Objection is being taken to the Second Reading of this Bill. I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time.
Local Government Provisional Order Confirmation Bill, 1953—Second and Subsequent Stages.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I want, at the outset, to make my position clear in this matter. I am not objecting to the Order in the full sense and I want it to be clearly understood that what I am objecting to is not what the Order contains but what the Order does not contain. I would like the Minister and the members of this House to bear with me for a few moments while I explain more fully my position. They will realise that the members of the Dublin County Council and, for that matter, the people of County Dublin, have a distinct grievance because of certain matters that are not contained in this Order.
Here is an idea of the position. The Dublin Corporation have made a demand for 11,000 acres of land in County Dublin and, of course, the county council objected to that. Following this the demand was modified to 6,000 odd acres, and as the county council did not want to stand in the way of the people needing housing accommodation and did not want to be the cause of holding up building, they decided that the best thing they could do was to come to an understanding with the corporation in connection with the whole scheme. They did not object at the inquiry nor raise objections which they could have raised nor employ any legal aid and allowed the scheme to go through.
Previous to that they had met both the members of the Dublin Corporation and its officials and had come to a very genuine understanding and a pretty reasonable understanding. At that time the county council also made some six demands on the Dublin Corporation, the first being to secure a kind of assurance that this would be the last time that the corporation would encroach upon rural Dublin. On that point, we secured no guarantee. I do not intend to raise that question now, but the county council got no guarantee or assurance that this would be the last time they would acquire land in County Dublin.
There were other matters upon which the Dublin County Council felt that they were entitled to make claims and upon which we did receive certain guarantees from the corporation. I am sorry that none of these guarantees is contained in the Order. One of these is well thought of but not quite as clear as I would like in meaning. First and foremost, I want the Minister and Senators to realise that there is a great injustice being committed against ratepayers and, to explain that, I want to tell you that none of the portions of County Dublin now being acquired by the Dublin Corporation—Coolock, Finglas, Baldoyle—has any water or sewerage facilities.
For the last 20 years engineers in the water and road section of the Dublin County Council have given all their time to the development of these areas and to seeing that they possessed what the county council felt they ought to possess, proper facilities in regard to water and sewerage. In doing that all the ratepayers of County Dublin have contributed to the initial cost. The farmers of Garristown and Oldtown have never got any benefit from water or sewerage schemes, though they made their contributions to the cost and, in addition, have paid the loan charges since that date.
We in the Dublin County Council felt that to be unfair. All these areas have been practically completely developed and in Coolock, for example, there are about 4,000 private houses, taking a conservative figure, while in Finglas there are 12 factories alone. In other words, these developed areas which the county council spent so much time and money in bringing to their present stage have now become valuable assets to the community of County Dublin.
The people who did contribute to the cost and who lived in the rural areas of the county had at least this much satisfaction, that because of the vastly increased valuation it would mean that their rates, which we in the Dublin County Council have always striven to keep at a reasonable level, lowered, but now after all this time, money and hard work has been expended and when the areas are thus developed the corporation comes calmly along and takes these portions of County Dublin from the people of the county.
The county council considers that there were certain portions of virgin soil which, if the corporation wanted them for house building purposes, they could take over and on that understanding with the corporation the Dublin County Council made a demand that the corporation would pay to the council 20 times the cost, but the result is that the corporation are about to take 20 per cent. of the council's valuation away. I would ask the House further to realise that the valuations that the corporation are taking away are additional valuations, because all the works are new and there will be no outlay on them. They are new roads, new sewers, new tanks, et cetera. In other words the works were completed quite recently and are valuable assets.
We felt that our demand of 20 times the added burden or loss was reasonable, but the corporation and the officials whom we met felt that all our demands were reasonable except 20 times the burden or loss which, they said, was too much. They agreed that they would repay to the county council on a basis of 15 times, and that agreement was made very clear. In other words, there would be 15 annual payments made to the county council for the loss of revenue and, speaking personally—and I am expressing the views of the members of the county council—we felt that while there is a very strong reference in the Order to these matters, it is not in the same manner as would guarantee the position for the future.
The Order says that the corporation and the county council may from time to time and, if occasion requires, make by amicable agreement an equitable adjustment, and I hope that that time is now and I suggest that the agreement should be made now. We have no guarantee that you will have the same officials in the corporation with an understanding of the position in the future or that you will have the same city manager or the same officials in the Department of Local Government who will understand the position at some future date. That was my reason for objecting to taking this measure yesterday so that I could have it recorded in this House for the benefit of everybody concerned and ensure that they understood the position.
If some corporation officials or some local government officials or, indeed, some other Minister was there at another time—someone who does not quite understand the position as it is —it is quite possible that an injustice could be done to the county council. Unfortunately, in the Order as it stands there is no guarantee as to the future and what it would be when the Order becomes law.
Another point to which I wish to direct attention is that we have arrangements in the county council whereby cottage tenants can purchase their cottages in the County Dublin whenever they feel like it. We asked that that would be embodied in the Order and the corporation agreed to that course, but we now find that it is not in the Order. That leaves the position that after 12 months of this Order the tenants of these cottages in County Dublin could be deprived of their rights to purchase their cottages unless we have some further legislation brought forward to protect their interests.
Another point on which the county council came to an understanding was that in the County Dublin the housing position was nearly completed. Within the last few years the housing position has advanced so much that the number of people still requiring to be housed in the County Dublin is very small. In this added area the corporation have now secured a site which was in the possession of the county council for the last seven years and on which they had already erected 120 houses. Plans have been lodged for a further 40 houses on that site, which is the council's own property, and had these 40 houses been built that would have ended the housing problem in the county so far as North County Dublin was concerned. That was at least as far as that part of the north county bordering on the framework of Dublin was concerned. There may be a small number of people still waiting to be housed in isolated areas around the borders of Meath, but for the majority of the county's area the housing programme had been almost completed.
Within the area now being taken over by the corporation an injustice could be done in so far as people who have lived all their lives in that area and had inspected the sites on which their homes were to be built will now find that because the area has been taken over into the city they will have to take their place in the queue for the allocation of houses by the corporation.
Under the present system whereby the corporation selects their tenants for houses it would mean that these people who were due to get houses shortly might have to take their place with 10,000 or 15,000 others on the waiting lists of the corporation, and in those circumstances they could see no hope in their lifetime of having a home of their own. That was a matter which required urgent consideration.
The county council put that point up to the corporation and they saw the point and were very sympathetic, but there is not one word of that in the Order, not even a mention that any preference in any shape or form will be given to applicants from County Dublin. In other words, they have to take their place in that queue which, unfortunately, is very long in the county yet. Dublin County Council thought there would at least be some arrangement made by the Order that when the corporation built houses on that particular land these people would, perhaps, be given first consideration. I feel that that is not a big demand or that it is not unreasonable. The council are only trying to look after the interests of their own constituents.
There was another point on which the corporation came to an agreement with us, in connection with the development of Portmarnock-Malahide. As everybody is aware, the Portmarnock-Malahide area is the outlet in summer time for the residents of this city. It is not the County Dublin people who use it; it is the residents of the city. In the agreement reached with the corporation, they did agree also to make a contribution. Consider Minute 5 of the agreement which was come to:—
"The council require that the corporation should contribute two-thirds of the capital cost of agreed development works at the seaside resorts of Portmarnock and Malahide.
The county engineer has prepared an outlined development plan for Portmarnock. The cost of the works contemplated is roughly estimated at £40,000."
This plan is now available. This was the joint decision of the county council and the corporation representatives:—
"Subject to joint law agent's advice, the corporation agrees on the need for and the principle of a contribution by the corporation to any agreed works."
There is not a word of that in the Order. There are other points of course, small points, on which agreement was not reached. But the main point is not whether the corporation are going to give a grant towards Portmarnock-Malahide development or will go further into the county later on. What we in the council are concerned about at the present time at least is the agreement in connection with the "15 times" clause. Of course, I would like to say that there was a letter from the Minister in connection with that, in which his outlook is apparently sympathetic and that is more or less a safeguard. But here is the point in the agreement between the council and the corporation representatives:—
"The council require that the financial adjustment in respect of increase of burden should be 20 times the agreed annual increase. Adjustments under other heads to be on accepted principles."
These are not confidential documents, Senator, are they?
It is an exact copy of an agreement signed, on the one hand, by James Dooge, Chairman of the Dublin County Council's Special Committee, and, on the other hand, by Robert Briscoe, Chairman of Dublin City Council Special Committee.
It is a public document?
Oh, yes. Here was the decision of these representatives on that point:—
"Corporation Committee will recommend Council of Corporation not to oppose an application to Minister to extend annual payments of agreed or final amount to a maximum of 15 years."
That is as clear as it could be, but the Order makes it so cursed complicated that a staff would have to work the whole year round for the entire 15 years to make out what method of agreement could be reached under it at all. As the arrangements stood, the thing was easily understood, and did not need this further arrangement at all. Fifteen times just represented the loss as taken over. It would be quite a different thing for Dublin County Council if there was a question that, with 17 to 20 per cent. of their assets taken away, their staffs were also taken away and that the farming community and the people still resident in County Dublin were going to gain. But the county council would have to maintain the staff of the county medical officer of health and of the engineers and so on. As a matter of fact, I can see no prospect—except road men are kept in the vicinity—that ratepayers will be relieved to any extent at all. On the other hand, because of the very fact that for the last 15 years the principal officials of Dublin County Council have spent all or the greater portion of their time on the development of that portion of County Dublin now being acquired, I feel that some reasonable compensation should be made in return. That is my point of view and the viewpoint of the Dublin County Council.
The council has not decided to oppose it or to lodge a petition, but as a member of this House I feel that, even if I had nothing to do with the council at all, I should, in all honesty, raise the question on behalf of the remaining people of the county. I make a very special appeal on this point to the Minister. I understand there are some legal difficulties, but I appeal to him as a rural man to see that at least by his words there will be recorded in this House some future protection for those people.
There are, of course, a lot of other minor things. There are acres of land involved, and people in those areas are going to lose their agricultural and horticultural instructors, but the corporation would not even contribute a little towards that. I appeal to the Minister in all earnestness, in view of all the circumstances relating to the position, that if the Order itself cannot be amended, he will at least amend it by saying in so many words what he has in mind so that future officials in both the city and the county will understand in no uncertain manner where they stand.
I confess that until Senator Tunney spoke, I had not realised some of the implications of this Bill. I think there are two sections among us who must scrutinise a Bill of this kind with great care. First, the ratepayers of County Dublin—I happen to be one myself. The ratepayers may well ask if they are not losing a very great deal by this Bill. The second section is composed of those who view the rapid—I would almost say monstrous—extension of the city with grave misapprehension. It is becoming very like the great wen, as London was described, I think in the 18th century. Every step towards extending the boundaries of this city is an encouragement to make it grow beyond its powers, to make this, the ancient City of Dublin, become one of those amorphous megalocephalics we read about in the books of Louis Mumford. These overgrown cities bring the most terrible problems of administration and justice in time. I do not intend to elaborate on that theme, but I feel very strongly that Dublin City has reached a stage where it is going to lose its soul if it continues to grow at the present rate.
I now speak on a more practical basis, as a ratepayer of County Dublin. I would like an assurance from the Minister, or from the proposer of this Bill, that the compensation is adequate, that those who have lost the right to buy their cottages will have something done for them; and, thirdly, that something will be done for those who will lose their place in the queue for getting houses.
I was greatly impressed by what Senator Tunney said about the housing situation in County Dublin and in the city. It does seem very hard that certain families may, by this Act of Parliament, lose for life the chance of getting a home, a chance which was virtually secure to them until this Bill was proposed.
I did not intend to oppose the Bill, since Senator Tunney has not given any lead in that direction, but I have been greatly impressed by the points he made, and would like to have a reassurance on them from some other member of the House or from the Minister.
I was not familiar with the procedure here for handling a Bill of this kind. I had an explanatory Second Stage statement which I might have read if it had not been for the contribution from Senator Tunney, which takes us a step further. As I see it, the procedure by which the corporation set about having its area extended is settled by the Local Government Act of 1930. Following the move by the corporation to have its area extended, an inquiry was held. The corporation had sought to have its area increased by about 11,000 acres. The two local authorities concerned, Dublin Corporation and Dublin County Council, sat down to discuss the whole question. As a result, they reached agreement on a number of points. For example, they agreed on the advisability of the extension and they agreed that the area to be ceded to the Dublin Corporation would be in the neighbourhood of 6,000 acres. Following the inquiry, the matter came before me as Minister. I approved and made on Order giving effect to the inclusion within the city boundary of the areas specified. A Bill to confirm that Order is necessary and we are here now discussing the Bill.
The complaint made by Senator Tunney, who is a member of the county council, is that this Order of mine does not make reference to all the matters on which the two bodies concerned had arrived at agreement. When the Order was made, the county council—as a result of legal advice, I suppose—proceeded to question why the Order did not cover all the matters to which the Senator has referred. We gave to the council, as I am giving now to the Seanad, an assurance that the Order included everything that such an Order could, or should, include and that any matters outside it on which agreement had been reached would be given effect to under the Local Government Act of 1930. That being the case, I do not think there is any justification at all for any of the fears which Senator Tunney has expressed. I do not know if he has cited all the eight points cited by the council as points on which agreement has been reached but which were not covered in the Order. If he has not mentioned all the eight, all I can say is that we, in our reply to the council dealing with each of these eight points, made the position as clear as we could and gave every reasonable assurance. In fact, while the council could not have been expected to be gushing in their enthusiasm of having got this, they replied to us in these terms:—
"The council while far from satisfied with the Order as made, agrees to refrain from petitioning against the proposed confirming Bill, on the assurance that the Minister will use Clause 7 in the manner described in his letter of the 7th March, 1953 and will, in the immediate future, provide for the other matters agreed to, by appropriate legislation."
Is that Clause 7 of the Bill?
Clause 7 or Article 7 in the Order. In view of that passage in the letter from the council following our reply to the points raised by them, I think the Seanad can take it that everything is fairly safe.
With regard to the point made by Senator Tunney in connection with cottage purchase, the matter is covered in the Housing (Amendment) Act, 1950. When I was told by my officials that it was so covered, I was somewhat surprised, because I wondered how the Minister then responsible anticipated a matter of this kind arising, but the explanation made the whole thing very simple. My predecessor, Deputy Keyes, had the same sort of Order to make around that time in regard to the City of Limerick. Being a Limerickman, he saw the problem, and the Housing Amendment Act, 1950, therefore contains a provision that where an area of Limerick, Dublin or any other county is included in a city area, the tenants of labourers' cottages in such area will have the right to purchase these cottages from the council on the terms available to them before the area was so ceded for a period of 12 months and that, even after the 12 months have expired, a corporation can, if it so desires, at any later stage, sell the cottages to the tenants on the same conditions.
So far as the advantages accruing to people who were in the queue as one Senator expressed it for new houses are concerned, while living in the functional area of the county council, the same facilities will be extended to them when the area is transferred to the Dublin Corporation or to any other corporation. The same method of selection of tenants, the same preferences and so on will operate in the new area as operated in the old. I do not think there is any need to be apprehensive about what will operate in the new area as operated in the old. I do not think there is any need to be apprehensive about what will result for the ratepayers of the Dublin area or for the people living in the area about to be transferred to the Dublin Corporation.
I was anxious to get this Bill yesterday. I suppose Ministers are always in a hurry and always seem to want to get things overnight, but it happens in this case that time is running fairly short. I was anxious to get it yesterday, as I say, in the hope that everything would be in readiness to enable the Order made to take effect as from the date specified.
Question put and agreed to.
Agreed to take remaining stages to-day.
Bill passed through Committee, reported without amendment, and received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
I should like to clear up a point of drafting. The last phrase in sub-section (1) of Section 7 is: "as a consequence of the extension of the boundary of the city by this Order." What exactly does that qualify in the section? The section is most important because it deals with compensation. Do these last words qualify "burden" or "the cost incurred by the county council in the execution of any of their powers and duties" as set out in sub-section (1)? It seems to me that it ought to qualify "burden", but if it does, it is curiously phrased.
I am given one example here. The area of the county council will be smaller in future and the county council will, for example, have to provide from the smaller area the same salary for its county engineer that it had to provide for him from the larger area. There may be other similar examples.
Is this intended to meet the cost of putting in sewerage, developing roads and so on which the Dublin County Council has borne —the charges incurred before this becomes an Act—or is it intended to meet charges incurred after this becomes an Act, or both?
It would be after, because the area on which certain charges will be levied in future is a smaller area than the area on which they are now levied.
Under what clause will we get compensation for the putting in of this sewerage and the laying of these roads? I speak as a ratepayer of the county council.
It is a matter of the adjustment of loans of which Senator Tunney has been talking. There are a number of agreements that have been reached by the county council and the corporation which will be implemented in the ordinary way but which are not provided for in this Order because we were advised that they should not and could not be covered by the Order.
I understand the situation.
I accept the Minister's explanation on all points except one. We had an experience before with regard to Greater Dublin. There were people then living in the suburbs in little old cottages who got a very raw deal and very poor consideration but I would be satisfied if the Minister, even apart from this Bill, would make a recommendation to the Dublin Corporation in regard to special consideration. In other words, that the people who had been practically allotted houses on land acquired by the county council would get a preference. I can tell the House that the position is entirely changed now. Somebody could come from Belfast, Cork or Mayo and, having spent five years in an old room in town, could go out on the site and get a house where the local person could not. I would appeal to the Minister to approach the corporation in connection with the matter. The corporation may say that they are governed by this law and that law.
I am informed that that matter was not raised.
It was not embodied in the agreement.
Nor was it raised.
It was not raised in discussion. At the time we agreed not to oppose the inquiry. There was only a verbal discussion on that point.
An agricultural labourer living in an area that is being ceded by the county council to the corporation might conceivably be in a worse position but, except in respect of that type, I do no think there would be anything in it. However, the matter has been raised.
I can assure the Minister that I am speaking with years of experience on this matter. The corporation will probably be building houses, and if anybody makes representations to them they will be told that they do not come within any class. I would appeal to the Minister to make a recommendation to the corporation.
Question put and agreed to.