Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 26 Mar 1985

Vol. 357 No. 3

Private Members' Business. - Local Government (Reorganisation Bill), 1985: Committee Stage (Resumed) and Final Stages.

NEW SECTION.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 15.
In page, 12, before section 19, to insert the following section:—
19. —(1) (a) On the commencement of this subsection, the area described in the Fourth Schedule to this Act shall, for the purposes of the local elections next occuring after such commencement, be detached from the County Health District of Galway and from the jurisdiction and powers of the council of the county of Galway (in so far as they relate to such purposes) and be added to the Borough of Galway, and on and from such commencement the said area shall be included in, and form part of, the said borough for the said purposes and the boundary of that borough shall be altered accordingly.
(b) The Minister may be order make such incidental, consequential and supplementary provisions as appear to him to be expedient to enable paragraph (a) of this subsection to have effect for the purposes of the elections referred to in that paragraph.
(2) The Minister shall by order provide that the boundary alteration effected by subsection (1) of this section shall (in addition to having effect for the purposes specified in the said subsection (1)) have effect for such other purposes as shall be specified by order.
(3) Where an order under subsection (2) of this section has not been made prior to the local elections next occurring after the commencement of subsection (1) of this section, then, pending the making and coming into operation of the said order, each of the persons elected at the aforesaid local elections to the council of the Borough of Galway shall be the members of and, as regards the period beginning on the day of their coming into office and ending on the commencement of the said order, shall act as the council for the said borough as it existed immediately prior to the making of the boundary changes effected by the said subsection (1).
(4) For the purposes of giving effect to the order required to be made by subsection (2) of this section, the Minister may either by that order or by another order—
(a) make a provision similar to or to the same effect (with any modifications which the Minister may consider appropriate in the particular circumstances) as any provision contained in the Second Schedule to this Act, and
(b) do anything which may be done by order under section 24 of this Act, and
(c) make such other provision (if any), as the Minister shall think proper, in relation to any matter whatsoever.
(5) Nothing in this section shall be construed as prejudicing the generality of section 24 of this Act.".
—(Minister for the Environment.)

An Leas-Ceann Comhairle

Amendments Nos. 15 and 27 to be discussed together. Deputy Molloy reported progress.

Before reporting progress I was making the point that this section presents a historical change in the boundaries of my native city of Galway. I welcomed that proposed extension. I had said that the change proposed by the commission and now accepted by the Government was a result of meetings held locally between the two local authorities in County Galway — Galway Borough Council and Galway County Council. After a number of meetings agreement was reached on the extension of the city. In arriving at that decision, many councillors were influenced on the basis of adequate compensation being made and on other proposals being entertained which were contained in the agreement referring to the creation of a new electoral area in Connemara. Now we find that only the part recommending extension of the city has been accepted and the agreed recommendation for changes in the electoral areas has not been accepted. Some of the councillors who gave their ready agreement feel sorely aggrieved because they are suffering following the changes. The changes in the electoral area were agreed between the two major local authorities involved, but also between the various political groupings represented on both authorities. They were not accepted by the commission because they felt that their terms of reference debarred them from implementing this recommendation.

There have also been very serious reservations expressed in this whole area. The Gaeltacht is located in the two electoral areas which are most affected by the extension of Galway city and the changes affecting the Connemara electoral area. It was hoped to amalgamate the large Connemara Gaeltacht into one electoral area, which would have been a very sensible rationalisation of the local Government structures in County Galway and would have been implementing something which has been recommended by several committees and commissions which have been established under the auspices of the State and privately over the years — that the division of Galway Gaeltacht into different electoral areas for local authority purposes should be ended by amalgamation into one.

We have the unusual situation that the Aran Islands are attached to the Galway electoral area which extends as far as Headford, whereas Rossaveal, Carraroe and the Gaeltachtaí of south Connemara and the islands and back to Carna are to be detached from the electoral area to which the Aran Islands are attached. I am disappointed that the recommendations made in this regard by Galway County Council and by Bord na Gaeilge in this matter were not accepted. That board had gone so far since the commission's report was published as to issue a statement asking that further consideration be given to the proposed revisions of local authorities electoral boundaries in Gaeltacht districts. From what the Minister is saying here, he does not propose to make any changes in what the commission have recommended. With the time scale involved, it is obvious he is not going to entertain any major changes.

Again, an opportunity presented itself to do something positive for the Gaeltacht and local government in some of the Gaeltacht areas and that opportunity has been missed. The reason is that all these changes have been rushed in at the last minute. Adequate time was not given to considering what would be the best structures to meet the real needs of all the different areas. The commission, in their report, stated on numerous occasions what I have already highlighted, that they were constrained by the time factor and could not make the best possible recommendations because they did not have time to consider all the various matters which they felt needed to be considered. Their work is a result of a rushed job and is not at all fully satisfactory, but we accept it because now with further time constraints on us and the imminence of the elections it is not feasible for furthere consideration to be given to these matters. Reluctantly, we have to agree.

We are very critical of the Government for wasting so much time when all last year could have been used to allow plenty of time for discussions and negotiations to take place with various interested groups and between the commission and the local authorities and others who were making representations to them. They did not get that opportunity. The commission were only established in late January and had to report before the end of February. It was ridiculous for the Government to have gone about their business in this way. Not alone have they been criticised by this side of the House but last week there was very severe criticism from the Minister's colleagues on the Government side of the House, who expressed regret at the paucity of the proposals in regard to major reform and on the lack of time given even to do the little that is proposed here. Even that has not been done correctly because adequate time was not given to it.

As I have said, this section is historical from the point of view of Galway city in that it is a major extension of the boundaries, which is to be welcomed. I have to highlight the fact that the new Galway city area will consist of a very large part of the Gaeltacht. The Minister and the Minister for the Gaeltacht will have to sort the matter out as to what exactly will be done to rationalise the position. The city has expanded out into what was once rural hinterland which was Fíor-Ghaeltacht, but some of which is no longer Fíor-Ghaeltacht. It is not in the interests of the development of the language to pretend continually that some of these areas are Fíor-Ghaeltacht when they are not. Most people genuinely interested in and concerned about the language would be anxious to see the situation rationalised. This will not be dealt with now because there is not time to go into these matters. All we can do is make passing references to them. I am making these points so that the Minister will know that there were many other matters which needed to be fully considered and were not. It is hoped, if he comes forward with other Bills in the future, that he will give due consideration to these matters and recognise that they are important and provision should have been made for them.

The terms of reference given to this commission were totally inadequate for the task required. If the proposals were considered to be of major importance, surely they deserved sufficient time for the commission to consider the various effects which the major changes will have. They should have had time to listen to all the points of view. A very large number of groups who sought to have their case heard by the commission were refused, on the grounds that the commis- sion could not accept oral evidence — again because they did not have time. I understand that the only people they met to discuss these matters were the Galway, Limerick, Cork and Dublin local authorities but that none of the county councils was given an opportunity to discuss with the Minister any of the proposals the commission were considering.

I am being critical in what I am saying, but at the same time I congratulate the councillors in Galway on their foresight in agreeing to this extension. That may not appear to be of major consequence, but when one looks at the situation in Limerick, where the two local authorities seem unable to reach the kind of agreement achieved in Galway, then one can see things in perspective, the significance of this move and that it would not have been recommended had there not been that agreement. I congratulate all of the councillors of every party on both authorities in Galway on their contribution to this significant development for the city.

I was happy to hear the concluding remarks of Deputy Molloy and join him in his congratulatory sentiments about both councils in Galway. The opportunity afforded Galway city to become a county borough is one that was gladly accepted, particularly on the historic occasion of its 500th anniversary, by all parties in that area. The response was very positive. In that respect a good day's work was done in having the capital of the west elevated to the status of county borough.

Deputy Molloy was not so congratulatory about the efforts of the commission in their work in that area. As I said on many occasions before, the Government had decided to adopt the recommendations of the commission. I believe this to have been the only realistic approach. If changes, such as those suggested by Deputy Molloy, were to be entertained they could have rendered the whole task very difficult and the whole purpose and advantage of the commission approach would have been lost in a welter of claims and counter claims and charges of discrimination, although, even with the commission these charges have been levelled. But there would have been many more Members of this House levelling charges of discrimination had I interfered in any way with the deliberations of the commissioners. I hope Deputy Molloy will see the good sense of this, that that was the only reasonable course open to anybody establishing such boundary commissions and that then the natural course would be to accept their deliberations in their entirety.

Of course, electoral areas can be adjusted at any time in the future if clear anomalies are established on the ground in the course of the forthcoming local elections and there is an agreed view about this at local level. Certainly I shall be prepared to listen to whatever representation may be made and account will be taken of them in any subsequent local election.

However, there are difficulties about the establishment of electoral areas based on exclusively Gaeltacht areas. Arising from the physical nature of the Gaeltacht, to begin with the Gaeltacht is spread over seven counties. In six of those counties it is divided into two or more non-contiguous areas. In several counties non-Gaeltacht areas are isolated by the Gaeltacht from English-speaking areas. Gross inequalities of representation would arise if all Gaeltacht areas were represented by separate electoral areas. That would run counter to the principle underlying the establishment of the two independent electoral commissions, namely, equality of representation within counties and county boroughs. In fact it would be difficult to justify the creation of separate Gaeltacht electoral areas in any county other than, perhaps, Donegal and to some extent Galway and Mayo. Even in those counties it would seem necessary to exercise a substantial bias in favour of Gaeltacht districts and accept electoral areas which are awkward in shape and include non-contiguous areas.

All of this, of course, does not mean that the Gaeltacht will be ignored in the context of local government reform. The Government accept fully the desirability of having local structures which recognise the special nature of Gaeltacht areas and are responsive to the needs of such areas. Accordingly, further legislation will permit the establishment of Gaeltacht committees in the relevant counties to which functions can be devolved. This will represent a realistic response to the special needs of the Gaeltacht. I hope Deputy Molloy will accept from me that this represents a gesture towards what he has been suggesting for the Gaeltacht areas and for their representation.

There are two points to which I want to respond. I do not know whether the Minister really grasped what was the meaning of the recommendation from Galway County Council in regard to the Connemara Gaeltacht. I would rather the Minister had replied to the point I made instead of referring in a general way to all of the Gaeltacht areas saying that they are scattered throughout rural regions of the west and that it would be difficult to form them into individual electoral areas within each county. I understand all of that. I am merely putting it to the Minister that a practical proposal to unite most of the Connemara Gaeltacht was made to the Minister by a local authority with full agreement between all the members of the political parties in that authority and the two local authorities in that area and that that recommendation was rejected. That is all I am saying. I am not asking about the other Gaeltacht areas in, say, Mayo, Donegal, Kerry or Waterford on this occasion. I am referring merely to the Galway Gaeltacht because that whole area has been affected in a major way by the decision to expand the city. That has meant that part of the Galway Gaeltacht in the County Galway electoral area has now been brought into the city and the remaining part of that Galway electoral area, which is also Gaeltacht and has now been reduced in size, remains separate from the Connemara electoral area which consists mostly of a Gaeltacht area. Therefore, it would have made sense to marry the two together; the population existed for a seven-seater electoral area which would have given the disadvantaged part of County Galway, which is largely Gaeltacht, greater voice and unity within the council. But that opportunity has been denied them by the Minister.

I welcome the Minister's proposal for the establishment of Gaeltacht area committees within each county council that has Gaeltacht areas within it and his proposal that functions be delegated to those committees. However, I am very sceptical of the possible fulfilment of this proposal. I witnessed the establishment of Údarás na Gaeltachta and the provision in the legislation establishing that body for functions to be delegated from the local authority and other Government Departments to Údarás. None of those functions has been exercised, no extra functions have been allocated to Údarás since the date of its establishment. Therefore I am very sceptical of any functions being delegated to special Gaeltacht area committees. Unless the Minister provides for a delegation of these functions by legislation I am sceptical it will ever come about. I say that from practical experience. There is no need to go into the reasons I hold those views.

If the Minister is genuine in seeking to fulfil the promise he has given me here this evening that these Gaeltacht area committees will be established and given specific functions, then he should introduce legislation providing for the delegation of those functions to those area committees. Otherwise that proposal will never see the light of day. We have had too many of these kinds of promises in debate and Government reports, none of them fulfilled and all of them gathering dust on the shelves in Government Departments. It is time that positive action was taken in this area. I commend the Minister for referring to the matter. At least this is a response to my urgings. I suggest that he can fulfil that commitment by taking positive action in providing for this change in legislation.

Amendment agreed to.

The new section is thereby inserted and as a consequence, section 19 of the Bill is deleted.

NEW SECTION.

I move amendment No. 16:

In page 13, before section 20, to insert the following section:—

20.—The Minister shall, as soon as may be after the commencement of section 19 of this Act and in any event not later than the date of the making of an order under section 84 (as amended by section 4 of the Local Elections Act, 1966) of the Electoral Act, 1963, fixing the polling day at the local elections to be held in 1985, make an order under subsection (2) (as amended by section 87 (4) of the Electoral Act, 1963) of section 35 of the Local Government Act, 1941, in respect of the Borough of Galway and an order under section 33 of the said Act, in respect of the county of Galway.".

This amendment is consequential on amendment No. 15. It requires the Minister to make such electoral area boundary adjustments as are necessary arising from the extension of the boundary of Galway. These changes will be made on the basis recommended by the county and county borough electoral areas boundary commission. They must be made as soon as possible after the extension of the borough boundary affected by section 19 and not later than the date of the making of the order fixing the polling day for local elections. As drafted originally, the section would have applied to Limerick and Galway also but section 19 which provides for boundary alterations will apply now only to Galway. The consequential provisions of this section must be reduced in scope so as to apply to Galway only. Section 35 of the Local Government Act, 1941 empowers the Minister to divide Galway Borough into electoral areas. Section 33 of that Act empowers him to divide the counties into electoral areas and to fix the number of members per electoral area. The extract relating to the electoral areas affected by this alteration is from page 85 of the commission's report.

When is it proposed to make the order under section 84 fixing the polling day?

I must make the order for the date of the elections 28 days before polling day so it will be 28 days back from June 20.

Amendment agreed to.

The new section is thereby inserted and as a consequence, section 20 of the Bill is deleted.

SECTION 21.

Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 are related and may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 17:

In page 14, lines 10 to 15, to delete subsection (1) and substitute the following subsection:

(1) The Minister may by order, made at any time before the local elections held next after the passing of this Act, alter the number of members of the council of any county specified in the order.".

These amendments arise also from the recommendations of the commission. They restrict the scope of section 21 so as to apply only to county councils. Only in the case of eight county councils did the commission recommend alterations in the number of members. The section as drafted would apply to county borough councils other than Dublin and Galway Borough Councils. The reference to these authorities is being deleted. Amendment No. 18 is consequential on the amendment to subsection (1). At present the number of members of most county councils is fixed by order made under the Local Government Act, 1941. In some cases membership was increased subsequently under the Local Government (Application of Enactments) Order, 1898 on the application of the council concerned and following a local inquiry. In any case where the Minister increases membership of a county council under this section, the previous order fixing membership will be revoked.

Assuming this section is accepted and the Bill is enacted, what will be the position in regard to changing the number of members to be elected to any local authority in future? Is there existing legislation to enable the changes to be made by order or will new legislation be required to increase or decrease the number of councillors in any authority?

This can be done only on the initiative of a council. The request can be sent to the Department and an inquiry conducted but it has to be on the initiative of the council.

The local authority would make the application and a public inquiry would be held. I take it that the final decision on the question of an increase in number would rest with the Minister. Can the Minister explain the machinery for implementing that decision? Will it be by way of order made under the 1941 Act and would that order have to come before the House?

The order would be made under the 1898 legislation.

Perhaps the Minister would refresh my memory. Is that the procedure that was used when, prior to the 1979 elections, Dublin County Council representation was increased from 25 to 36?

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 18:

In page 14, subsection (2), lines 20 to 23, to delete all the words in the subsection following "that regard" in line 20 and substitute "by the order".

Amendment agreed to.
Section 21, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 22 and 23 agreed to.
SECTION 24.
Question proposed: "That section 24 stand part of the Bill."

Perhaps the Minister would explain this section. It seems fairly wide-ranging.

This section will empower the Minister to amend, adapt, modify, repeal or revoke enactments, instruments or agreements for any of the purposes of the Bill. Any order made by the Minister using this power will have to be laid, by virtue of section 3 (2) of the Bill in draft before both Houses of the Oireachtas and will not be made a resolution approving of the draft until it has been passed by both Houses. The Minister will be empowered to make an order under this section where he considers it appropriate to do so, having regard to the provisions of the Bill, or where such order is necessary or expedient so that other enactments, orders and so on can have effect in conformity with the terms of the Bill, or that it is necessary or expedient so as to remove any inconsistency between the Bill and other enactments and instruments, or that any other enactment or instruments are replaced or rendered unnecessary by any provision of the Bill. The Minister will have power to amend, adapt, modify, repeal or revoke any enactment or instrument and to provide for its application or non-application to a local authority or local authorities. It is because the section will confer a broad power on the Minister that orders made under it will be subject to positive confirmation by both Houses of the Oireachtas.

Would the Minister care to give the House any examples of where he sees it might be necessary for him or his successors to avail of the wide powers under this section?

I cannot think of any examples but the provision is put into the Bill in case one occurs. It would be useless for me to try to think of something that might occur.

This seems a very sweeping section. If any mistakes are made along the line the section seems to give the Minister almighty power to do what he likes. It seems rather unusual that such wide-ranging powers should be sought without clarifying the necessity for them or stating the circumstances in which they might be used.

It is just a safeguard. I am being quite candid when I say I cannot think of the circumstances in which it might be used. However, anything that is done under the section will be subject to confirmation by both Houses of the Oireachtas and that is a safeguard.

We will accept it on that basis.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 25.

Amendment No. 19 is in the name of the Minister. Amendment Nos. 20, 21, 22 and 23 are related and these amendments with amendment No. 19 will be taken together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 19:

In page 163, subsection (1) (a), line 17, to delete "that section" and substitute "section 11 of this Act".

These amendments are consequential on the amendment to section 21. Under that section as originally drafted, the Minister would have been empowered to increase the membership of county borough councils other than Dublin and Galway Borough Council. Section 25 as originally drafted would have empowered the Minister to increase quorums in line with the increased membership. As the references to county borough councils and Galway Borough Council have been deleted from section 21 it is necessary to amend section 25 so as to remove the power to fix quorums by order in the case of county boroughs and Galway Borough Council.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 20:

In page 16, subsection (2) (b), line 27, to delete "Subject to subsections (3) and (5) (b) of this section, section" and substitute "Section".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 21:

In page 16, lines 31 to 38, to delete subsection (3).

Amendment agree to.

I move amendment No. 22:

In page 16, subsection (5), line 43, to delete "(a)".

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 23:

In page 16, lines 47 to 51 and in page 17, lines 1 and 2, to delete paragraphs (b) and (c).

Amendment agreed to.
Section 25, as amended, agreed to.
Section 26 agreed to.
SECTION 27.
Question proposed: "That section 27 stand part of the Bill."

Will the Minister give an explanation to the House regarding the method of appointment of membership of committees of the various local authorities as proposed in this section?

This section provides that the procedure which applies to the making of appointments by local authorities to health boards shall in future apply to the making of appointments to certain committees and other bodies by local authorities. The bodies to which the new procedure will apply are set out in subsection (2) of the section. The Minister will have power to apply the new procedure to other bodies by order.

The purpose of this new procedure is to ensure that a local authority's representation on committees and other bodies is a fair reflection of the composition of the local authority. The procedure has proved satisfactory in the making of appointments to health boards. In responding to the Minister's Second Reading speech, Deputy Molloy welcomed the proposals to extend its application.

Subsection (1) provides that, subject to subsection (4) a local authority in appointing, whether by nomination or election, members of the local authority or persons who are not members of the local authority to be members of any body mentioned in subsection (2) of the section or a committee of agriculture shall make such appointments, first, in the case of appointments to membership of a committee of agriculture, in accordance with the rules set out in Part I of the Fourth Schedule, and secondly, in the case of appointments to membership of any other body mentioned in subsection (2), in accordance with the rules set out in Part II of the Fourth Schedule.

The rules in Part II of the Fourth Schedule are modelled on those which apply to appointments to health boards. The rules in Part I are a modification of those rules to take account of particular legal requirements governing appointments to committees of agriculture. There are requirements that certain agricultural bodies be accorded representation on a committee of agriculture, for example, the Irish Farmers' Association, the Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers Association and the ICA and that there be at least one representative of each county electoral area on such a committee.

This notion of laying down a system for appointments to health boards was introduced by the late President Childers when he was Minister for Health when he set up the health boards. Whatever criticisms there may have been of the health boards since then, so far as the appointment of the councillors to the boards was concerned there has been general acceptance of the principle introduced by Mr. Childers at that time. It helped to establish harmony and good relations and to avoid much acrimonious wrangling at council meetings in filling some appointments of councillors to health boards. I welcome the extension of that principle to other committees which newly elected councils have to fill. I hope that this principle which was introduced by the late Mr. Childers will bring the same degree of harmony, will establish better relationships and will avoid the dissent and heated debate that occurs at such times in council meetings when decisions have to be made regarding the filling of various appointments. The principle is good. It is proper and correct that there be representation according to the strength of the various groups on a council. I hope the system will operate efficiently and I welcome the proposed extension of the system to the other committees under the auspices of local authorities.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 28.
Question proposed: "That section 28 stand part of the Bill."

I think the Minister said this was in response to a recommendation by Mr. Justice Costello in the Bantry case that the island should be brought in under Cork county. Are there any other cases where an island is excluded from the jurisdiction of the county authority where this might apply?

It refers in the Bantry case to the jetty, not the island.

Perhaps the Minister will explain exactly what is meant here.

The section provides for an extension of the boundary of the administrative county of Cork to include part of Bantry Bay. The Minister will be empowered by order to specify whether this boundary extension is to be for all or for certain purposes. The section will empower the Minister, by order, to include land in a county or county borough specified in the order and the boundary of the county or county borough to which land is added will be altered accordingly. Before making any such order the Minister will be required to consult with the Commissioners of Public Works, any other Minister who may be concerned and the council of any county or county borough who may be affected. The Minister will have power to make such incidental, consequential and supplementary provisions as appear to him to be expedient in relation to both Cork county or any other county or county borough in respect of whose maritime boundary he makes the order.

Is the Minister saying that what is involved is the extension of the maritime boundary of County Cork to include the jetty where the vessels were tying up to discharge oil, and that it is not then to include the Whiddy Island oil terminal as mentioned in the explanatory memorandum?

Any structures within that area would be covered. It is really for planning purposes and so on, above or beyond high water mark.

This section will give power to extend the boundary of a maritime county to a point beyond the high water mark to be determined by the Minister.

It will do that extension in the case of Bantry. It will allow an expansion beyond the high water mark of any county borough area or county council area.

Then we take it that Whiddy Island oil terminal is within the county borough area of County Cork? Is the Minister just referring to the jetty which extends out beyond the island?

That would be the case.

It is important to clarify the exact maritime boundary of a county. I understand that there have been difficulties in some cases where malicious damage has been caused to vessels tied alongside in harbours. In such cases the local authority concerned have disclaimed any responsibility arguing that even though the vessel was tied up alongside the harbour within their county the vessel was in waters which were outside the county boundary. Arguments have been made that the county boundary did not extend beyond the side of the quay in the case of a deepwater harbour. It is important to define clearly on the maps, the boundaries of a county in regard to coastal areas and where there is a harbour where boats come alongside the line should be drawn well outside the harbour so that there will be no doubt as to whether the boats were in the jurisdiction of the county authority. Arguments have been made in court that boats were outside the jurisdiction of the county authority against which malicious damages claims had been made. I take it that section 28 will enable the Minister if requested by a local authority in future to delineate this county boundary out beyond the low water mark.

To include land or structures outside the high water mark——

Where is the boundary drawn in the event of a structure? Is it the edge of that structure and is the vessel tied alongside that structure in the county or outside it?

The high water mark is the boundary. Any structure that goes from that high water mark is part of the county.

Only in the case of Bantry.

I can give the Deputy the area that will be included in the case of Bantry.

Assuming this Bill is passed we now have the jetty at Whiddy Island oil terminal included as part of County Cork but where is the vessel tied alongside? Is that also in County Cork?

Subsection (1) (a) says:

The land lying between the existing boundary of the administrative county of Cork and an imaginary straight line drawn from Muccurragh Point in Bantry Bay to League Point in the said bay shall, subject to paragraph (b) of this subsection, on and after the commencement of this section, be included in, and form part, of the said administrative county and the boundary of that county shall be altered accordingly.

As matters stand, the marine boundary of County Cork extends only as far as the high water mark. This means that the oil jetty at the Whiddy oil terminal is outside the jurisdiction of Cork County Council. The Costelloe Tribunal of Inquiry into the Whiddy disaster recommended that the jetty should be brought into the local authority's jurisdiction and this section will give effect to this recommendation.

I have not a map so I cannot determine where the jetty lies with regard to the imaginary line suggested here. If a vessel is tied alongside the jetty at Bantry Bay is that vessel within the jurisdiction of Cork county? It is important for malicious damages claims.

Yes, the jetty is well within the line. I can pass the document over to the Deputy if he wishes to see it.

Then I take it that any local authority who want to extend their county boundaries beyond the low water mark may do so in future, under this section.

Yes, I can make an order.

Question put and agreed to.
Section 29 agreed to.
FIRST SCHEDULE.

I move amendment No. 24:

In page 21, Part II, to delete lines 1 to 13.

This amendment would have the effect of leaving the section of Dublin city, Howth, Sutton, and Baldoyle within the city of Dublin which is the reasonable, rational place for that area, rather than the abortion of a proposal we have before us to move Howth, Sutton, and Baldoyle out into County Dublin, into Fingal. We have heard much in this debate and in the various statements made by various Government Ministers about local government reform, that this Bill is part of a package of major local government reform and that the tackling of the reform is being done in a very honourable way by the appointment of boundary commissions and that the boundary commissions will see that everything is correct. There has been much play in amendments referring to the reports of the commissions. But the reality is that the hands of the commissions were already tied by a gerrymander by the Government in their decision that Howth, Sutton and Baldoyle, a natural part of the city of Dublin, should be taken out and transferred into County Dublin with no respect for the views of the people of the areas and showing total disregard for the fact that they, as ratepayers, are on a much lower rate than the county ratepayers.

The Government are showing total disregard for the fact that Howth, Sutton and Baldoyle will not have anything in common with the major part of the new Fingal Council. The area covered by the latter will stretch from the northern part of the Liffey at Lucan, through Blanchardstown and Mulhuddart across to Howth, Sutton and Baldoyle. The change is being made for no other reason than party political gain by the major party in Coalition, Fine Gael.

There is no doubt but that the decision was not taken in the Custom House but in Kildare Street, in the Department of the Public Service, by the Minister for the Public Service, to help his pal, Deputy Cosgrave, and the Fine Gael Party generally. The intention was to help Fine Gael to get a majority on the new Fingal Council. It is an absurd proposal to take a major part of the city of Dublin and put it into Fingal and give that an air of respectability by referring to the boundary commission. That action is beneath contempt and shows total disregard for the services and traditions of the ratepayers of Howth, Sutton and Baldoyle. As a Deputy for North County Dublin I welcome the arrival of the people from that area into the Fingal district but there is no logic to the Minister's proposal. The Minister has told us that the boundary commission behaved in an independent way and I accept that, but the hands of the commission were tied by the gerrymander performed by the Fine Gael Ministers. I have no doubt that the former chairman of the county council, now Minister for the Public Service, played a major role in the decision with regard to Howth, Sutton and Baldoyle. Part II of the Schedule states:

2. (1) The part of the City enclosed by the existing boundary and an imaginary line drawn as follows:—

Starting at the point where the existing boundary meets the western boundary of the Dublin-Belfast railway line at ‘Howth Junction' Railway Station, thence in a southerly direction along the said western boundary to the point at which it joins Kilbarrack Road, and finally continuing in an easterly direction along Kilbarrack Road and along its imaginary projection.

The phrase "imaginary projection" aptly describes what has been done with regard to Howth, Sutton and Baldoyle. Surely it is imaginary to project that the people of Howth, Sutton and Baldoyle have anything in common as far as services, traditions, needs and rates are concerned with the people of Blanchardstown or Castleknock. The Minister's change makes a nonsense of the proposals before us for the various reorganisations in Dublin. I am anxious to hear the Minister's attempt to explain the reason why Howth, Sutton and Baldoyle have been lumped against the wishes of the people and their financial interests as far as rates are concerned into North County Dublin.

A Boland gerrymander.

It has been suggested that the boundary commission was responsible for this change.

I did not say that; I said quite the opposite. The boundary commission was landed with this.

On many occasions the Deputy referred to the boundary commission in relation to this. The boundary commission did not have anything to do with this proposal.

That is what I said.

I am agreeing with the Deputy.

I am blaming Fine Gael Ministers.

The Bill provides for various alterations in the Dublin city-county boundary designed to remove anomalies and to secure a more logical and rational boundary.

I find it hard to take the words "logical" and "rational" when the proposal is to move Howth, Sutton and Baldoyle out of the city boundary.

The whole pattern of changes in the city-county boundary is intended to achieve this end. The boundary was last reviewed in 1953. The changes in the Howth area form part of the current revision. Howth is an area of high amenity to the north of the city as Killiney is to the south. No one is suggesting that Killiney should form part of the city area. Given that Howth is a high amenity area, as are other parts of coastal north county Dublin, the Government felt that there were sound geographical arguments for its inclusion in north county Dublin. I am sure the Deputy, a representative from that area agrees. Furthermore it will help to strengthen the population base of that county. In these circumstances I am not prepared to accept this amendment. However, I am aware that certain difficulties in regard to rates liabilities may arise for residents in the area and I will be dealing with these in the context of Deputy Molloy's next amendment on this point.

That was a very lame attempt by the Minister to justify the gerrymander carried out by Fine Gael members of the Government because, to be fair to the Minister, his party do not have a hope in hell of getting a seat in that area. The gerrymander was carried out by Fine Gael Ministers in such a way that Howth, Sutton and Baldoyle would go into the county. The Minister said that the change was designed to remove anomalies and that it was more logical and rational that the area of Howth, Sutton and Baldoyle be in north County Dublin. There is no logic in that. The move is not in the least rational. It does not amount to a tidying up of a boundary. If one looks at the map one will see that the boundary going in a straight line across the city fringe takes in Howth, Sutton and Baldoyle. There is no logic in the Minister's move. As far as the 1953 review is concerned I must point out that the trend since then has been to extend the city boundary further and further out into the county rather than to take lumps of the city and put them into the county. The Bill proposes to take major sections of the county into the city and they are adjacent to Howth, Sutton and Baldoyle. I am referring to the Donaghmede, Grangemore and Donaghies areas. They are in the county area and the county council built local authority houses there but it is being moved into the city. It was logical to move Darndale into the city. The logic of the Minister's proposals has been to tidy up along the city fringe with the exception of Howth, Sutton and Baldoyle. His proposal in regard to that goes directly against his other moves in regard to the city fringe. The areas of the city fringe that have expanded into the county are being tidied up and brought into the city. The move in regard to Howth, Sutton and Baldoyle is illogical and irrational.

I do not think the Minister's heart was in that proposal. Clutching at straws the Minister referred to Killiney and told us that there should not be a proposal to bring Killiney into the city. Killiney was never included in the city boundary and nobody is seeking a change there. There is no comparison between the position of Killiney and that of Howth. Howth, Sutton and Baldoyle are in the city and the people of the area relate to the city. They do not relate to the people of Balbriggan, Mulhuddart, Clonsilla or the northern end of Lucan. Their relationship is towards the city of Dublin where they are at present. The Minister said that there are sound geographical reasons for doing this and that Howth-Sutton-Baldoyle have something in common with the county, but that is nonsense.

Howth forms one of the arms of Dublin Bay looking towards the city and, for political reasons and gerrymandering, it is being put into north County Dublin. However, I have no doubt that that proposal will rebound on the Government, especially on the Fine Gael Party, when the people of Howth-Sutton-Baldoyle realise the injustice that has been done to them, especially as they will have to pay a rates bill far in excess of what they pay at present.

The Minister will have a lead in a period of three, four or five years but there will still be a considerable increase in the rates in the long term and even in the short term for the people in those areas. There is no logic in the Minister's decision. To an extent, I sympathise with him because his heart is not in it. He is creating anomalies which are not logical. The rational proposals on the city fringe go against what the Minister is doing to Howth-Sutton-Baldoyle and to the people of that area.

The Minister referred to the boundary changes of 1953 but the fact is that the city has been expanding instead of parts of it being taken into the county. I realise that the Minister's hands are probably tied because of the gerrymandering by Fine Gael but I ask him to reconsider the situation.

This is an extraordinary decision by the Government. They have predetermined the boundaries for the new local authorities in Dublin and excluded the delineation of these boundaries from the independent commission. It is important that that is made very clear and understood outside this House because there has been an attempt to convey the impression that all the work in regard to the boundaries is the result of consideration given to these matters by an independent commission, but that is not the case. The most important decisions made regarding this matter were made by Government members and it is impossible for the Minister to explain the reason for placing the Howth-Sutton-Baldoyle area in the new county area of Dublin-Fingal. It is clearly in the city area and has been there during the rapid period of urban growth over the past 20 years. It is located on the shores of Dublin Bay and many important services are interlinked. Even a cursory look at a map of Dublin shows that the natural alignment for the community residing in this area is with the city and not in north County Dublin. The area connecting the electoral area of Howth-Sutton-Baldoyle to the new county area is a very narrow opening in the Sutton-Baldoyle area; it is barely connected, there is just a narrow strip of land connecting it to the huge council area in north County Dublin. It is clear, therefore, that there is no logical explanation for this area being transferred to the county and there must be some other reason for this. We accuse the Government of gerrymandering these boundaries for party political purposes. A prominent Government Minister is known to have a particular electoral interest in this area and we must come to the conclusion that he exercised undue influence in this matter. He sought to have a natural part of Dublin city excluded from the city area and transferred to the county, which is his base, and to bolster his political fortunes by transferring an area where there is substantial support for his party to his area rather than leave it in the city.

I am disappointed at the explanation given by the Minister. One would imagine that he would have sought to give some explanation for this decision or tried in some way to justify the Government's actions. However, the has made no effort to come to their defence. The sad reality is that the people who reside in that area and who operate commercial enterprises there will have to pay a very heavy price to satisfy the political ambitions of Fine Gael, especially those of Deputy Boland. I am surprised that a Labour Minister is prepared to accede to the request of a Fine Gael Minister in regard to this matter as there does not seem to be any advantage to the Labour Party in transferring this area. The fortunes of Conor-Cruise O'Brien have waned and the Labour Party influence is no longer there. It is of more electoral benefit to Fine Gael to transfer this to the county to try to counter the strength of Fianna Fáil in that area and that is what is happening.

There is a very heavy price to be paid by the property owners in this area because of the difference in the rate struck in Dublin city and Dublin county. Those who up to now were located in the city area were paying a rate based on £18 in the pound. When this Bill is passed they will be paying approximately £24 in the pound, a difference of £6 in the pound. Commerical property owners will certainly pay the cash price to satisfy the electoral ambitions of local Fine Gael politicians. I do not know if property owners will be happy to make these cash payments which can be quite substantial. If one considers property valued on a rating of £100, there is a difference of £600 to be paid in rates. I know that the Minister proposes to phase it in over a period of five years, but each year property owners will have to pay higher rates.

It is difficult for this side of the House to accept such blatant gerrymandering by the Government and we must lodge a protest. We recognise that the Labour Party are happy to support this gerrymandering — by supporting Fine Gael they can ram this through, which will establish this awkward looking county council in Dublin-Fingal. I appeal to the Minister, even at this stage, to reconsider and to recognise that what he is proposing is irrational, that it has no logical base and will involve difficulty in administration. I am sure the Minister is aware that there are many infrastructural services running from the Howth area, and many major sewerage disposal units in the city have loations in and beyond Howth. These major systems are transferring from one area to another. There will be many other administrative difficulties.

When one looks at the overall picture one can recognise why the Government were not prepared to allow any independent commission to lay down the boundaries for the four new Dublin authorities. This was a matter of extreme political importance and therefore these independent people were not to be given this important task. No chances were to be taken on this issue and the commission did not have any part to play in deciding the new Dublin city boundaries. That was for the heads of the Government parties to decide because in future elections parties' fortunes would be affected by whatever decisions were made. The commission were given the lesser task of determining a line for electoral areas only but they were not allowed to touch this important task. It is important that we hammer home this fact. There is no way we will accept the Minister's arguments and we insist that our amendment be put to the House. We will call a vote and divide the House on it.

There is very little to be said on this. Today the Deputies said that, generally speaking, the proposals contained in this Bill are acceptable and there was nothing they could get their teeth into. The changes contribute to the overall balances between the three new county councils in terms of population and viability. There was talk about Ministers having a big say in this and talk about four county councillors — there are 1,500 or 1,800 county councillors in the whole country — and they tried to find one area where they could tag the word "gerrymander" and thereby attempt to discredit this. I do not believe this has worked.

Check that out.

In my view there is a good case to be made for Howth being put in the county.

The Minister has not yet made it.

I have made it. As I said, it brings a balance to the three county council areas in terms of population and viability. That is the basis of the argument. The talk of gerrymandering is just political point scoring and has no basis in fact.

We are talking about democracy. People will go out to vote and determine who their representatives will be. We all have to accept the result of elections and this will be the case in Howth as in any other part of the country. The Deputies opposite have not made any reasonable case against what has been done here to bring viability to the three county council areas. A number of foolish assertions were made but the Deputies opposite have not, and will not, convince me that their case holds water. They should give up on it.

The Minister talks about viability. The Howth-Sutton-Baldoyle areas have been moved for better distribution of the population into the county. Why move a part of the city into the county when, on the other side of the railway line at Kilbarrack, part of the county is being moved into the city, an area where county council houses have been built and where the landlord is the county council? Further along the Malahide Road there is Coolock, which has been in the county and has a major IDA industrial estate on the eastern side of the new by-pass on the airport road. That area is being taken into the city. The Minister is talking about viability in the new Fingal area, yet he is moving an area at the back of the Northside Shopping Centre from the county into the city, the reverse to what is being done in Howth. There would be some effort to improve the rate base of the county area if the IDA industrial estate were left in County Dublin, but the Minister is doing a complete somersault by moving those areas into the city and moving Howth-Sutton-Baldoyle into the county. Talking about viability, how about those people in Howth-Sutton-Baldoyle who are paying the exorbitant Dublin city rate of £18 in the pound? The Minister intends to transfer them, against their will, with no logic or geographical connection, into the county where there is a rate of £24 in the pound. These business people's finances are already being stretched by Government decisions in other areas but they are being pushed into the county under a gerrymandering exercise. This has nothing to do with the boundary commission. This is a Fine Gael decision promoted by the present Minister for the Public Service for base political motives which will backfire because the people of Howth, Sutton and Baldoyle will reject this gerrymandering exercise.

May I intervene at this stage? Under an order made by the House this morning I must put a question at 10 p.m. to bring the proceedings on item No. 8 to a conclusion. Under that order the question in so far as amendments are concerned will be confined to amendments put down in the name of the Minister. I understand that two amendments in the name of Deputy Molloy may be accepted. If that is so, we would now want to agree on another form of question. Am I right in what I say about amendments Nos. 25 and 26?

This is the question it will be necessary to put at 10 o'clock if the amendments have not been reached: "That all amendments set down by the Minister for the Environment and not disposed of, and amendments 25 and 26 set down by Deputy Robert Molloy are hereby made to the Bill. The Bill, as amended, is hereby agreed in committee and, as amended, is reported to the House. The Fourth Stage is hereby completed and the Bill is hereby agreed". Have I the agreement of the House to put that question at 10 o'clock if it is necessary to do so in order to include the amendments in the name of Deputy Molloy? Agreed.

I do not want to delay on this amendment but I would like to ask one question. Would the Minister clarify in which authority area the North Bull Island will be?

For logical and rational reasons and in order to tidy up areas, it will probably end up in County Dublin. That is as logical as the rest of the argument he has put forward so far.

It is normal when delineating boundaries or county boundaries to carry on the line of the boundary out into the sea where there is an island offshore which is connected to the shore. That is not done on this map in this case. As part of the North Bull is very adjacent to Howth, is that to be in County Dublin or in the city authority area? Who is to be responsible for it, or is it to be divided?

That will be in the corporation.

Even though it is looking down into Howth?

It is looking in every direction.

Its natural home is the city as is Howth's natural area, but the Minister is not agreeing to that.

I do not agree that it is Howth's natural area.

Is amendment No. 24 withdrawn?

No, we are putting this to a vote. Before we do so, because of the time that will be taken for the vote, can I have clarification of what you said earlier? It has been indicated to you that the Minister——

I would like it to be indicated to me now. I said that I understood.

Will the Minister indicate if he is accepting amendments Nos. 25 and 26 as indicated by the Chair?

I think our colleagues opposite are getting lost. When I tried to indicate this a little earlier they told me I was on a different amendment.

We were on amendment No. 24.

Certainly I agree to the proposal and I am pleased to accept Deputy Molloy's suggested amendment that——

All I want is clarification from the Chair.

——the phasing of the full rates be extended over a ten year period. In the Bill it was five years. I assure the Deputy from north County Dublin that the people of Howth and Baldoyle will get a ten year remission on their rates, not five.

Is the Minister accepting amendments Nos. 25 and 26 in the name of Deputy Molloy?

Yes, that is what I am saying.

We are voting on amendment No. 24.

Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand".
The Dáil divided: Tá, 68; Níl, 54.

  • Allen, Bernard.
  • Barnes, Monica.
  • Barrett, Seán.
  • Barry, Myra.
  • Barry, Peter.
  • Begley, Michael.
  • Bell, Michael.
  • Bermingham, Joe.
  • Birmingham, George Martin.
  • Coveney, Hugh.
  • Creed, Donal.
  • Crowley, Frank.
  • D'Arcy, Michael.
  • Desmond, Barry.
  • Desmond, Eileen.
  • Donnellan, John.
  • Dowling, Dick.
  • Doyle, Avril.
  • Doyle, Joe.
  • Dukes, Alan.
  • Durkan, Bernard J.
  • Enright, Thomas W.
  • Farrelly, John V.
  • FitzGerald, Garret.
  • Flaherty, Mary.
  • Glenn, Alice.
  • Griffin, Brendan.
  • Harte, Patrick D.
  • Hussey, Gemma.
  • Kavanagh, Liam.
  • Kelly, John.
  • Kenny, Enda.
  • McGahon, Brendan.
  • McGinley, Dinny.
  • McLoughlin, Frank.
  • Bruton, Richard.
  • Carey, Donal.
  • Cluskey, Frank.
  • Conlon, John F.
  • Connaughton, Paul.
  • Coogan, Fintan.
  • Cooney, Patrick Mark.
  • Cosgrave, Liam T.
  • Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
  • Manning, Maurice.
  • Mitchell, Gay.
  • Molony, David.
  • Moynihan, Michael.
  • Naughten, Liam.
  • Nealon, Ted.
  • Noonan, Michael (Limerick East).
  • O'Brien, Fergus.
  • O'Brien, Willie.
  • O'Keeffe, Jim.
  • O'Leary, Michael.
  • O'Sullivan, Toddy.
  • O'Toole, Paddy.
  • Owen, Nora.
  • Pattison, Séamus.
  • Prendergast, Frank.
  • Quinn, Ruairí.
  • Ryan, John.
  • Shatter, Alan.
  • Sheehan, Patrick Joseph.
  • Skelly, Liam.
  • Taylor, Mervyn.
  • Taylor-Quinn, Madeline.
  • Yates, Ivan.

Níl

  • Ahern, Bertie.
  • Ahern, Michael.
  • Andrews, David.
  • Barrett, Michael.
  • Brady, Gerard.
  • Brady, Vincent.
  • Brennan, Mattie.
  • Brennan, Paudge.
  • Browne, John.
  • Burke, Raphael P.
  • Byrne, Hugh.
  • Byrne, Seán.
  • Calleary, Seán.
  • Collins, Gerard.
  • Conaghan, Hugh.
  • Connolly, Ger.
  • Coughlan, Cathal Seán.
  • Daly, Brendan.
  • Doherty, Seán.
  • Fahey, Francis.
  • Faulkner, Pádraig.
  • Flynn, Pádraig.
  • Foley, Denis.
  • Gallagher, Pat Cope.
  • Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
  • Harney, Mary.
  • Hilliard, Colm.
  • Hyland, Liam.
  • Kirk, Séamus.
  • Kitt, Michael.
  • Leonard, Jimmy.
  • Leonard, Tom.
  • Leyden, Terry.
  • Lyons, Denis.
  • McCarthy, Seán.
  • McEllistrim, Tom.
  • Molloy, Robert.
  • Morley, P.J.
  • Moynihan, Donal.
  • Nolan, M.J.
  • Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West).
  • O'Connell, John.
  • O'Hanlon, Rory.
  • O'Keeffe, Edmond.
  • O'Leary, John.
  • Ormonde, Donal.
  • O'Rourke, Mary.
  • Power, Paddy.
  • Treacy, Noel.
  • Wallace, Dan.
  • Walsh, Joe.
  • Walsh, Seán.
  • Wilson, John P.
  • Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Barrett(Dún Laoghaire) and Taylor; Níl, Deputies V. Brady and Barrett (Dublin North-West).
Question declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.

In accordance with the order agreed in the House today I must now put the following question: "That all amendments set down by the Minister for the Environment and not disposed of and amendments Nos. 25 and 26 set down by Deputy Molloy are hereby made to the Bill. The Bill, as amended, is hereby agreed in committee and, as amended, is reported to the House and Fourth Stage is hereby completed and the Bill is hereby passed".

Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share