I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
Private Business. - Local Government Provisional Order Confirmation Bill, 1979 [Seanad]: Second Stage.
The purpose of the Bill is to give effect to the County Borough of Waterford (Extension of Boundary) Provisional Order, 1979, which was made by me on 8 November last. The Order provides for the extension of the boundary of the City of Waterford to take in an area of County Waterford comprising some 7,544 acres approximately.
The procedure for altering the boundary of Waterford city is governed by section 36 of the Waterford City Management Act, 1939. A petition by Waterford Corporation under this Act was made to me on 22 May this year. On 4 July I approved the holding of a local inquiry which was held on 4 September last. Waterford County Council and Corporation were both represented at the inquiry and all other interested parties were afforded an opportunity to express their views. There were no objections to the proposed extension at the public hearing. The proposed extension had already been agreed to by both the corporation and the county council. The inspector in his report on the inquiry recommended that the proposed extension should go ahead without modification. I have considered this report and in view of the inspector's recommendation and the agreement between the local authorities concerned, have approved the extension as proposed without modification.
The hope is to have the present legislation enacted before the Christmas Recess so that the extension will come into force as from 1 January 1980; this, being the beginning of the financial year, is the date most suitable for both the local authorities and the one which will cause least inconvenience for all concerned.
The main case made by Waterford Corporation in support of their petition was that the existing area of the city—2,613 acres—was totally inadequate to meet development needs. Of this area only 84 acres is capable of further development. In addition, the built-up area of the city has already spilled over its present boundary. A form of ribbon development has arisen on the arterial routes including not only residential development but also commercial and industrial development. At present, in the immediate environs of the city there are planning permissions for residential development in excess of 1,300 acres. Since 1973 the corporation have been obliged to purchase over 600 acres outside the city in order to satisfy their house building programme. In recent years the designation of Waterford as a regional growth centre and the realisation of this with expanding industrial development has also emphasised the need for the expansion of the city.
The area to be added to the city under the provisional order is contiguous to the existing city boundary and includes the electoral divisions of Ballynakill, Kilotteran, Kilbarry and Waterford Rural. They all form a coherent unit and can be related to a convenient boundary. Apart from an extension in 1966 which added some 520 acres to the city and minor extensions in 1944 and 1955, the boundary of Waterford City has remained unchanged since 1896.
As I already mentioned, Waterford County Council have accepted the need for the proposed extension and agreement has been reached between the city and county authorities on all aspects of the matter including a financial settlement. The order also contains a number of provisions which are consequential on the extension. These are along the usual lines and provide for the preparation of official maps of the extended city area, the continuation in effect of resolutions and orders, as appropriate, arrangements in regard to the register of electors, employment and hours of trading orders and development plans. I understand that the corporation are busy preparing a new development plan for the added area which will be put on display as soon as the extension is effective.
I commend the Bill to the House and I ask for the co-operation of Deputies in ensuring that it will have a speedy passage so that the boundary extension can become effective on 1 January next.
I welcome this Bill and thank the Minister and his officials who have efficiently and expeditiously brought this Bill before both Houses. This Bill confirms the order to be made in respect of the extension of the Waterford city boundary into the country on 1 January 1980. The efficiency with which this matter has been dealt is something we could wish to see more of in government, especially in local government. The petition which was lodged only this year is now being acceded to.
The reasons for the extension are well known. The area of the existing city is 2,613 acres. The increase is substantial, involving 7,544 acres. The city will now be four times its present size and will cover an area of 10,157 acres. That is needed if the administration of the city as it develops in the coming decades is to be monitored correctly.
There is an urgent need that one planning body—in this case the Waterford Corporation—be given responsibility for the overall development of the city. From the point of view of planning permission it is essential that one local authority have this responsibility. At present a draft plan is in train and hopefully it will be confirmed by the corporation early next year. It is important to know the direction we are going when planning industrial and housing estates.
There are other problems I would like to mention, including the provision of a high level bridge. This has been clearly set down as a priority by Waterford Corporation. Allied to the high bridge is a series of ring and service roads throughout the city. These are essential if the city is to progress in the coming decades in a rational and sensible way.
I was very disappointed to note from the recent White Paper on roads that the high level bridge cannot be expected until the end of 1980. That is most unfortunate and is a retrograde step as far as the future development of Waterford city and its environs is concerned. The Minister knows the necessity of a high level bridge. He received a deputation and I asked a number of questions about it. I am not very happy about the progress made to date. There is slight disagreement on the procedure between the corporation and the Minister. We hoped the final design of the bridge would be sanctioned by the Minister, and he considers that proper acquisition should be first implemented. For some peculiar reason we have not resolved the proper procedure in relation to this high level bridge.
The question of a high level bridge does not come under this Bill.
I am merely referring to the reasons for the further extension. I will not delay the House further. There is a need for an extension to ensure that the planning of the ring roads to service that bridge can be fully understood by those concerned.
The standing of Waterford city was referred to by the Minister. He said Waterford is a regional growth centre. That is correct, but we do not seem to be benefiting from that decision. Since this Government came into office the unemployment situation in that city has not changed to any extent. There are only 100 fewer unemployed since 1977. That is not what one would expect of a regional growth centre. The Minister referred to this for some peculiar reason and said— In recent years the designation of Waterford as a regional growth centre and the realisation of this with expanding industrial development has also emphasised the need for the expansion of the city.
While we are certainly planning in that direction, we do not seem to be getting the backing of central government in ensuring the continued growth as a regional growth centre. One of the best contributions the Minister could make in this respect would be to ensure a proper decentralisation of government services.
The Deputy may not cover all aspects in relation to Waterford. The Bill deals with the extension of the boundary.
The Minister referred to Waterford as a regional growth centre and I am briefly replying.
The Minister gave reasons for the extension.
I will not go into detail. I will refer to this in passing. I ask the Minister to use his good offices to back up the decision to make Waterford a regional growth centre by ensuring that there is a proper decentralisation within the government services, State and semi-State bodies, to ensure that Waterford get their fair share of any jobs that are going.
In March 1978 the corporation petitioned the Minister for two extensions. The first was to Waterford County Council for 7,544 acres—this is the one we are dealing with today and which has been acceded to—and the second was to Kilkenny County Council in respect of 3,688 acres. This was objected to by the Kilkenny County Council in no uncertain terms. They took a very negative and irrational decision to object to the proposed extension in the direction of Kilkenny.
The natural environs of Waterford go into Kilkenny. If one asked where Clover Meats or the National Board and Paper Mills were situated one would probably be told they are in Waterford. The Waterford golf club is also in County Kilkenny.
This has nothing to do with the extension of the boundaries of Waterford. This is a Private Bill dealing with a specific matter.
I am merely referring to the original petition lodged with the Minister. It is unfortunate that the Kilkenny acres have not been agreed, because we would have a greater Waterford area under one planning authority, and serviced and administered by one authority. At present Waterford are selling services to parts of County Kilkenny. It is unfortunate that the global extension was not dealt with at the same time and so remove the necessity of having to come back to the House at a later stage with another petition.
There is at present a petition lying in his Department in respect of County Kilkenny. The Minister will have to consider it and make a decision to hold an inquiry. I ask him to do this sooner rather than later, because there is an importance attaching to the matter and it relates primarily to the proper rational administration of the whole developing area of Waterford city. Hopefully, members of Kilkenny County Council will accede to our request in the light of reason. I will not say any more than that lest I incur the wrath of the Ceann Comhairle.
The extension of the boundary within County Waterford is to take place on I January 1980. It is at the beginning of the financial and rating year and that is sensible. The financial adjustments between the county council and the corporation have been agreed to. The compensation agreed to be paid for loss of revenue to Waterford County Council is £975,000 to be paid in ten annual instalments of £97,500. I wonder if the principle of compensation is reasonable. I understand that in some States in America where an extension is necessary it is made and there is no compensation. Neither the county council nor Waterford Corporation is in the business of making profit. The net result of the extension of the Waterford Corporation area is that huge development expenditure will have to be entered into by the corporation. The concept of compensation is open to question and perhaps at some later stage some Minister might be enlightened enough to introduce a concept that compensation is not necessary when county boundaries are extended.
The problems which arise for ratepayers affected in the county council within the extended area is dealt with in the Bill. The corporation rate is 71p more than the county council rate. Three years are being allowed to bring the rate up in the county to the level of the city. In 1980 the new area will pay 92.7 per cent of the city rate, in 1981 it will be 95.1 per cent and in 1982 it will be 97.6 per cent. In the fourth year there will be parity with the city and the extended area. This does not affect private dwellings. Householders are exempted from paying rates and have no liability in respect of them. At present under the county council system householders pay water rates of £17 per year to Waterford County Council. This rate will be done away with and there will be a saving for many people in that area. In Drogheda the difference in the rates was so large that a 15-year period was decided on to effect the change because of the extension of the boundary.
I should like to refer to the question of electoral areas resulting from the order which the Minister is making consequent on this Bill. The wards or electoral areas as they are properly called are lobsided. Electoral area No. 1 has approximately 5,700 voters, electoral area No. 2 has approximately 6,700 voters and electoral area No. 3 has approximately 8,500 voters. The system which the Minister has used is perpetuating this lobsidedness and that is most unfortunate. The line going out the old Portlaw Road does not add any votes to electoral area No. 1. That is an extension of the present line going up the Yellow Road, to use a local name. The other line is along the Old Tramore Road, east of Ballindud. That settles the existing boundary line used to a large extent out the Old Tramore Road which means that electoral area No. 3 will not get many new voters. The bulk of the new population, approximately 4,650 people, affected by the extension will now be resident in the present electoral area No. 3. Something will have to be done by way of ministerial order to balance the population between the three electoral areas for local election purposes. There is a complete imbalance and the Minister has a duty to redress this as soon as possible.
The other question I should like to raise relates to property. As a layman I am somewhat puzzled by this. Section 6 (1) of the schedule states:
The County Council and the Corporation may from time to time as occasion requires, make an equitable adjustment (in this article referred to as an agreed adjustment) in regard to any matter or thing requiring to be adjusted between the County Council and the Corporation in consequence of the inclusion of the added area in the City and not otherwise provided for by this Order and in particular may make such agreed adjustment in regard to property whether real or personal (including choses-in-action), vested in or belonging to or held in trust for the County Council....
Would the Minister explain what is covered in this area? What happens to county council property situated in city areas? Will there be a further financial deal between the county council and the corporation? What is the position of St. Otteran's Cemetery which is on the border of the city but within the county council area at present? Who will be the administrator of it?
This is an example I take because it is something in which I have a particular interest. Who will now be responsible for the management of St. Otteran's cemetery? I know this is a specific problem with which probably the Minister is not au fait; he has more on his mind now than cemeteries. I should like to know the purpose of article 6 in the Provisional Order because there are problems relating to property, real, personal or choses in action such as rights of way and so on. It is an area which I should like the Minister to explain further.
I wish to thank the Minister and his officials for their expeditious examination and treatment of this matter. I can assure the Minister that the extension is necessary for the proper development of the greater Waterford city area. The city will now become, if you like, a city with a legal population of 37,250. If the extension had been allowed on the Kilkenny side it would have brought the population up to 40,000. This is a reflection of the correct size of Waterford as a city. I hope the Government will realise that we are a major city but we are not getting the support we feel is necessary from the central government. I say that in a general sense, not a party political sense. Waterford is potentially a very prosperous city. The confidence needed in it certainly has not been expressed in money and resource terms by the central government to date, and we look for some more positive commitment on the part of the central government in regard to the future of Waterford city.
Finally, I assure the Minister that in consequence of this boundary extension a proper draft plan will be laid down and accepted by the corporation and that the infrastructure development required of any major developing city will be established in a very professional and rational way. I pay tribute here to Waterford city manager, Mr. Michael Doody, the city engineer, Mr. Pat Flood and the city planner, Mr. Michael Gough, who have done trojan work together with other members of the corporation staff. In initiating this extension and generally in the management of Waterford city they have given firstclass service. They are now fully involved in the draft development plan for the added area, and I am prepared to say that their competence will not be equalled by any other person in the local services. I am fully confident that the new draft plan will give an added dimension to the future development of Waterford city.
I also welcome this Bill and thank the Minister and his staff for the expeditious manner in which it has been handled. He will not take exception to it if I say that the co-operation between the two local authorities concerned was a big factor in getting this Bill so quickly to the House. It proves that both authorities are very anxious to ensure that the growth and development going on in Waterford will be greatly facilitated by the extension of the borough boundary.
I know that the Chair ruled out reference to Kilkenny County Council by Deputy Collins, but in passing I must say that I am disappointed with the members of Kilkenny County Council. Let us hope the passing of this Bill will show them what co-operation and liaison between local authorities could do in the future to help. Like Deputy Collins I feel sure that nobody here will want to delay the passage of this Bill through the House as quickly as possible. Again, I thank the Minister and compliment him and his staff on their handling of this matter.
I wish to add my voice in welcoming this Bill. It is nice to know that the matter was settled by agreement, without hassle or argument, and that the local authorities involved acted in a mature way and as a result eliminated the type of delay which we had with previous boundary extensions. I understand, for instance, that the Drogheda boundary extension which was passed in 1976 took some 15 years to finalise. In the case of Waterford this extension has been spoken about for the past two years and I think it has proceeded as rapidly as was possible—not that it has been entirely satisfactory but under the type of local government machinery we have it went ahead as quickly as one could expect.
Waterford city is a centre which in many ways has been stagnant if not decadent—in the physical sense—for far too many years. I hope the boundary extension will revitalise the city which was, and should be one of the primary centres in the State as regards population and industry. But somehow it has fallen behind in the tremendous national progress made over the past 20 years and particularly in the past 15 years. Whereas other centres have gone ahead by leaps and bounds Waterford and its people have been left behind. I hope this boundary extension will lead to the type of development that has been lacking and which is needed, the type of development that has brought Cork to the forefront as a very strong second to Dublin as regards industrial development and as a growth centre. I hope Waterford will attain its rightful position in comparison with areas like Limerick, another area that has made tremendous progress in the past 15 years, as indeed Galway has also.
When I was going to school not so many years ago the population in Waterford city was 28,000 people, whereas Galway city had a population of something like 8,000. From our point of view in Waterford it is sad to relate that the present population is slightly over 30,000 whereas the population in Galway city has jumped to about 35,000 or 36,000. The Minister will excuse me if I am somewhat envious of the progress that Galway has made in the intervening years, but Waterford has not had the same breaks in terms of industries, national institutes or Government Departments being directed towards it as other centres here have. I hope this situation is reversed in the near future.
Waterford County Council, of which I have been a member for some years, have been most accommodating in agreeing to this extension. But, of course, the corporation in return have had to agree to pay a certain amount of compensation. That is not an easy thing for them to do. In these days of financial restraint on local authorities due to the change in the rating system, it is not easy for a relatively small city like Waterford to meet the type of financial demand in terms of compensation which is being demanded, and justly so, because the council are losing a valuable strip of territory and, like anybody in such a situation, they want to be financially compensated. I would have preferred if the Minister could have borne the brunt of the compensation in this case because there are a number of major capital projects listed for Waterford city which must be affected by the large compensation that has to be paid in this case. Among the huge undertakings are the building of a new bridge and a new water supply system which is presently in the course of construction and is near completion. These projects are costing millions of pounds. In addition to that, the corporation have committed themselves to a heavy financial commitment with regard to a new airport and, again, the capital expenditure involved is tremendous.
It is not easy for such a limited local authority to provide millions of pounds for a number of different projects. It is time the Minister and the officials in his Department went about devising means by which such heavy expenditure could be largely covered by a contribution from the central funds. The rating system, as restructured recently, is an inhibiting factor to the growth and development of large provincial towns and certain cities. I would hope that we could have some revision of the present financial arrangements.
It is unfortunate that Kilkenny County Council did not agree to the extension requested in their case. It is not as great as that on the Waterford side, but nevertheless it is considerable. Waterford is badly hemmed in at the moment and it needs to develop, not just on one side of the river but on both sides. It is a mistake on the part of the representatives in Kilkenny who have opposed the move. It would be for the betterment of the people in the area concerned if they were included in Waterford city because that area is a natural hinterland of Waterford city. I can understand the fears of politicians whether local or national that they are going to lose votes. Perhaps the authorities in Kilkenny County Council may feel they would lose an undue amount of rate revenue. But, as I have said, in Waterford county they will be compensated by the city and I presume Kilkenny would be compensated likewise.
I feel that the fears of politicians have, more than anything else, affected the proposal and it is unfair to the people in the area concerned. I do not know what is the best way to arrive at a decision in such a case. Over the years there have been squabbles of the same nature in Cork city and county, because the city was looking for a sizeable extension into the county. The same thing has happened in Limerick where the city was looking for an extension which would embrace part of County Clare. I am sure the Minister is aware of this and can appreciate the resistance which Waterford Corporation are experiencing from the authorities and the elected representatives in Kilkenny.
I wish there was some mechanism devised whereby that resistance could be broken down, the people of the area more easily satisfied and the whole thing worked out for the betterment of everybody involved. Perhaps a referendum could be held in such an area to decide whether they should stay as they are or move into the city. It would be worth thinking about. Surely we should be concerned about the people living in the area and not about the handful of people thinking of their vested interests. We should be concerned about the common good of the area at large, and by that I mean the adjacent county area together with the city. That should be of paramount importance.
This extension is badly needed. I said that it had gone through as quickly as possible under existing legislation, but it has still been quite slow because of the complicated process involved. Due to that holdup people in County Waterford who are now being transferred to Waterford city have suffered to quite a degree in that the county council, knowing that the transfer was about to take place, did not provide necessary and essential services on the scale required. I would ask the Minister to bear that in mind in future cases and improve or increase the speed with which a transfer takes place even if there is all round agreement. In the area concerned, in which there are some 4,650 people, there are a number of mainly new housing estates—Viewmount, Avondale, Grange Heights, Ballybeg, Glenville and the general area around Ardkeen Hospital. Most of these are new housing estates, some built by private enterprise and others, particularly Ballybeg, built by the local authority. Strangely enough the local authority in this case is Waterford city, whereas Ballybeg is in the county.
The city has had its spillover problem for a number of years and the corporation have been building their local authority houses in another local authority's area. That is not satisfactory. Services which should have been provided on a proper scale have been neglected. I regret to say that, as a member of Waterford County Council, I am probably one of those people who are partly to blame because obviously the county council knew that this area was going into the city and they sat back and said "We will not do this, we will not do that, we will wait until it is transferred to the city and leave them to look after it". The Minister will appreciate that a delay, even as short as it has been in this area, although I should not call a two-year delay short, can have detrimental effects. It is not fair that the people concerned should have to suffer.
For instance, we will take the usual type of services provided by a local authority which have not been provided on a scale which the public could expect. I am referring to simple things like refuse collection and the provision of footpaths and street lighting which have been neglected badly in these areas. A proper water supply should be provided. The water supply generally is giving rise to problems in the city and in the areas bordering on the county which have suffered unduly because of their situation for the past two years. They can only be described as "no man's land". They are going from one place and they have not yet been accepted by the other local authority and, therefore, they have an inferior service. Green spaces, playing pitches and so on have not been provided on a rational basis. If the Minister cannot improve the speed of the legislation, surely he should set up some mechanism to ensure that no area such as this no man's land is left, as it has been for several years, in a state of disorganisation without essential services. I hope that from 1 January next this situation will improve dramatically, as I think it will. I have great confidence in Waterford Corporation. I am convinced that they will see to it that these people will get the same level of service as does everybody else within the city boundaries. Generally speaking, the people concerned were originally from the city area but because of urban decay and necessary rehousing they have to go into that county area.
The Minister made reference to electoral areas. He said that obviously there will have to be some redrawing of boundaries. There will be a tremendous imbalance because all the extension is taking place on the one side of the city and so areas will have to be arranged in order to have a logical pattern. If the city is to be left as a three-ward electoral division, there will have to be major changes in the boundary lines of those three wards. While 4,650 people will be moving from the county into the city, 2,884 electors will be going from the county to the city. That means in layman's or politician's language 2,884 voters will be going from the county into the city. I serve notice here today that I intend to go in and stay with them. I am from the county and I am not going to leave those people to the city politicians. I am going to stay with them for as long as is physically possible.
This is a sizeable number, and here a very interesting point arises on which I would appreciate a sympathetic hearing from the Minister. The point is that, as they stand, Waterford Corporation have 15 members, five for each of the three wards. One of those wards all of a sudden is going to have a vastly increased population although it has still only five elected representatives. On the other hand, the area going into the city comes entirely from the Tramore electoral area which has seven seats on Waterford County Council. Is it fair that the elected representatives for the Tramore area should lose virtually 3,000 voters or 3,000 of their constituents and not be in a position to represent them after six months following their election to the county council? Those 3,000 people voted certain individuals to the county councils but from now on they will find that those whom they voted may not be able to represent them further. Deputy Kenneally and Deputy Collins are in the happy position that they are on both the corporation and the county council, so their dual-purpose role——
So they will be well looked after.
We will take care of them very well. There is no need at all to worry.
I might take care of them even better. Their dual-purpose role does not create any problem, but what about the other five county councillors involved? Some of them see their political base taken from underneath their feet and for the next five years they will be in a state of limbo politically speaking. That is not fair. The Minister should make some reciprocal arrangement with the corporation to see that the elected representatives for the area which is now going into the city will be allowed a place, a seat—whatever is the appropriate word—on Waterford Corporation. It will not affect all of the remaining five, it will affect some of them.
I would like the Minister in his reply to hold out some hope that those elected representatives will be given an opportunity to represent from now on all the people who elected them. One of those councillors is living in the very centre of the area which is being transferred from the county to the city. I am sure not one Deputy in this House would tolerate that position or let it pass without getting up and speaking at length most vehemently to defend his position. I would like the Minister in this instance to do the same for the people who have not got a voice in this Dáil Chamber. While we today are chopping off a considerable number of people who have elected them, they themselves have no say as to how those people are to be looked after for the next four-and-a-half years at least. Extensions of boundaries create problems and anomalies and this is one such case. I trust that the Minister can hold out some hope in the future for an improvement or the elimination of these anomalies. We will all be delighted if he can do something to improve the two very unsatisfactory situations to which I have referred at some length. First, there is the question of the period between the time of the request for a transfer up to the time of the actual transfer and, secondly, the question of the local representative who, despite having been elected, will not have the opportunity of representing the people who elected him.
This is almost like intruding in a family dispute. However, I wish to compliment the Minister for having dealt so quickly with this request. The House should recognise this. In a question yesterday I asked the Minister if he would consider speeding up the procedures for boundary extensions generally for cities such as Waterford which are forced to expand into adjoining areas. The Minister indicated that he would try to meet that request. We in the Labour Party welcome this recognition of the growth of Waterford city and the fact that the extension of the boundaries will enable the corporation to co-ordinate all the services needed instead of having the anomalous situation that Deputy Deasy referred to whereby people are living in local authority housing belonging to one authority but being residents of another authority. The same sort of situation occurs in other parts of the country but hopefully the extension provided for here will meet the expanding needs of Waterford city at least up to the end of the century.
I thank the Deputies for their co-operation and also for the compliments they paid to officials of my Department. Deputy Collins referred to the proposed extension to County Kilkenny. Since agreement has been reached so quickly between Waterford Corporation and the county council but not with Kilkenny regarding the extension there, it was decided to treat the matters separately and to allow the Waterford extension into the county to go ahead.
Regarding the question of financial compensation, agreement has been reached between the two local authorities in this instance, but the question of a re-examination in this regard in the future has been raised with a view to relieving the local authorities of that burden. The matter will be examined for the purpose of ascertaining whether the present arrangement can be improved on.
Deputy Collins asked for a further explanation in respect of the property of the county council in the added area. There is provision in Article 6 for agreement on any matters relating to property between the two local authorities concerned. The same Deputy referred to electoral areas. These can be re-arranged easily before the next elections which are due to take place in 1984.
Perhaps this is something that will be dealt with sooner rather than later because the councillors are entitled to know where they will be standing in the next elections.
We do not have to wait until 1984 to make the rearrangements.
In other words, the Minister takes the point.
Deputy Deasy complimented the local authorities on their handling of the extension. I, too, would like to compliment them in this regard. The Deputy suggested also that to some extent the county council had neglected the services of this added area in the intervening period. I do not know whether that is correct but the Deputies would be more familiar with the situation. However, the present petition for an extension could hardly have been dealt with more speedily than has been the case so that the intervening period was very short. Though the petition reached me only in May last we are now finalising the necessary legislation.
But the matter had been spoken of for two years.
Deputy Deasy referred to an extension of Limerick into county Clare. That is a matter that has been talked about for about ten years but without any action being taken so far. However, in relation to Waterford the Deputy will know whether there was neglect by the council in the intervening period.
It is agreed that there was neglect.
Presumably, that will not happen in the future.
There will not be any neglect so far as the corporation are concerned as I shall be following my 3,000 votes.
They are very progressive.
Deputy Deasy referred also to the provision of the remaining elected members of the council in this electoral area and he asked whether there was some way in which they could continue to represent the people who elected them. There is no way in which any such arrangement could be made but, undoubtedly, the people concerned will continue to be represented properly.
Question put and agreed to.
Agreed to take remaining Stages today.