I move:
That the Bill be now read a Second Time.
Private Business. - Local Government Provisional Order Confirmation Bill, 1965: Second Stage.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The purpose of the Bill is to give effect to the County Borough of Cork (Extension of Boundary) Provisional Order, 1965. The Order provides for the extension of the Cork City boundary to take in three adjoining areas of the county of a total area of 6,278 acres approximately, exclusive of tidal areas. The Order is the result of a petition by Cork Corporation under section 25 of the Cork City Management (Amendment) Act, 1941, in which the addition to the city of an area of 9,590 acres plus a large area subject to tidal waters was sought. The petition was the subject of a protracted public inquiry at which all interested parties were heard.
The case made by the Corporation in support of their petition rested mainly on the claim that the existing city and the proposed extension area should and can conveniently be administered by the Corporation as a city unit for local government purposes. It was claimed that because the areas are not so administered at present the Corporation is unable to achieve an equitable level in the amount required to be raised by rate to meet the cost of the services they are obliged to provide. While I was satisfied on the basis of the inquiry evidence, and the report of the inspector who conducted it, that the Corporation's case was substantially established, I was not convinced that a boundary extension to the full extent sought was justified. The areas which would be added to the city under the Provisonal Order are, in fact, less than two-thirds of the acreage sought by the Corporation.
The extension now proposed includes on the east of the present city the townlands of Ballinamought East and Lotabeg and the lands lying between the rivers Lee and Douglas; on the south the lands north of the Tramore and Glasheen rivers; on the west most of the townlands of Ballinaspig, Inchigaggin and Knocknaheeney; and on the north the townlands of Commons and Kilnap and portions of Kilbarry and Ballyvolane.
Apart from a minor adjustment in 1955, which was mainly to bring into the city lands on which local authority houses had already been built, the Cork city boundary is unaltered since it was established in 1840. As the city grew and expanded the question of boundary extension was raised from time to time but, apart from the 1955 change, nothing came of these moves. The matter was raised again in 1958 and the present proposals are the result.
At present almost one-third of the population of the Cork built-up area live outside the city boundary. The proposed added areas have assumed their built-up character largely as a result of the natural growth and expansion of the city. The city and its suburbs constitute an urban unit and they have been recognised as such for a number of administrative and legislative purposes. Until recently the city and its environs were treated as one for planning purposes. The Corporation supply water and fire-fighting services to the proposed extension areas. In other ways also the suburban areas are treated as part of the city. A considerable part of the extension areas are included in the County Borough constituency for elections to Dáil Éireann. The same maximum on advances under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Acts has operated in these areas as in the city. It is reasonable that the unity of the built-up area as recognised in these and other ways should be reflected also in the administrative boundary.
The majority of people in the proposed extension areas are directly or indirectly dependent for their livelihood on activities in the city. The suburban dwellers, about 35,000 in all, enjoy the community and social benefits of city living and look to the city for specialist shopping, commercial and recreational facilities which are lacking in the suburbs themselves. The suburbs are part of the city economically and socially and it is proper that the residents there should be within the administrative area of the city, that they should have a say in its affairs and should contribute to the city finances. The peripheral growth and development of the city constitutes a valid ground for review of the administrative boundary.
The proposed extension will give recognition to expansion which has already taken place in the built-up area and will provide room for inevitable further building as the city grows and prospers. Much of the peripheral development is the result of slum clearance and re-housing operations by the corporation in central areas.
Every modern city has special problems involving heavy demands on rates — housing, roads, sanitation, public lighting, parks and public amenities, vocational education, and so on. The position in Cork is aggravated by the high proportion of people dependent on local authority housing and other public services. It was shown at the inquiry that a high proportion of the population were housed by the corporation and this is expected to rise still further as the corporation's housing programme proceeds.
The Cork city rate is among the highest in the country and the corporation claim that they would be unable on the existing rate base to provide and maintain the full range of services which a modern city community expects and which must be provided if the city is to retain and develop its social and economic position vis-à-vis other growing centres. This is a matter of concern not only to the city dwellers and those in the immediate environs but to the whole country and region. Cork is the second largest city in the State and the centre of a region of substantial social and economic expansion. It is important to the maintenance of this growth that the developed area should be planned as a whole, that the renewal and redevelopment of many central areas of obsolete property should be tackled without delay, so as to provide an adequate modern civic environment.
The new Planning and Development Act provides the necessary machinery to enable this task to be undertaken; but central renewal will not in itself be sufficient to cater for the full expansion needs of the city and provision should be made for continuing fringe development for housing and other purposes. In this regard I think the proposed new boundary is a reasonable compromise between the corporation's position and that of the county council. In general, the extension would embrace the areas in which extensive development has already taken place and areas in which such development is projected as well as a reasonable margin for further building in the years ahead. Centres such as Douglas and Donnybrook which, although built-up, retain a separate social or historical identity, are excluded.
The county council opposed the corporation's petition at the public inquiry chiefly because the proposed extension areas are areas in respect of which rate revenue exceeds expenditure. They are, therefore "profit" areas of operation to the local authority and I can appreciate the reluctance of the county council to see them merged in the city. However, the Provisional Order provides for a financial adjustment between the two authorities in respect of any matter requiring to be adjusted between them in consequence of the extension. This includes provision for payment to the county council in respect of the increase in rate burden falling on the ratepayers in the county as a result of the reduction in the county rate base following the extension.
The amount of the increased burden, when determined, will be payable by the corporation to the county council, the total not to exceed ten times the annual amount determined. Payment may be made in one sum or by instalments. If by instalments due provision will be made for interest payable to the county council. Thus the county council will be able to claim recoupment in respect of the difference between the rates bill on the county ratepayers following the extension and what the bill would have been if there had been no extension. The order provides that in the event of the two authorities failing to reach agreement on the financial adjustment a settlement will be made by the Minister on the application of either party.
The county council are naturally concerned that this settlement should be expedited and in particular that something should be done to alleviate the extra rates burden, arising from the extension, which in the absence of a financial settlement between the two authorities, might fall initially on the county council rates for 1965-66. The apportionment of the expenses of the Cork Health Authority for 1965-66 is based on the existing areas and the expenses in respect of the added areas are included in the demands on the county council. It is accepted by all concerned, including Cork Corporation that, following the extension, these expenses should be levied by the Corporation and not by the county council. The corporation also accept in principle that they should compensate the county council forthwith for the extra rate burden which would otherwise fall on the county ratepayers in 1965-66 as a result of the extension.
I have had a meeting with the Senators and Deputies from Cork city and county, on the financial aspects of the extension and as a result, it was agreed that the city and county officials should immediately open negotiations with a view to agreement on the amount of the payments to be made to the county council in 1965-66. These negotiations are subject to the consent of the county council; the Corporation have already agreed to negotiate. I expect that the negotiations will go a long way towards settling outstanding differences. If full agreement should not be reached the Corporation are agreeable to making an interim payment. In that event it would fall to me under the Provisional Order to make the final determination and such determination would be made at the earliest date possible.
I think it will be clear from what I have said that the way is now open to a speedy financial settlement between the two authorities that the rates for 1965-66 on the reduced county area need not be saddled with any expenses which would not have been properly chargeable in respect of that area if there was no boundary extension.
Another important feature of the Provisional Order is the provision relating to rates in the added area. The intention is that rates on property brought into the city by the boundary extension will not be raised to the higher level of the city rate immediately. For these properties the gap between the level of the county and the city rates will be bridged gradually by annual stages over five years as provided for in article 16 and the second schedule to the Order.
Agricultural land in the added areas will cease to attract the agricultural grant following the boundary extension. A corresponding amount of the grant will, however, be paid over to the Corporation and, in turn the valuation on agricultural land in the added areas will be reduced by 50 per cent, as in the case of all agricultural land taken into the city. In addition to this relief, the procedure I have just referred to in regard to the easing of rates by means of differential rating on properties in the added areas will apply to agricultural land also.
Finally, the Order includes a number of other consequential provisions on the usual lines such as the preparation of official maps of the extended city area, continuation in effect of county council resolutions and orders where appropriate, arrangements in regard to jurors books, registers of electors, employment and hours of trading Orders, polling districts, the adjustment of the agricultural grant and a saving from disqualification for county council members in the added areas pending the forthcoming local government elections.
We have just had a discussion on a Private Bill of a rather unusual nature. Under the British régime and under the old regulations, the matter the Minister has just been dealing with and has dealt with in this Provisional Order Bill would have been the subject of a Private Bill. It is now deemed, quite properly of course, to be a matter of public interest what the boundaries of a city or town in the State may be. It has been conducted by way of a public inquiry by an inspector of the Minister. Then the matter is put before the two Houses of the Oireachtas by way of a Public Bill confirming a Provisional Order of the Minister.
It would appear that both the county council of Cork and the Cork City Council have agreed and an interesting arrangement has been made by which the increase in the rates that had been added from the county to the city will be adjusted and will be, so to speak, the subject of a number of years' purchase. The improvement on Private Bill procedures with this kind of Bill should be noted. As far as I am concerned, the Bill is one which should pass.
What I presume is called article 6, sub-article 5, on page 4 of the Bill, at the very bottom, there is provision for the machinery to be used if the county council and the corporation fail to agree upon an equitable adjustment of any matter or thing. The method suggested is that, if either of them so wish, the Minister intervenes and makes a compulsory adjustment. I should like to suggest that that seems to be a rapid movement from one extreme to another. I should have thought that, properly, what should happen would be that if the parties fail to agree the matter should go to arbitration. There is plenty of machinery available for arbitration of such things. I should have liked to see that approached as an intermediary step. I agree that this is probably an unusual set of circumstances but would it not be as well to provide that there could be arbitration but if either of the parties did not want to go to arbitration then it should go to the Minister? I should like to suggest an amendment to that subarticle so that, at the end of page 4, words would be inserted which would then make the article read:
Whenever the County Council and the Corporation fail to agree upon an equitable adjustment of any matter or thing which would be the subject of an agreed adjustment under this article——
And here I suggest should be inserted the words——
——the matter or thing should be made the subject of arbitration provided that if either party shall object to this procedure——
and then the Article would continue——
——the Minister shall, upon the request of either the County Council or the Corporation make an equitable adjustment...
I had some trouble in getting a form of words which would cause the least possible disturbance of the draft. I suggest it would be a fair and equitable thing to do to provide that arbitration could be sought but it would not disturb, in fact, to any great degree what is in the Bill in that either party can ask the Minister to make a compulsory adjustment. I do think it would be a good thing to preserve the right of arbitration in such a matter.
The only other matter on which I wanted to ask for a bit more clarification concerns this business of agricultural land in the area taken over. If I understood the Minister right, the valuation will automatically be reduced by 50 per cent. Does it mean, then, that on top of that 50 per cent automatic reduction there are these other reductions which are mentioned in the Second Schedule? It seems to me to be much on the lines of what is provided in the 1946 Local Government Act, Part II of a Schedule, where this type of adjustment was provided for urban land other than in a borough. I am not at all clear as to what exactly happens, nor do I quite take it from what the Minister said what is the precise effect. Does it, in fact, mean that, on the land being taken over by the borough, there will be an automatic reduction of 50 per cent in the valuation of agricultural land as defined here and then, on top of that, for five years there will be another sliding scale? Perhaps the Minister would be good enough to illuminate this rather murky point a little further and I should be glad also if he would consider the amendment I suggest to article 6.
There is just one small point I should like to make. It is a matter of my recollection. When the last Bill of this type was going through, in regard to the extension of the City of Dublin, the provision for the increase of burden allowance was an allowance up to 15 times the agreed increase. As I understand the Minister this evening, he is allowing up to ten times. Would he indicate why there has been a change in this particular respect?
Replying to Senator Sheldon on this matter of arbitration, the fact is that, really, it will be arbitration and that the Minister is the arbitrator and has so been in the far more important aspect of the entire matter, namely, in regard to the boundary decision itself. The follow-on from that seems rather logical since it is merely a question of apportioning the compensation to be arrived at and, furthermore, this procedure has a fairly long history and many precedents. I do not really see that there is a great deal of need for this. The principle is there. Although it is not stated to be an arbitration, in fact it really must be. The Minister, if and when called upon to do this job, really has to face up to the problem as an arbitrator would and, of course, with the far greater safeguard that there are penalties that might be visited on his head if he makes a mess of it whereas, if the ordinary arbitrator does these things, nothing can happen to him — not that I have known of any.
On the agricultural land question, it is quite true that immediately on coming into the city and becoming city or borough lands, these agricultural lands will, by the present statute, be entitled to a 50 per cent reduction in their actual rates or payments on them.
Then we have the question raised by Senator Dooge in regard to the 15 times and why the change from the precedent established in the latest Dublin extension. The situation there is that the 15 times was by agreement of the two parties concerned. In fact, it is the only case in which 15 times was so arrived at and a precedent can be quoted in the three other city cases of recent times such as Limerick, Waterford and Cork itself in the past.
Another thing I should say is that, in the 1953 Dublin case, the compensation was based on 15 times the increase on burden and payments were spread over 15 years but no interest was paid or provided for. There is a very distinct and in this case quite a substantial difference in the manner in which the payments are made.
A lump sum of ten times the burden?
It may be a lump sum. It is the type of variation which might make for the reaching of agreement which I hope we shall have between the two authorities. It gives that little more play. While it might appear that Cork is given a different sort of deal over all, the difference need not be anything like the difference between ten times and 15 times as is indicated here.
I should like to revert to Senator Sheldon's proposed amendment. In the normal way every reference to the Minister would not really be arbitration. However, the Minister has had to be the arbitrator in decisions in relation to the extension of the borough boundary. The actual agreement on the boundary was a big decision, and if the Minister has had to adopt the role of arbitrator in that case, it is fair and proper he should also be the arbitrator in a case of this sort. The suggested amendment proposes that if either of the two parties fail to reach agreement, they will then go to arbitration and that the one who disagreed could finally suggest to the Minister to do what, straightforwardly, he could do at the moment. The Minister, in this case, is far more restricted in his dealings than would an arbitrator from any other walk of life. Not often does an arbitrator in other walks of life have to justify what he did in public.
Question put and agreed to.
Agreed to take remaining Stages today.