and that is what the county council would get for this area. Undoubtedly, there is no justification in the wide world for a ten years purchase in this case. In any purchasing leases, and so on, the compensation is usually 20 years purchase. I understand that quite recently the Leaseholds Commission set down 15 years; this was regarded as rather low.

The county ratepayers should be adequately compensated. That could have been done better before this Bill was brought into this House if we had had some closer discussion between the county and the corporation, with the Department lending a hand to bring about an amicable agreement. It would be much better for all concerned if this transfer of territory had been arranged and arrived at in an amicable fashion rather than by Deputies from Cork county and Cork city coming into this House and giving their divergent views today on this question. We are all anxious for the development of Cork city and also for the development of Cork county. This clash of opinion need not have arisen here today if this matter had been properly approached and we had had more private discussion, particularly discussion bearing on the adequacy of compensation because I think that is the big problem involved.

Everybody in Cork likes to see Cork city expanding. It is a good thing that, within the past 50 years, the population of Cork city has increased by more than 50 per cent. A good deal of industry has been established in Cork and, for that reason, we have a big housing drive there and so on. I do not like the viewpoint—I do not think he meant to give that interpretation of the position—expressed by Deputy Wyse when he spoke about cars crossing the boundary. I think there is interdependence and that the city is depending on the county for many of its resources. The Deputy mentioned 5,000 cars a day crossing the boundary into Cork city. I am quite sure that the business people in the city would like to see 20,000 cars a day crossing the boundary to increase their business. Part of the expansion has become necessary by virtue of the support the city is getting from the county. The position in the county is that many people feel that more of our county residents should shop in their local towns and villages rather than travel to Cork city to do so.

Mr. Corry

Hear, hear.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

Possibly it would be a good thing if that were to happen. It is very bad to approach this matter on a sectional basis. My view is that the county council undoubtedly have played a big part in the development of that part of Cork county which adjoins the city. Over the years, they have given it special attention, as a result of which it has grown into a highly developed area. A personal viewpoint, because I do not think some of my colleagues in the county would share it, is that it is time to bring about an adjustment in the boundary of Cork city. To my mind, the adjustment made is not unreasonable.

I agree that the city requires virgin land, as well, for further extension. Possibly, if they got a little more virgin land, it might not be any harm. I can see that the county council may not be too favourably disposed now towards developing the area just immediately outside the new boundary. What I have in mind is that there should be a further review of the compensation payable. One need know very little about mathematics to realise that ten years purchase is not a fair or adequate compensation in this instance. As Deputy Burton mentioned, in view of the cost of development, I believe it should be at least twice that amount—20 years purchase. If the approach earlier on had been to find a happy solution to this case, particularly on the vexed question of compensation, the position would be different from what it is today.

We have moved badly, as far as this is concerned, in every sense of the word. We have made several blunders. We in the county council made one which was contributed to, to some extent, by the Department of Local Government and the corporation, in taking the county offices out of Cork city and building them two miles from the centre of the city when, were it not for the purpose of avoiding higher rates, as we then thought, they could have been built within 100 yards of the Courthouse. There is space available within 100 yards of the Courthouse in Cork, which is in the centre of the city, for the building of the new county offices. Just because someone thought it a good idea to avoid higher rates, the offices were removed further from the city.

We decided to build the county offices in Cork to centralise administration and to make it easier for people who require information on health matters and any matters relative to public administration by having all these offices housed in one building. I always disagreed with changing the location to the perimeter of the city, to the site selected at the present time. Consider a person coming to those offices, particularly from the northern or eastern side of the city. Consider a person coming to those offices from Charleville or Youghal, from north Cork or from east Cork. Such a person must now go two miles out on the Bandon road if he or she wants to transact business at the council offices.

The Minister has made it very definite in his opening statement that he does not intend to establish another boundary and, indeed, personally I am not too favourably disposed towards too many boundaries. I think we in Cork—this may not be a matter for the House—must have another look at the siting of the county offices.

I do not intend to deal further with this matter. As I say, I have availed of the opportunity to speak and give my personal views here and to express the belief that the extension of the boundary is justifiable, but that equally justifiable is the payment of adequate compensation. Let us all hope that whoever will be here in 30 or 40 years' time will see a similar Bill in this House and that Cork will be again expanding and that further land for development will be required.

I think the Bill is timely. I have opposed it all along the line on the ground of compensation. I am opposing it here today, and I shall support Deputy Corry, on that ground. To my mind, ten years' compensation is completely out of proportion. It would put an unjustifiable and intolerable burden on the county ratepayers and I believe if there is to be justice, the compensation must be stepped up sharply to meet the requirements of the county dwellers as well as the city dwellers.

Mr. Healy

First of all, I must say I find myself in large measure in agreement with Deputy Murphy and I am glad he spoke because his moderate view is something we should welcome. The House has given a lot of time to the affairs of Cork today. I do not think that time is unwarranted. I think this is a measure entitled to claim the attention of the House. I am in the peculiar position that I am a member of both the county council and the corporation. I am also in the position that I sought election to the county council on the platform for an extension of the city into the suburban area and on that platform. I was elected. I hold the same view practically as Deputy Murphy—the city must expand. It is not the first city, thanks be to God, that has expanded.

I hold, with Deputy Murphy, that fair and adequate compensation should be paid. Up to now, no figure has been mentioned. A period of ten years has been mentioned but I think the Minister made it clear to every-body's mind that the way he means it should be paid in ten years makes it a little bit more than would be paid in 15 years, if it were paid otherwise. I take it the Cork Corporation would pay ten instalments but when they pay one, they owe the other nine and would have to pay interest on those each year. In that way the accumulated amount would be more than if they paid 15 fixed instalments over the 15 years. Also, the value of money will continue to depreciate which, to my mind, means that the sooner the county council get the money the better, so that they can use it in a profitable way.

I also deplore any attempt or words that would cause friction between the people of Cork city and county. That is not a desirable thing. We are absolutely dependent on each other. The city depends for its prosperity on the hinterland of the county around and the county in large measure depends on the facilities of the city. The only thing I am sorry for is, and I am sure Deputy Murphy is sorry for it, too, that when the City Hall was built in 1934 on the site of the building that was burned by the Black and Tans, the county and city offices were not included in the one building. I am sorry that councillors at that time did not think it wise to follow that course and have the city and county offices together. In that way we would be in the same building and would work with more harmony and understanding.

There is no suggestion, and I entirely dissociate myself from any such suggestion, that the people coming in from the suburban area will be in any way unfairly treated or will be in any way worse off than they are now. We have welcomed people from Deputy Corry's constituency into the city as workers. They have come in and lived among us in the city.

Deputy Murphy also made the point that our population has expanded. It has not. The population of the city has been static for the past 100 years. I think the Minister had to bring in a Bill like this. I am not trying to be unfair to either side. I have experience in the county council and the corporation and I think it would not be easy for them to come together and negotiate unless they had an outside arbitrator. That is the answer. Certainly an extension of the city boundary of Cork has been spoken about by people who have lived there for well over 50 years. This is the first time a native Government have the power to do it and the interest in doing it. As has been said before, it is in the interests of both the city and the county in the end and certainly I think that if the compensation is as Deputy Murphy would wish, as I would wish, and, as I am sure, the Corporation would wish, fair and just, nobody will suffer.

There is one item I should like to correct. Reference was made this morning to compensation that was paid eventually by the corporation for some lands given to them previously. It has not been made clear that when the arbitrator decided the amount, the corporation passed the amount at its next meeting and the cheque was paid to the county council within a month of finding out the arbitrator's wishes in the matter. Therefore, there was no reluctance on the part of the corporation to pay the amount that was just and I can say without fear of contradiction that there would not be the slightest hesitation on the corporation's part to pay the full and just amount agreed upon, whether by the arbitrator or among ourselves.

Mr. Blaney

The matters which have been raised here are not new to me. I have been hearing them in various ways for a considerable time. Among some of the matters raised by Deputy Corry is the specific question of the tenants of labourers' cottages who, he says, will lose their right to purchase their cottages on being transferred to the city. I want to assure the Deputy, and the House, that, in fact, they will not lose that right. They will continue to have it.

Mr. Corry

Put it into the Bill.

Mr. Blaney

I do not intend to put it into the Bill since there is no necessity for it. These people will continue to have the right under the purchase scheme for 12 months, by virtue of section 22 of the Housing Act of 1950.

Deputy Barrett asked about the meaning of Article 13. This article is necessary to ensure that the electors in the added area will be separate from those in the rest of the county and will be deemed to be on the city register. That is the sole purpose of Article 13.

Deputy Barrett also talked in regard to Article 15 which he said was not necessary now. It is true that, if these local elections do not arise in 1965, as they will not, the Article will be ineffective. The fact is, by leaving it there and not holding the elections, the Article does not operate. So, whether it is really necessary or not, it does not take away from the fact that it could have been necessary. It is in the Order as it is now and I propose to leave it there. Since we are not having these elections in 1965, it is not operating, and it will have the same effect as if it were not put in.

Deputy Burton also spoke on a matter which I think would be more appropriately dealt with at a later stage, on another Bill which will be coming before the House, that is, the number of wards in the city. I do not propose at this juncture to deal with this matter, as it will be very fully dealt with at a later stage.

The matter raised by Deputy Burton was naturally raised by Deputy Corry even more forcefully at an earlier stage, that is, the question of compensation. Deputy Burton and Deputy Corry are seeking to have 15 years purchase put in the Bill. This matter will be very fully discussed on Committee Stage, but, at the same time, it is only fair to reiterate what I have said, that the ten years purchase provided in the Bill is, in fact, as good from a financial standpoint as would be the 15 years which is being sought by these two Deputies.

Mr. Corry

Local Government finance.

Mr. Blaney

Whether it is calculated by Deputy Corry's method of calculation, or the Department of Local Government method of calculation, the final figure in both cases must be the same. If we take a figure of £100,000, purely for the purpose of administration, and carrying no other weight, as the increase in the burden—again I say taking that figure purely for illustrative purpose and not necessarily having any bearing on what the actual figure may be—then we can start looking at how it can be calculated for the overall total payment of compensation.

If the county council were treated in the same manner as Dublin in 1953, and taking this figure of £100,000 over a 15 year period, they would get a total of £1½ million, but if they were to get ten times the increase in burden with interest, and if that amount were paid over 15 years, as it may be, they would get a figure of £103,600 a year or a total of £1,555,000 with interest calculated at 6¼ per cent, which percentage is not unrealistic in these days. If we take those two figures on their own merits, I cannot see for the life of me why there should be such a demand for this change in the Bill to bring about 15 years repayments comparable with the settlement in Dublin in 1953 as against what is now proposed in the Bill.

I should also remark that it is all very well for Deputy Corry to be facetious about the whole matter and to talk about the manner in which agreement was reached in Dublin by a manager agreeing with himself. We must all realise that this is a matter on which I believe an amicable settlement can be reached, and will be reached, by the people of Cork city and county. They do not need, and will not require, a common manager to agree with himself. I believe they can and will reach a friendly and amicable solution, and I believe that the situation as presented here today by those who oppose the Bill, and the Order as it now stands, is not a true reflection of the overall outlook of the people of Cork county and city. I believe that Cork city is as dear to the people of Cork county as to the people of Cork city. All I can say is God help anyone from outside Cork city or county who comes between a Cork county man and a Cork city man.

Mr. Barrett

The Minister is taking Deputy Corry too seriously. No one else does.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

Surely the Minister does not hold that ten years purchase is reasonable compensation?

Mr. Blaney

Why?

Mr. M.P. Murphy

There is no justification at all for that amount.

Mr. Blaney

Why not?

Mr. M.P. Murphy

Consideration must be given to the development that has taken place.

Mr. Barrett

Who developed it?

Mr. M.P. Murphy

Cork County Council.

Mr. Barrett

The citizens of Cork developed it by going out to build their houses and the Deputy knows that as well as I do. He is trying to cod the Minister, and he is trying to cod his constituents.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Blaney

Incidentally, while all that was developing between Cork city and county, I was thinking I might leave it to them. That brings me to another point. I was criticised and described as discourteous to the people of Cork, and Cork Deputies, for not being present during the entire discussion. In fact, it is due to my courtesy to Cork Deputies that this matter was brought before the House today rather than on an earlier date. I had entered into previous commitments for this morning and no discourtesy whatsoever was intended—and I hope no offence has been taken on that score— by my absence from the House for the period in which I was forced to be absent this morning.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

The Bill could have been left over until the Minister had time to deal with it himself.

Mr. Blaney

If Deputy Murphy wants to be "narky" about the matter, he may. As I have said, this Bill would have been dealt with before this, were it not for the fact that I was trying to accommodate the Cork Deputies to whom Deputy Murphy alleges I have now been discourteous because I could not be here for the entire discussion this morning. I am sorry it should be taken that way but it was not my fault. I have no apology to make except to say that I was left in a position in which I was engaged doubly this morning on very important business as well as the business of the House. I could not help it and I am sorry it happened.

Furthermore in regard to the matter of the ten years purchase, that is the recognised term of years, with the one exception that has been mentioned. That was an exception to the general rule of ten years. I think the House will appreciate that trotting out that exception and the circumstances of the agreement between Dublin city and county is not a true parallel with what has taken place in regard to the extension of the Cork boundary. I do not believe there is any Deputy, whether from Cork county or city, or any part of the country, once he realises the facts of the situation in regard to the growth of Cork and the boundary restriction at the moment, who would claim that no boundary extension should take place.

Debate adjourned.