Menu
-HOME
Baile
-DEBATES
Díospóireachtaí
-DÁIL DEBATES
Díospóireachtaí Dála
-SEANAD DEBATES
Díospóireachtaí Seanaid
-SEARCH
Cuardach
-ABOUT THIS SITE
Faoin Suíomh Seo
-LINKS
Nascanna
Previous - Lch. Roimhe Seo Up - Suas

Dáil Éireann - Volume 34 - 15 May, 1930

Public Business. - Local Government (Dublin) Bill, 1929—Recommitted.

An Ceann Comhairle: I take it that the amendments will be considered in Committee.

Mr. Lemass: Will that enable us to raise matters in relation to sections to which no amendments have been tabled?

An Ceann Comhairle: No. If we go into Committee merely on the amendments, it would not be possible to raise in Committee matters [1887] which are not the subject of an amendment.

Mr. Lemass: In relation to some of the sections which were not discussed on the Committee Stage, I think it was agreed that there should be a second Committee Stage of the Bill from that part of it at which we ceased.

An Ceann Comhairle: Would the Minister agree to recommit the Bill for that?

General Mulcahy: It would depend. If we are limited to the number of sections required to be discussed it would be easy to carry through by general agreement.

Mr. Lemass: The number of sections on which there would be anything said would be very limited— that is, sections which are not dealt with by amendments on the Order Paper would be very few. I do not think there would be anything more than questions in order to get information that would be asked for.

An Ceann Comhairle: I think the simplest thing to do, seeing how the Bill was dealt with before and in order to accomplish what Deputy Lemass suggests, would be to recommit the Bill, and the Chair will not put the sections one by one but simply take such sections as Deputies desire to ask questions on.

Mr. Davin: I want to be clear on the procedure. On the second Committee Stage am I to understand that the speaking rights of members will be confined to the procedure that would be adopted on the Report Stage?

An Ceann Comhairle: No. We are going into Committee in order that Deputies will have Committee rights. That is the essence of it.

Ordered that the Bill be considered in Committee.

An Ceann Comhairle: As before, we will not take amendments to the definition section but consider questions [1888] on the appropriate amendments.

Section 1 agreed to.

General Mulcahy: Amendment 1 is a drafting amendment arising out of the fact that the town clerkship has been abolished and the office of City Manager and Town Clerk combined. I move:—

In page 4, line 6, after the word “Manager” to insert the words “and Town Clerk,” and after the word “appointed,” line 6, to insert the words “by or,” and in line 8, after the word “Manager,” to insert the words “and Town Clerk,” and to delete lines 17, 18 and 19.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Mr. J. Wolfe: I move:—

In page 4, before line 20, to insert the words:

“the expression ‘officer’ includes the person or firm who at the passing of this Act holds or hold the office of solicitor or solicitors to the added urban districts.”

So far back as the Local Government Act of 1919, Section 8, sub-section (1), the standing solicitor of any local authority was recognised as a pensionable officer. In drawing that sub-section words were used which have given rise to some doubt. The sub-section says that any person duly appointed as standing solicitor by a local authority before the passing of the Act shall be deemed a pensionable officer. When the British Parliament were passing that Act, apparently it did not occur to them that in many cases a firm of solicitors occupied that position, and the object of the amendment is to put that matter clear. I am sure that the Minister will carry out the Bill which he has introduced in the spirit as well as in the letter, but in order to avoid any misinterpretation of the statute, or any contention being afterwards raised as to a firm not being a person, I have proposed the [1889] amendment standing in my name. As I have said, the only object of the amendment is to prevent any controversy as to a firm of solicitors being in any worse position than an individual.

General Mulcahy: Under no circumstances can we agree to regard a firm of solicitors as an officer. When the Dublin Corporation Act of 1900 was going through, the Corporation sought to get a firm of solicitors established as an officer, and to have pensionable rights. It was turned down. In the Act of 1919, which the Deputy speaks about, it was expressly stated that a person who was a standing solicitor to a local body was to have certain pension rights, but there was no mention of a firm. The Act of 1919 was passed in rather peculiar circumstances, and under our Act of 1925, as far as solicitors were concerned generally throughout the country, we actually rescinded, in respect of officers appointed subsequent to 1925, the provision with regard to pension rights for solicitors that was contained in the 1919 Act, while we safeguarded the position of men who got rights under the 1919 Act. But we actually went back on the principle that was brought into that. While here in Section 83 we are making provision for the compensation of part-time officers, which would include solicitors, if there are any part-time officers solicitors to any of the local bodies concerned, we definitely refuse to accept the position that a firm of solicitors, acting for a local body and paid their full taxed costs by the local body for their work, can be regarded as officers and be assured of pension rights. There is no way by which a pension right can be secured to a firm, and there is no way by which a firm, which is paid ordinary taxed costs by a very good client, should get in addition pension rights of any kind. I submit to the Deputy that it is really not reasonable or practicable, and that the 1919 Act was passed——

Mr. J.T. Wolfe: The 1919 Act, as [1890] the Minister knows, left out of consideration the question of a firm through inadvertence. I take it that he is now leaving out the question of a firm advertently, that he is adopting the principle that a firm of solicitors who were appointed as standing solicitors to any local authority are not to be entitled to compensation, that that is being done advisedly——

General Mulcahy: Yes.

Mr. J.T. Wolfe: — and that he proposes to dismiss them from their positions without any compensation whatever. He will understand that any member of my profession who observes the rules will take an entirely different view of it. I would ask the Minister, even now, to undertake to reconsider it and to consider as to whether he could not treat members of a firm, or even the senior member of a firm, as an officer. If he takes the opposite view I take it that it is his considered view.

General Mulcahy: Very considered, and it would apply to a firm of architects, a firm of road contractors or any other firm.

Mr. Davin: I would remind Deputy Wolfe that an amendment on the same lines to the Railways Act of 1924 was turned down for the very same reason.

Mr. Corry: Would that apply to firms acting as solicitors to rural district councils which are now abolished?

General Mulcahy: It applies to all firms.

Mr. Corry: I am very glad to hear that.

Mr. J.T. Wolfe: I am afraid the Deputy is wrong if he is referring to the Cork County Council. No firm of solicitors acted for the Cork County Council.

Mr. Corry: They acted for rural district councils. They are coming up for their pound of flesh, which they will not get.

[1891] Amendment put and declared lost.

Section 1, as amended, put and agreed to.

An Ceann Comhairle: With reference to amendment 2 to Section 4, the Chair could not accept an amendment on the Fourth Stage of a Local Government Bill to dissolve a body like the Dublin Port and Docks Board, which has a statutory existence.

Mr. Lemass: If the Chair so rules I do not want to press the point, but it seems to me that as the Dublin Port and Docks Board exercises in the area of the Corporation certain functions which should be the functions of the Corporation, it might properly be dealt with under this Bill, even to the point of abolition, as the Waterworks Committee and similar bodies are being abolished by the Bill.

An Ceann Comhairle: I am not prepared to say whether it could not have been dealt with under the Bill as it was drafted, but certainly on the Fourth Stage of this Bill, or even on the Committee Stage, an amendment of this character, dealing with a body which has an existence such as the Dublin Port and Docks Board, would be outside the scope of the Bill.

Mr. Lemass: I move:—

Before line 39, page 3, to insert the words “the expression ‘the Northern Borough’ means the Borough of Howth established by this Act.”

The purpose of this amendment is to provide for the establishment of a northern coastal borough. I have tabled this amendment in order that this question of the establishment of a northern coastal borough, which has to some extent agitated public opinion in the area concerned, could be discussed by the Dáil. It is a question upon which my own mind is not fully made up, although it does seem to me personally that the balance of the argument is in favour of the establishment of this northern borough. There are, however, arguments [1892] against its establishment which have considerable weight and which will have to be taken into consideration when this amendment is being decided. I think, however, it would have been a pity if the Bill had gone through all its stages without this question having been discussed, because undoubtedly the interests of a large number of people who reside in the district over which the northern borough would extend will be affected by our decision.

The position is that the Bill provides machinery by which the Urban District Council of Howth can apply to have its boundaries extended, following an inquiry held by the Local Government Department. It is, I think, very unlikely that the facilities given in the Bill for increasing the area of the Howth Urban District Council are likely to be availed of. If the area adjacent to the area of the urban district council now under the jurisdiction of the county council is to be given urban control it will have to be done, in my opinion, either under this Bill or by some other Bill specially introduced for that purpose. When Deputies come to consider this question they should do so well informed as to the facts relating to the various services — water supply, sewerage, roads, housing, etc. — appertaining to the districts concerned.

The surveyor of the Howth Urban District Council prepared a report, relating to the services in the areas concerned, which he presented to the Commissioner for the Howth Urban District Council, and which report was published in the Press. He pointed out in relation to the water supply that the position is that Malahide has a local but a somewhat precarious supply of hard water from the Swords system; that Portmarnock is dependent on whatever surplus may be available from the Malahide service; that Baldoyle has no service at all, and that Raheny has no general supply but that a few residents have arranged with the Howth Urban District Council for special supplies on payment of 4/- [1893] per 1,000 gallons, plus £1 per annum water rent. It seems, therefore, unlikely that the water supply available to people resident in Malahide, Portmarnock and Baldoyle will be improved for a considerable time to come if these areas are left under the county council, whereas one of the first tasks of the northern borough, if established, would be to look after that service, which from every point of view is very important, if not essential.

It is in relation to the sewerage service, however, that the most serious difficulties arise. The position concerning that service is that the Howth Urban District Council has a limited supply of main sewers, which discharge at the west pier and at Sutton Strand. The majority of the houses still discharge directly on the Howth and Sutton foreshore. Malahide has a local system which requires a new intercepting sewer, and discharges raw sewerage into the estuary adjoining the Velvet Strand at Portmarnock, which, as Deputies know, is one of the popular seaside resorts adjacent to the city of Dublin. Portmarnock has no sewerage system, but some private drains discharge on the Velvet Strand. Baldoyle has no sewerage system, and the same applies to Raheny. The area it is proposed to include in Howth Borough contains two main roads, one from Killester to Howth and the other from Coolock to Malahide. It also contains a large number of cottages built under the Labourers Acts, which, the borough surveyor points out, could be dealt with by the borough under the Housing of the Working Classes Acts. At present, the cost of their upkeep varies from 7d. to 9d. in the £ on the valuation. Under a single authority this rate contribution could be substantially reduced. The Small Dwellings Acquisition Acts are not in force in Howth Urban District, or in any other part of the proposed borough area.

It seems reasonable to suppose that if Howth, Baldoyle, Raheny and Malahide districts are amalgamated into one area, and given a borough [1894] status, action could be taken to provide the essential services of a water supply, sewerage, etc., to the residents in a district which is more than three-quarters urbanised in parts at the present time, and the urbanisation of which is proceeding at a very rapid pace. The rate of urbanisation would be increased if water supplies were available, and if a sewerage system existed. It should be the aim of the Government to encourage the spread of the city over a wide area, so that the density of population in the old city will be somewhat diminished.

It is almost inevitable, if the Bill goes through in its present form, that in a very short time there will be an agitation in this area, or parts of it, to be included in the city. The inclusion of the whole of the area in the city would, in my opinion, be the best solution of the difficulty. However, there seems to be no hope that that solution will be adopted here by agreement, as apparently the Minister for Local Government is strongly opposed to it.

As against establishing a northern borough, it has been urged that it would act as an impediment to the subsequent inclusion of the area piecemeal into the city proper, that a local civic spirit might arise which would seek to preserve the existence of the borough when established, and thus erect a permanent barrier against the extension of the city northwards along the coast. The area is not sufficiently large to make that danger one of great moment, because it could be consumed whole by the city, as in this Bill the larger districts — considered from the point of view of population, area and valuation — of Rathmines and Pembroke are, in fact, being consumed whole. There is a case for the establishment of the northern borough. There is, in any case, a number of strong arguments in favour of putting these districts under urban control and not under county council control.

I know that one of the main arguments of the Minister for Local Government against the detachment of [1895] further areas from the county council will be that by doing so the continuance of the county council's administration will be made more difficult, because the rateable valuation, the size and the population of the county council's area will be substantially reduced. That argument cannot be ignored, but it is not, in my opinion, as strong as the Minister for Local Government appears to think. As was pointed out on the Second Reading debate, even if the whole of the proposed Greater Dublin area was detached from the county council, the valuation and population of the part remaining under the county council would still be larger than is the case of other county councils, which are, apparently, functioning in a satisfactory manner. It does not seem impossible to devise some system which would enable services like that of the county medical officer of health to be maintained in the county, even if this borough was established. The establishment of the southern borough could be opposed for almost identical reasons with those which the Minister advanced against the establishment of the northern borough.

General Mulcahy: The existence of the borough will not affect the position of the county medical officer of health. He will deal with the borough.

Mr. Lemass: That is so. I was saying that the main arguments for the establishment of the southern borough apply with almost equal force to the establishment of the northern borough, except that parts of the area have never had experience of urban control. I think it is reasonable to expect that the trend of development of the city will be in that direction, because it offers many advantages from the point of view of residence, being within easy reach of the city, while at the same time possessing facilities which residence in rural or semirural districts affords. I would like to have the matter discussed and decided by the Dáil on its merits, and [1896] without any consideration of Party interests. As a matter of fact, it has not been discussed by the Party on this side at all, and differences of opinion in relation to the proposal probably exist. Some of the most vigorous opponents of the proposal may be seated on these benches, just as I know some of the strongest advocates of the proposal are seated on the benches opposite.

If the Dáil, however, comes to the consideration of the matter, purely from the point of view of getting the best system to serve the interests of the residents of those districts and the interests of the citizens of Dublin, I think it will decide that, in the event of amalgamation with the city not being possible, urban control through the compulsory extension of the boundaries of Howth Urban District Council for the establishlishment of a new northern borough will be the best method to adopt.

Mr. Cassidy: I rise to support the amendment, which will have the effect of setting up a northern borough. In my opinion the drafting of the Bill, if it is to achieve the aims and objects of the drafters, is inconsistent inasmuch as it does not set up machinery to establish a northern borough. Deputy Lemass stated that as good a case can be put forward for the setting up of a northern borough as for the setting up of a southern borough. I believe that a stronger case can be advanced for the setting up of a northern borough than for a southern one. In the case of a southern borough you have Killiney and Ballybrack Council looking after the affairs in that area. You have Dalkey Urban Council looking after their area. You have Dun Laoghaire Urban Council looking after Dun Laoghaire, and Blackrock Urban Council looking after Blackrock. It has been admitted that so far as developments in those townships are concerned, they have been far in advance of those in North County Dublin. The Minister may not agree, but I think, on looking into the chaotic situation which exists in North County Dublin, he will find [1897] that what I am saying is true. Let us review the situation in North County Dublin. What do we find? So far as Howth is concerned, it extends from Howth to Sutton. The Howth Urban Council has been dissolved and replaced by a Commissioner. A few hundred yards from the boundary of the Howth Urban District you find Baldoyle, and, as one who knows that area very well, I can say that the same chaotic conditions do not exist in any village as near a city as Baldoyle is to Dublin. It was formerly under the jurisdiction of the North Dublin Rural Council, and its area extended as far as Portmarnock Bridge. So far as Portmarnock was concerned when its boundary came to there, it was under the jurisdiction of Balrothery Rural Council.

As Deputy Lemass pointed out, the conditions in a number of places there are chaotic. There is no water supply in Baldoyle. I suggest to the Minister that this is a very serious situation so far as the health of the population is concerned. The people are dependent solely for drinking water on a well, the water of which is not by any means good. Portmarnock has been developed to a great extent in recent years, and I venture to say that for some years past it has been the most popular resort in County Dublin. For a number of years it has been the practice on every Saturday and Sunday throughout the summer for as many as 10,000 people to travel by train from Dublin to Portmarnock, not taking into consideration those who went there by bus or bicycle. There was no water supply there with the exception of an old well which was condemned many years ago, but eighteen months ago they got an increased supply from the reservoir in Malahide. That is not adequate for the needs of the people. There is no sewerage system there. That is an extraordinary state of affairs, when it is taken into consideration that thousands of people make Portmarnock their rendezvous on Saturdays and Sundays, and that the strand is looked upon as the playground of [1898] the children of Dublin, and also that a large number of huts of timber and corrugated iron have been erected there in recent years. No attempt whatever has been made there at town planning. When a competent authority has jurisdiction over that area eventually, it will find it extremely difficult to administer so far as sewerage or water supply is concerned.

While Deputy Lemass has stated that he believes in a northern borough he has not stated whether it is to be a northern coastal borough or simply a northern borough. I believe in the formation of a northern borough. In addition to Malahide, Howth and Portmarnock I think you could not exclude places like Kinsealy and Balgriffin. These should be brought into a northern borough in view of the manner in which these places are developing and the large number of houses being put up there. I do not think that it is in the interests of the development of North County Dublin to leave such places under the jurisdiction of the county council. You abolished Balrothery and North Dublin Councils, so that it would not mean any extra compensation so far as the officials are concerned. It may be alleged by the Minister, and I think the Department's principal objection is, that if you agree to set up this northern borough it will take such a large portion of area from the county council that that body will not be able to carry on in a proper manner. If the Minister looks into that he will find that it would be possible to form a new northern coastal borough, excluding Balgriffin and Raheny and only bringing in Baldoyle, Howth and Portmarnock. Deputy Lemass said that so far as these are concerned they should come in under the jurisdiction of the Howth Urban Council. So far as the majority of people are concerned they would not like to come in under the jurisdiction of that council but they would like to come in on equal terms to a borough, not to be called the Howth Urban District but the Northern Coastal Borough.

[1899] General Mulcahy: I do not object to the proposal on the ground that it would rob the country council of a certain amount of its financial basis, but I object to it on the ground that it proposes to extend the present Howth Urban District to take in a rural area outside where for 2,200 acres you have only two persons to every three acres. That would mean that you would simply take an area and add it on to the Howth Urban District, an area in which for every acre there is only 6 of a person, and call it a borough. Because you throw it together it is to get all kinds of services and pay heavily for them simply because you call it a borough. I do not understand Deputy Lemass putting forward a proposal like this and saying that the Minister has a proposal in his Bill by which Howth can extend its area, if it so desires, but it will not do it. Then he quotes in support of what he thinks should be done the surveyor of the Howth Urban Council. I wonder what connection the surveyor of the Howth Urban Council has with the proposal. Surely it is not as surveyor of the Howth Urban Council that he put forward the scheme. If the scheme is a reasonable scheme put forward by the surveyor, surely it ought to commend itself to the council, but it is not reasonable.

Mr. Cassidy: Has not the council been dissolved?

General Mulcahy: I hope the council will be there soon. You cannot put the Commissioners in and get them to provide services simply because they are Commissioners, and have no burden by way of payment for the services on the people any more than you can call an area a borough and provide services for that borough without calling on the people there to pay for them. The amendment if passed would mark out a rural area in which there is less than one person to the acre, and would take in an area in which, while we are told there has been tremendous development, in the Census periods between 1911 and [1900] 1926 the number of houses only increased by 33, from 274 to 307, and there has been only an increase of population of 38, from 1,376 to 1,414. That is in the rural portion of the Balrothery area which the Deputy would take in.

Mr. Cassidy: If the number of portable houses which are used by people during the summer time are taken into account, these figures are not correct by any means.

General Mulcahy: This body here is not the right body to draw a line from round a particular rural district, and say that this should be a borough because we are told a number of portable huts are brought out there and used by a number of people who live there.

Mr. Lemass: The figures which the Minister gave us are those relating to the period between the one Census and the other?

General Mulcahy: Yes.

Mr. Lemass: Could the Minister give the figures since 1926?

General Mulcahy: No, I cannot give them at the moment.

Mr. Davin: Has he included in them the number of huts to which Deputy Cassidy refers?

General Mulcahy: I am including the figures given in the Census as to what are houses, and, from what I know, nothing that looks like a house has been excluded.

Mr. Davin: That is a roundabout answer.

General Mulcahy: The point I desire to make is that we are asked to form a borough within an area which is a rural area.

Mr. Cassidy: The Minister states that this is an exclusively rural area. Is the Minister aware that as far as Malahide is concerned, Malahide has a population equal to, if not greater than, the urban district of Killiney and Ballybrack which has been brought into the southern borough?

[1901] General Mulcahy: I hope the Deputy understands that that makes the rural part of the district all the more rural. It makes the population outside Malahide, Baldoyle and Sutton all the more scattered and all the more difficult to serve. I object to the proposal inasmuch as it purports to make a borough of an area that is a rural district — an area that has less than one person to the acre. I am suggesting an alternative. If for any reason of summer traffic or any other consideration, the amenities of Dublin City are involved in the question, this is not the body that ought to make a change in the conditions. I am proposing another amendment here as against this amendment and I submit to the House that it is the most reasonable and practical way to deal with the matter. I am proposing by amendment 82 to extend the City of Dublin on the Raheny side, to take in that portion of the coast which runs from the present boundary of Dublin City to the present boundary of the Howth Urban District, and behind that coastline to take in land running practically up to the railway as defined in the townlands mentioned there. That extends the boundary of Dublin right up to meet the boundary of Howth Urban District. It brings the whole of the coast under urban control. It brings the whole of the road from Dublin to Howth either under the control of Dublin City or of Howth Urban District. It somewhat closely follows the lines laid down by the Greater Dublin Commission Report on that part of the country that has formed a sort of corridor between Dublin City and the area now talked about as the north coastal borough. At any rate, it brings Dublin City in the most satisfactory way into direct touch with Howth.

As Deputies will remark, the Bill provides for the extension of Howth Urban District by the simple procedure of provisional order. It also makes provision for the extension of the city boundary by provisional order. I am satisfied that if there is to be any further urbanisation of [1902] that area, it will be urbanisation by the city rather than by Howth, because while the Howth people were quite satisfied and were prepared to link up with the city, to extend the Howth urban area to take in the corridor, they were not satisfied to go north of that, because they pointed out that they had no connection whatever with the people in Malahide area. Under the amendments arising out of the discussion we had on the Committee Stage, which are also being inserted here, we are making provision by which, inside five years' and ten years' time, there will be an examination of the whole situation of Dublin City by a tribunal. That tribunal will consider what additional areas should be taken in, what additional change of boundaries of any kind is advisable, and will consider general financial and administrative matters bearing on the better administration of the whole of the City of Dublin and the area surrounding it. In the meantime, I think that the City Council, looking outside the city as to the duties and responsibilities it has to face outside the city, because of the amount of services it can control, and because of the amenities it expects to a certain extent in return from the surrounding areas, can much more satisfactorily examine the situation and come to a conclusion whether they should extend the city boundary out there in the interests of the people.

To do what Deputy Lemass proposes to do, to join up Baldoyle and Malahide with Howth in order to provide certain services for the people there, and to look somewhere else for someone else to provide the money to pay for these services is, I think, wrong and can only lead to sectional interests operating inside the boundaries of our local government units. Our local government units should be so set out as regards area that there can be a unifying interest inside and that no interest will be placed in a position in which it can argue that its interests are being neglected. To throw the rural area which stretches from Kilbarrack to Baldoyle, and from [1903] Baldoyle to Malahide, into the jurisdiction of Howth Council, which finds it difficult enough to manage its own affairs, will only create confusion, want of efficiency, and want of harmony in the general local government of that area.

So that if Deputies will consider the matter, given that Howth is extended, that the city is now extended to meet Howth, and they are brought into closer connection in that particular way, that you have a periodic review of the general position in the area, you may say of the City and County of Dublin that there is no more satisfactory way of examining all the problems that exist and preparing the means for the solution of these problems than in the machinery proposed in the Bill already and in the amendments arising out of the discussion which are now on the Order Paper.

Professor Alton: My prejudice is rather against a coastal borough. I am willing to withdraw my opposition to the borough if that is the only solution that can be found for the problems on the north side of the city. I do not think the Minister realises the serious problem that the summer settlement at Portmarnock is becoming. I was living in that neighbourhood last summer for some weeks and I was surprised at the population there and the numbers that go there on Sundays. I think there is a possibility that what some of the alarmists say may come true and that an epidemic may start there. In any event, there is always a grave possibility of it. Then there is the extraordinary chaotic state of the roads. Part of the coast road had to be shut up. I do not think it is open yet; in any event, it was not some weeks ago. The access to Portmarnock and Malahide, especially for buses, is not only difficult, but absolutely dangerous in parts.

There are serious problems on the north side of the city. I do not think we can deal with them in this Bill, but we ought not to delay dealing with them. I am glad that the [1904] corridor is being brought in. That means, I presume, that that portion of the coast road that the Tramways Company have closed will be opened again and widened and made a proper motor road. It was extraordinary in the neighbourhood of a great city that a road of that sort could be closed. At present I believe the trams running out to Howth do not pay way-leave there, although they occupy half the road. The whole problem of the motor traffic through the north side of the city is a very serious one. As I say, I have an open mind with rather a prejudice against the coastal borough, but I realise that there are some problems of great urgency on the north side of the city for which we should endeavour to find a solution immediately. From the sanitary and traffic point of view, I think the argument of population on which the Minister based his case does not hold. The summer population is utterly out of proportion to the winter population. I think it means a thousand-fold increase.

Mr. Cassidy: The Minister mentioned that he is now prepared to bring in the corridor which runs at the back of Raheny until it joins that part of the Howth Urban District. I understand he is also bringing in Artane and Coolock. Would he not be prepared to go a little further and think of bringing in Baldoyle, if he cannot accept the northern borough idea?

Mr. Lemass: There are one or two points in the Minister's statement I should like to comment upon. He referred to the fact that there were only two persons to every three acres in the rural part of the proposed borough area.

General Mulcahy: If you take the whole area, including Malahide and Baldoyle.

Mr. Lemass: And Howth?

General Mulcahy: I am talking of the area which the Deputy wants to add.

Mr. Lemass: I am talking of the [1905] part at present under the jurisdiction of the county council. As Deputy Alton has pointed out, these figures relate only to the permanent population and not to the summer population, which is far the biggest problem in the area. I think it could be said that in certain of the added rural areas which are now going to be included in the city the population is not any denser than in the rural areas which it is proposed to add to Howth. That fact is really not an argument against the borough because what we have to take into consideration is not the existing population of the area, but what that population would be in a very short time if water and sewerage facilities were available. I do not think that the establishment of a northern borough is the ideal solution of the problem that exists. The best solution of all suggested would be to bring these areas into the city and allow the city to control their development. But I do think that facilities should be given for the development of the urbanisation of these areas, because the movement is in that direction and it is a movement that should be encouraged. We want to try and spread out the city because it makes for the health of the people, and if the absence of water and sewerage facilities continues in that district there will be a permanent impediment to development. The growth of the population in the district is somewhat greater than would be indicated by the figures relating to housing which the Minister quoted. There have been, I think, more than thirty-four houses built in that area since 1926.

General Mulcahy: I should like to be clear on that. The figures I quoted were for that part of the Balrothery rural area that the Deputy wanted to bring in; that is exclusive of the corridor I am bringing in. That is typical of the area around the back of Baldoyle, which is a very small area.

Mr. Lemass: Since 1926, as the Minister knows, the facilities for rapid transit between the city and [1906] these areas have been increased very considerably by the coming of the omnibus, which has helped to speed up the tendency to spread out the population of the city over the surrounding urban areas. The Dáil has decided that the southern borough is to be established. It is very likely that the northward movement of population will be into the district which it is proposed should be included in this northern borough, or which I would prefer should be included in the city. It certainly is going to be towards Malahide, Baldoyle and Portmarnock, if facilities can be provided there. It is in order to ensure that some machinery will be set up to provide these facilities that the advocates of this northern borough have been agitating or that a case has been put forward for the inclusion of the district in the city. I think it is unlikely that these facilities will be provided if these districts continue to be controlled by the county council. The Minister, I am sure, is of the same opinion. I have no doubt, if the Bill goes through in its present form, without any extra provision being made for those districts, we shall have an agitation for the inclusion of one and all of them in the city within a year or two. I cannot see what case can be made against their inclusion, other than the fact that it may mean that the ratepayers of Dublin may have to pay for the development of these areas. In my opinion, it would be good policy for the ratepayers of Dublin to pay for the development of the areas and to pay for their development in the very near future. I am not pressing the amendment.

General Mulcahy: I quite realise that it might be good policy for the citizens of Dublin to pay for the development of these areas. I almost believe it would, but we must make our plans now, not on the complete vision that persons interested in development around the City of Dublin have placed before us; rather we must base our plans on the facts of the city and on the facts of the development of the area around it. I asked Deputies before to realise [1907] that we were adding to the old city of 8,300 acres a rural area of 5,300 acres.

Mr. Lemass: Acreage does not matter.

General Mulcahy: It matters a lot when you have to bring through it drainage pipes, water pipes and road services. You could easily do that too rapidly and you could easily do too much of the joining-up of rural areas to the City of Dublin.

Mr. Cassidy: Does not the Minister know that as far as water pipes are concerned, they have them in Malahide and Portmarnock and that the only place they have not got them is Baldoyle?

Mr. Lemass: They have sewerage pipes but no water pipes there.

General Mulcahy: It is not because an omnibus can bring persons from Dublin to a particular place easily and rapidly that it is as easy to bring water pipes or sewerage pipes to that place.

Mr. Lemass: The water pipe is there already. It passes through the place.

General Mulcahy: We are taking into the city 5,300 acres of rural area. When the city consolidates itself, with its new machinery of management and new jointed together areas, the council can be relied upon to take cognisance of those problems in which Deputies and others are interested. As far as a lot of popular opinion in these areas is concerned, I would ask Deputies to realise that a lot of popular opinion about the formation of boroughs to the North of Dublin was imported opinion. A number of those who went out there to make popular opinion like that folded up some of their resolutions and left.

Mr. Cassidy: It is local opinion of which I am speaking.

General Mulcahy: The Dublin Council will be in a much more [1908] satisfactory position, and will have much more machinery at hand than Deputies have to see what popular opinion is, to see what the problem is and to work out a solution of it.

Mr. O'Kelly: I should like to say, lest there be any misunderstanding, that Deputy Lemass and I differ considerably on this matter. I am quite glad that the matter has been discussed. I am at one with him in thinking that it is well that the matter has been raised and threshed out. I was very glad to hear the Minister's views on the question, and I believe the Dáil would, if the matter were put to a vote, be in favour of the Minister's proposition as against this amendment, which would not be a solution.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

General Mulcahy: I move amendment 3:—

In page 6, to add at the end of Section 5 a new sub-section as follows:—

“(3) The abolition of an abolished body shall not invalidate or affect any paying order which may have been issued by such abolished body and not presented for payment before the appointed day, nor any authority given by such abolished body for the payment of the amount of such paying order, and the successor of such abolished body shall make arrangements for the payment of the amount of every such paying order upon due presentation within a reasonable time after the appointed day.”

The aim of this amendment is simply to secure that a paying order issued by one of the abolished bodies and presented after the abolition of that body will not be refused payment by the bank, but that the successors to the abolished body will pay the amount.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Section 5, as amended, agreed to.

[1909] General Mulcahy: I move amendment 4:—

In page 7, to add at the end of Section 8 a new sub-section as follows:—

“(2) No bye-law, rule, or regulation in force in the Existing City immediately before the appointed day shall apply or be extended to the area of an added urban district merely by virtue of the inclusion of such area in the City by this Act, but the City Council may at any time by resolution extend and apply any such bye-law, rule, or regulation to the area of either or both of the added urban districts, and, upon any such extension being so made, any bye-law, rule, or regulation continued in force in such area by this section which is inconsistent with the bye-law, rule, or regulation so extended shall cease to have effect in such area.”

Some of the city bye-laws are so framed that it might be thought they would apply automatically to the extended city. It is intended by this amendment to make clear that the bye-laws existing in the different parts of the added city will remain as they are until formal action is taken to change them.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Section 8, as amended, agreed to.

General Mulcahy: I move amendment 5:—

In page 11, to add at the end of Section 20 a new sub-section as follows:—

“(2) No bye-law, rule, or regulation in force in the Existing City immediately before the appointed day shall apply or be extended to the added rural area merely by virtue of the inclusion of such area in the City by this Act, but the City Council may at any time by resolution extend and apply any such bye-law, rule, or regulation to the added rural area, and, upon any such extension being so made, any bye-law, rule, or regulation [1910] continued in force in such area by this section which is inconsistent with the bye-law, rule, or regulation so extended shall cease to have effect in such area.”

This amendment is analogous to amendment No. 4, but it refers to the rural added areas.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Section 20, as amended, agreed to.

General Mulcahy: I move amendment 6:—

In page 12, section 22 (3), line 13, and also line 18, after the word “under-sheriff” to insert the words “or county registrar (as the case may require).”

The office of under-sheriff is now abolished except in Dublin city and county. Automatically, on the cesser of office of under-sheriff in either the city or county, the county registrar will take up his duties. This amendment is merely a drafting amendment to make sure of that position.

Amendment put and agreed to.

General Mulcahy: I move amendment 7:—

In page 12, to add at the end of section 22 a new sub-section as follows:—

“(4) The following provisions shall have effect in the City and the County in relation to the preparation of jurors books, the preparation of panels of jurors, and the summoning of jurors, and in relation to the panels from which jurors are to be drawn for the trial of issues by a Court or a Judge sitting in the City or the County, that is to say:—

(a) until the 1st day of April, 1931, and thereafter until either the jurors book in force on that day in the Existing City or the jurors book in force on that day in the County (including the added urban districts and the added rural area) becomes exhausted, the law in force immediately before the passing of this Act shall continue in force [1911] and be observed as if this Act, and in particular the foregoing sub-section of this section and the provisions extending the boundaries of the City, had not been passed, and

(b) when and so soon as one of the said jurors books becomes exhausted after the 1st day of April, 1931, the other of the said jurors books shall be deemed to have become exhausted and new jurors books shall forthwith come into force in the City and the County, and

(c) notwithstanding anything contained in this sub-section, one of such new jurors books shall be prepared as a jurors book for the City as extended by this Act, and the other of such new jurors books shall be prepared as a jurors book for the County, exclusive of the added urban districts and the added rural area, and

(d) immediately upon such new jurors books coming into force the provisions of this Act shall have effect and thenceforward be observed, save that so long as there is an under-sheriff for the City such under-sheriff shall be the empanelling officer within the meaning of the Juries Act, 1927 (No. 23 of 1927), for the whole City as extended by this Act, and so long as there is an under-sheriff for the County such under-sheriff shall be the empanelling officer within the meaning aforesaid for so much only of the County as is not included in the City by this Act.”

This is a drafting amendment to cover the position affecting jurors books. A jurors book expires when the whole book has been gone through. The jurors books which will operate until one or other of the present jurors books has expired will not be in accordance with the new area. The amendment provides that when one or other of the present jurors books expires, new jurors [1912] books will be prepared for both the city and county.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 22, as amended, agreed to.

General Mulcahy: I move amendment 8:—

In page 13, section 24 (1), line 22, to delete the words “or by” where they firstly occur and substitute the words “the Board of Health,” and to delete the word “by,” line 22, where the word thirdly occurs, and in line 25 to delete the word “or” where it firstly occurs and substitute the words “the Board of Health.”

This is a drafting amendment to ensure, under the proposal that gives credit to an employee of the city corporation for the service given under the county council, that, when in fact, an officer is transferred from the county council to the board of health and subsequently to the city, the continuity of the service will not be broken.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 24, as amended, agreed to.

General Mulcahy: I move amendment 9:—

In page 16, section 29, before sub-section (8), to insert a new sub-section as follows:

“(8) All powers, functions, and duties vested by statute in the Lord Mayor in relation to any market, whether as clerk of the markets or otherwise, shall, as on and from the appointed day, become and be powers, functions, and duties of the City Corporation.”

In some very old statutes certain powers, functions and duties are vested in the Lord Mayor as Clerk of the Markets. This amendment is designed to vest these powers in the Corporation. Such of these powers, then, as come under the head of “reserved functions” will be discharged by the council and the other powers will be discharged by the manager.

[1913] Mr. Lemass: That explanation sounds very innocent, but would the Minister tell us exactly what the powers, functions and duties referred to are, because I do not think any of them are mentioned in the reserved functions? In fact, the amendment will mean that these functions, powers and duties will be discharged by the manager.

General Mulcahy: Not necessarily. There is the application of by-laws to prevent fraud in connection with hay, straw, and matters of that sort in the market. It is quite possible that some of these powers will be exercisable by the council, because they deal with all sorts of miscellaneous duties in very old phraseology. In so far as staffs are dealt with, they will be controlled by the manager, but in so far as the application or framing of by-laws for preventing fraud in connection with the weighing of commodities is concerned, they will be the functions of the council, in so far as they come within the terms of the reserved functions.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 29, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. Lemass: I beg to move amendment No. 10:—

In page 16, Section 30 (1), lines 49 and 50, to delete the words “Local Government” and to substitute the word “Dáil.”

This amendment is to provide that in the election of the ordinary members of the City Council there shall be a manhood franchise. In other words, that the Dáil register and not the local government register will be used. There is a property qualification for the possession and exercise of a local government vote at present. It is, of course, a very slight qualification. Any person who is in occupation of rateable premises is entitled to be registered as a local government voter. I think I am correct in saying that the wife of the occupier of rateable premises [1914] is also entitled to exercise a local government vote if she is over 30 years of age. I do not know what case exists for the maintenance of a separate local government register at all, because it seems that any purpose that may have been served at one time by the restriction of the vote in municipal affairs to a certain section of the people, is not now being served, and that it would in fact be better to have the Dáil register used as in the case of the election of Deputies to this House. In the special case of the Dublin City Council an argument can be advanced for the use of the Dáil register in the election of ordinary members that would not apply in other areas. The Dáil has agreed to the insertion of a section in the Bill to provide for the establishment of a commercial register, and for the election of five members of the council by voters whose names are inscribed on the commercial register alone. In so far therefore as it is necessary to protect the interests of the owners of property — and I do not think it is necessary to protect their interests at all — steps have been taken to do so by the provisions relating to the commercial register and the commercial members of the City Council. As the Dáil has approved of that reactionary step, this amendment is designed to ask them to balance the account by moving now in the opposite direction in relation to the election of the ordinary members, and to institute, for the first time in this country, the principle of manhood suffrage in elections for local government bodies. A lot of the hostility to the City Council, which may be occasioned by the provision relating to the commercial register, would be removed if that step were taken. I do not think it can be argued that the results of the election of ordinary members are likely to be any different. As a rule, anybody can vote in a municipal election in Dublin, whether he is on the register or not. In fact municipal elections in Dublin were noted for that. Whether under the new order there will be any——

[1915] General Mulcahy: That will be entirely changed under the new order.

Mr. Lemass: There may be a change but I doubt if the Minister for Local Government and Public Health has yet devised a means of preventing that particular form of illegality. In any case the number of people who are excluded from the local government register are not very many. The Minister will probably inform us what is the exact number of local government voters and of Dáil voters in the register of electors for the City of Dublin. I think the Minister will find that there cannot be a very substantial difference, and the necessity for maintaining a separate register of local government electors can be ended without risking any serious upset in the existing arrangements. The only case that can be made for the maintenance of the slight property qualifications that now exist is the fact that certain members of the Chamber of Commerce are rather timorous of democracy. Their fears have been met in a large measure by the commercial register and they can now risk the possibility of a person who owns no property being elected to the City Council as a result of the passage of this amendment. I ask the Dáil to accept it.

Mr. Davin: Members of this party will, if the Minister insists on this amendment going to a division, vote for it. It is sound in principle and it represents a forward policy as against the very reactionary policy contained in the Bill and maintained by the Minister. The Minister's policy is to go backwards, and in local government affairs, separate the rich from the poor. This amendment is a considerable improvement on that. I hoped that Deputy Lemass, in moving this amendment, would take the necessary steps to see that it was extended to all other local authorities in the State.

An Ceann Comhairle: The amendment is out of order, but the Chair is allowing it.

General Mulcahy: It is a new [1916] principle to divorce the representation under the local government from the basis on which it is framed.

Mr. Lemass: You have done that already.

General Mulcahy: No; on the contrary we are rectifying the defect in the present arrangement by which certain people, although they paid rates for property they occupy, had no representation as local government electors for these rates.

Mr. O'Connell: The Minister did a lot more than that.

General Mulcahy: We are doing nothing but that.

Mr. Lemass: What about the commercial members?

Mr. O'Connell: They are getting more than double.

General Mulcahy: No, you are giving them about .00 something.

Mr. T.J. O'Connell: You are giving some men six votes.

General Mulcahy: The Deputy will remember that when I introduced the special franchise idea into this, I gave figures to the Dáil which showed that half of the rateable property upon which rates are raised in the City of Dublin was not represented by Local Government electors for the reason that the people who paid these rates had not a Local Government vote in respect of these premises.

Mr. Davin: Are those the grounds for giving six votes to one man?

General Mulcahy: They are not the grounds for giving six votes to one man, and there is no proposal to give six votes to one man.

Mr. MacEntee: Yes, there is.

Mr. Davin: There is such a proposal, certainly.

General Mulcahy: The Deputy's proposal is to divorce the Local Government voter from shouldering the burden for the cost of local government, and, in spite of Deputy [1917] Davin's statement that he is going to go into the Lobby against me, I will be obliged to divide on this amendment.

[An Leas-Cheann Comhairle took the Chair.]

Mr. Lemass: Might I point out that the Minister has an amendment down, of which I approve, to remove the necessity for a candidate for election to be registered as a Local Government voter in the city? In fact, a person with no property can be elected on the City Council.

General Mulcahy: Only by the consent of the responsible people.

Mr. Lemass: The Minister has in that one word given us the key to what is in his mind. A responsible person is one who owns property.

General Mulcahy: No, but a person who pays rates.

Mr. Lemass: There are several people entitled under the existing law to be on the register of Local Government voters, and yet pay no rates.

General Mulcahy: Only a fringe.

Mr. Lemass: No. I will go so far as to say that almost 50 per cent. of those registered as local government electors do not pay rates.

General Mulcahy: I would like to hear that argument developed.

Mr. Lemass: They are in occupation of rateable premises and the landlord or the owner of those premises is responsible for the rates. I think the Minister will find that that is the case. As far as I know, there will be only 4,000 people on the commercial register and these will have the election of five members of the Council. As against that undemocratic proposal, which the Minister has defended, I think he should agree to go a step in the opposite direction in order that the account might be balanced. Persons who are not on the register and who are not natives of the city can be elected as members of the Council. Persons who pay no rates can vote for them [1918] under the existing law. The acceptance of this amendment will merely provide that individuals such as lodgers occupying rooms in which they do not own the furniture, or domestic servants in private dwelling houses, will have votes in municipal affairs as they have at present in the much more important elections relating to this House. Can the Minister give us comparative figures so that we can understand the additional number of voters who would have a voice in the election of the municipal council if this amendment were carried? I would like him to give us the number of people in the city registered as Dáil and local government electors so that we can compare the two.

Mr. Davin: Can the Minister explain his statement that no person can have six votes under Section 34 of the Bill?

General Mulcahy: A person can get six votes based upon the occupation of a certain amount of rateable property.

Mr. Davin: Six votes for one man?

General Mulcahy: Yes, on the commercial register. I question very much if there is any single man who will get six votes. A person in the shape of a company will get six votes, but I have no information that will show me that any one man is in the position of being the owner of a business with the rateable property occupied by him at the value that will entitle him to six votes. On the question raised by Deputy Lemass, the number of local government electors in the old City of Dublin was 108,914. I have not the statistics with regard to the Dáil electorate, but I think the relation would be about two-thirds. I think the number of Dáil electors in the old City of Dublin would be greater than 160,000.

Mr. Davin: Has the Minister any information regarding the number of those whose names are already on the commercial register, which he has admitted he is already preparing, [1919] showing the valuation of the property which these individuals hold? Does the Minister deny that there are not amongst the individuals on the commercial register persons who would own property over a valuation of £50 and therefore would get more than one vote?

General Mulcahy: But the Deputy was talking of six votes for one man.

Mr. Davin: Yes, if they had valuations up to £250.

General Mulcahy: Deputy Lemass said there would be approximately 4,000 voters on the basis of the old City register with new additions in respect of the additional classes that we provide for in connection with [1920] the commercial register. The estimated number of electors on it would probably be about 7,000. I would remind Deputies that the total valuation for the old City of Dublin was £1,250,000 and the total amount of valuation represented by the electors on the commercial register would be £628,000.

Mr. Davin: Nothing more than unpaid rate collectors.

Mr. MacEntee: Exactly. Are we discussing Section 34 now?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: We are not.

Amendment put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 45; Níl, 64.

Tá

Aiken, Frank.

Allen, Denis.

Blaney, Neal.

Bourke, Daniel.

Briscoe, Robert.

Broderick, Henry.

Buckley, Daniel.

Carney, Frank.

Carty, Frank.

Cassidy, Archie J.

Clery, Michael.

Colbert, James.

Cooney, Eamon.

Corish, Richard.

Corry, Martin John.

Crowley, Tadhg.

Davin, William.

Derrig, Thomas.

Doyle, Edward.

Everett, James.

Fahy, Frank.

Flinn, Hugo.

Fogarty, Andrew.

Gorry, Patrick J.

Goulding, John.

Hayes, Seán.

Hogan, Patrick (Clare).

Jordan, Stephen.

Kent, William R.

Kerlin, Frank.

Killilea, Mark.

Lemass, Seán F.

Maguire, Ben.

McEntee, Seán.

Moore, Séamus.

O'Connell, Thomas J.

O'Kelly, Seán T.

O'Reilly, Matthew.

Powell, Thomas P.

Ryan, James.

Sheehy, Timothy (Tipp.).

Smith, Patrick.

Tubridy, John.

Walsh, Richard.

Ward, Francis C.

Níl

Aird, William P.

Alton, Ernest Henry.

Beckett, James Walter.

Bennett, George Cecil.

Blythe, Ernest.

Brennan, Michael.

Brodrick, Seán.

Byrne, John Joseph.

Carey, Edmund.

Cole, John James.

Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.

Conlon, Martin.

Connolly, Michael P.

Craig, Sir James.

Crowley, James.

Daly, John.

Davis, Michael.

Doherty, Eugene.

Dolan, James N.

[1921]Lynch, Finian.

Mathews, Arthur Patrick.

McDonogh, Martin.

McFadden, Michael Og.

Mongan, Joseph W.

Mulcahy, Richard.

Murphy, James E.

Myles, James Sproule.

Nally, Martin Michael.

O'Connell, Richard.

O'Connor, Bartholomew.

O'Higgins, Thomas.

O'Leary, Daniel.

Doyle, Peadar Seán.

Duggan, Edmund John.

Dwyer, James.

Fitzgerald, Desmond.

Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.

Good, John.

Gorey, Denis J.

Haslett, Alexander.

Hassett, John J.

Heffernan, Michael R.

Hennessy, Thomas.

Hennigan, John.

Henry, Mark.

Hogan, Patrick (Galway).

Jordan, Michael.

Kelly, Patrick Michael.

Keogh, Myles.

Law, Hugh Alexander.

Leonard, Patrick.

[1922]O'Mahony, Dermot Gun.

O'Reilly, John J.

O'Sullivan, Gearóid.

O'Sullivan, John Marcus.

Reynolds, Patrick.

Rice, Vincent.

Roddy, Martin.

Shaw, Patrick W.

Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).

Thrift, William Edward.

Tierney, Michael.

Vaughan, Daniel.

Wolfe, George.

Tellers — Tá: Deputies Allen and Killilea; Níl: Deputies P. S. Doyle and Duggan.

Amendment declared lost.

Mr. O'Kelly: I move:—

In page 16, Section 31 (2), to delete all words after the word “elections,” line 59, to the end of the sub-section.

This amendment speaks for itself. It is to try, so far as we can, to eliminate plural voting, and that is a proposition which, in a democratic assembly like this, should not need much argument to recommend it.

General Mulcahy: I do not know if even removing this would have the effect of achieving what Deputy O'Kelly wants. In any case it would be easy to avoid it, because most of the property we are concerned with here are companies, and the arrangement by which voting will be carried on by companies will be dealt with under the machinery that will be before the House as soon as we finish with this. But in introducing the principle of a franchise in respect to the occupation of property for commercial or manufacturing purposes, I am not prepared to accept an amendment which will prevent a person who happens to be living in the city and has a local government vote by reason of that fact, from having his vote in respect of premises which he occupies and which he pays rates for, in respect of manufacture or commerce, and I oppose the amendment.

Mr. Lemass: Is it the Minister's contention that a person owning property which qualifies him to have six votes, would suffer a hardship if he were also deprived of the seventh vote which he gets as an ordinary citizen? That is the purport of the amendment. If the Minister is going to give special facilities to the owners of property to such an extent that 1,000 odd would be able to elect one member of the Council, that is one commercial member of the Council, surely it is not asking too much that these same individuals should be deprived of the right to influence the elections of ordinary members. The facilities that are being given are almost as great as those given to persons registered on a university register which, like the commercial register, should be abolished. The point is, however, that the individuals concerned cannot possibly claim that they are being deprived of the opportunity of determining who shall, or shall not, be a member of the City Council. Every person whose name is on the commercial register will in fact be able to influence membership of the Council to an extent which the ordinary citizen cannot do; to limit his voting powers to the extent which he will hold them on a commercial register, is an act of elementary justice, and I ask the Dáil, therefore, and the Minister, to accept this amendment.

General Mulcahy: I suggest it would be an act of elementary injustice that because a person was resident in the city and paid his rates as an ordinary person resident in the city, that he should be excluded because of that fact from casting his vote in the election of [1923] members of the commercial community to represent the commercial side of things in the city, whereas if he lived outside the city he would not be so prevented.

[1924] Mr. Lemass: He would not be prevented; he would have six votes.

Amendment put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 45; Níl, 67.

Tá

Aiken, Frank.

Allen, Denis.

Blaney, Neal.

Bourke, Daniel.

Briscoe, Robert.

Broderick, Henry.

Buckley, Daniel.

Carney, Frank.

Carty, Frank.

Cassidy, Archie J.

Clery, Michael.

Colbert, James.

Cooney, Eamon.

Corish, Richard.

Corry, Martin John.

Crowley, Tadhg.

Davin, William.

Derrig, Thomas.

Doyle, Edward.

Everett, James.

Fahy, Frank.

Flinn, Hugo.

Fogarty, Andrew.

Gorry, Patrick J.

Goulding, John.

Hayes, Seán.

Hogan, Patrick (Clare).

Jordan, Stephen.

Kent, William R.

Kerlin, Frank.

Killilea, Mark.

Lemass, Seán F.

Maguire, Ben.

MacEntee, Seán.

Moore, Séamus.

O'Connell, Thomas J.

O'Kelly, Seán T.

O'Reilly, Matthew.

Powell, Thomas P.

Ryan, James.

Sheehy, Timothy (Tipp.).

Smith, Patrick.

Tubridy, John.

Walsh, Richard.

Ward, Francis C.

Níl

Aird, William P.

Alton, Ernest Henry.

Beckett, James Walter.

Bennett, George Cecil.

Blythe, Ernest.

Brennan, Michael.

Brodrick, Seán.

Byrne, John Joseph.

Carey, Edmund.

Cole, John James.

Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.

Conlon, Martin.

Connolly, Michael P.

Craig, Sir James.

Crowley, James.

Daly, John.

Davis, Michael.

De Loughrey, Peter.

Doherty, Eugene.

Dolan, James N.

Doyle, Peadar Seán.

Duggan, Edmund John.

Dwyer, James.

Fitzgerald, Desmond.

Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.

Good, John.

Gorey, Denis J.

Haslett, Alexander.

Hassett, John J.

Heffernan, Michael R.

Hennessy, Thomas.

Hennigan, John.

Henry, Mark.

Hogan, Patrick (Galway).

Jordan, Michael.

Kelly, Patrick Michael.

Keogh, Myles.

Law, Hugh Alexander.

Leonard, Patrick.

Lynch, Finian.

Mathews, Arthur Patrick.

McDonogh, Martin.

McFadden, Michael Og.

Mongan, Joseph W.

Mulcahy, Richard.

Murphy, James E.

Myles, James Sproule.

Nally, Martin Michael.

O'Connell, Richard.

O'Connor, Bartholomew.

O'Hanlon, John F.

O'Higgins, Thomas.

O'Leary, Daniel.

O'Mahony, Dermot Gun.

O'Reilly, John J.

O'Sullivan, Gearóid.

O'Sullivan, John Marcus.

Reynolds, Patrick.

Rice, Vincent.

Roddy, Martin.

Shaw, Patrick W.

Sheehy, Timothy (West Cork).

Thrift, William Edward.

Tierney, Michael.

Vaughan, Daniel.

Wolfe, George.

Wolfe, Jasper Travers.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Allen and Killilea; Níl, Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle.

[1925] Amendment declared lost.

General Mulcahy: I move amendment 12:—

In page 17, Section 31, before sub-section (4), to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

“Sub-section (5) of Section 2 of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, shall not apply in respect of elections of members of the City Council.”

I undertook to introduce an amendment that would enable a person to be elected a member of the council, even though he was not a Local Government elector. This amendment is intended to give effect to that promise.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 31, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. S.T. O'Kelly: I move amendment 13:—

In page 17, Section 32, to insert before sub-section (2) the following new sub-section:—

“An Order made by the Minister under this section shall not come into operation until it has been approved by resolution of Dáil Eireann authorising the said Order with or without amendment.”

I think it will be necessary, when the Minister comes to define and delimit the areas, that he shall make an Order. The object of the amendment is that before this Order will come into operation it shall be laid before the Oireachtas, or, at any rate, that the House shall have an opportunity, if it thinks it desirable to do so, to discuss the matter. It is quite possible that there may be a serious difference of opinion as to the delimitation of the areas. If there were such differences of opinion, I think it is only right and proper that this House should have an opportunity of expressing its opinion on the Order the Minister makes.

General Mulcahy: I propose to place the responsibility on the Minister [1926] of dividing the city into five areas, equal representation being given throughout the city on the basis of population. Under the 1919 and the 1925 Acts the Minister is called upon to divide counties into electoral areas. The Minister issues the necessary Order in connection with that matter. I see no reason why Dublin City should be put into a different position to that of the counties. If the division of the city is not satisfactory to the City Council, then the City Council is in the same position as a county council in the matter of making representations. These representations, no doubt, will be taken into consideration by the Minister. If we had an arrangement by which all these Orders had to be placed before the Oireachtas, we would be placed in the position in which it could be shown that there was no reason why Orders relating to the City of Dublin should be placed before the Oireachtas, and not Orders relating to other areas under county councils. If the Deputy would see the matter in that light, that is doing in regard to Dublin in this matter what the Minister for Local Government has to do in respect of every county council, he would probably agree that there is no reason why this Order should be placed before the Oireachtas, because the Oireachtas is hardly the proper body to express a view on the matter. Any view expressed by the City Council would be fully considered by the Minister.

Mr. Lemass: I do not think there is any real comparison possible between the area of a county council and the area of the proposed city council under this Bill. In the first place anything suggestive of jerrymandering would be impossible in a county. The county electoral areas must be convenient groupings of the electoral areas of a district. In a city, however, any division almost is possible and can be justified. We do know that persons of particular political opinions do reside in compact communities, more or less, in the city, and can be given, possibly, [1927] undue representation if there was any desire or any intention on the part of the Department of Local Government to use the Orders given by this Bill for jerrymandering purposes. I do not suggest that the Department has any such intention in mind, but I do not think that the Dáil should willingly agree to a proposal enabling electoral areas of this kind to be defined by Order in the city of Dublin. That is a power which the Dáil should keep in its own hands and it is for that purpose that the amendment has been moved.

This matter is of particular interest to the city of Dublin because there is the possibility, if not the probability, that the electoral areas established under this Bill will become parliamentary constituencies in the near future. The parliamentary constituencies of the city of Dublin have to be revised, their boundaries altered and possibly new constituencies established. It is not at all unlikely that the electoral areas for the purposes of municipal elections will be the parliamentary constituencies for the purposes of Dáil elections. We do not want to put ourselves in the position of agreeing to the establishment of electoral areas by Order, and then find the existence of these electoral areas used as an argument in favour of particular parliamentary constituencies when the Bill to revise the parliamentary constituencies is submitted.

The Minister has really not given any argument against the amendment. The acceptance of the amendment will not cause any inconvenience to his Department, nor will it involve any prolonged discussions in the Dáil to have Orders defining electoral areas submitted to the House for approval. If the Minister is not prepared to submit these Orders for approval, he could at least follow the procedure adopted in the State Lands Act under which Orders are tabled and do not come into force for a number of days, during which period a Deputy can table a motion for the alteration or withdrawal of [1928] the particular Order in question if he is dissatisfied with the contents of it. In our opinion, some machinery should be set up which would give the Dáil the ultimate decision as to what areas shall be electoral areas under this Bill. We do not think that matter should be left in the sole discretion of the Minister.

General Mulcahy: I do not think the Dáil should be called on to decide whether Botanic Avenue, Glasnevin Road or Cabra Road should be a dividing line in electoral divisions for local government purposes in the city of Dublin. I do not see that it is desirable to introduce the principle that the Dáil would be committed in any way to the line upon which electoral areas for local government bodies are divided. If there is any charge of misconduct of any kind in connection with the discharge of the Minister's duties relating to the Electoral Acts generally for local government and for other purposes, the Dáil has the opportunity of dealing with that on a motion, but I am not prepared to agree that those Orders should come before the Oireachtas, and neither am I prepared to agree to the suggestion that electoral divisions for local government purposes should necessarily have any relation to electoral divisions for Dáil purposes.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Mr. O'Kelly: I move:—

In page 18, section 33 (2), line 16, to delete the word “twenty” and substitute the word “ten.”

My purpose is to alter this scheme so that it will do the least possible harm from my point of view, and for that purpose I propose to widen the basis. Making the valuation £10 instead of £20 would widen the basis very considerably, and the object the Minister has in view in proposing this scheme would, to a large extent, be nullified. All of us on those benches are definitely against the proposition in section 33 — against the commercial register. That has already been decided by the House. The Dáil has adopted the commercial [1929] register in principle and this amendment — it is just as well to be blunt about it—is to nullify as far as we can the harm that would be done if the Minister's proposal is put into operation.

General Mulcahy: I am glad to know the amendment is intended to nullify the commercial register. What I thought the Deputy had in mind was a hawker's licence when he put down a valuation figure of £10. I cannot see that the occupation of a house to the valuation of £10 for business purposes can be regarded as a satisfactory basis to provide us with what we are looking for, and that is expert business representation in the city council. Business premises with a valuation of £10 can hardly be called a business premises at all. I oppose the amendment.

Mr. Lemass: Surely the Minister does not contend that those who will go on the commercial register under this Bill will be persons who can claim to be business experts. The number of premises of not less than £20 valuation is not inconsiderable, and the purpose of the amendment is to provide that anybody who is engaged in business will be entitled to have a vote in the election of commercial members to the council. It seems to me that the amendment is in line with the Minister's own policy. If we had our way there would be no commercial register, but as the Dáil has decided that there will be a commercial register then the purpose of the Dáil should be to ensure that every person engaged in business should be recorded on that register and have a vote for the election of members. It is quite possible that the occupier of premises valued at £10 or £12 might be engaged in a much more profitable enterprise than the occupier of premises valued at £20 or £25. The amendment is a perfectly reasonable one and the Minister should be prepared to accept it if he is really anxious to ensure that the commercial members of the council will be able to speak with some degree of authority for the commercial interests of the City of Dublin.

[1930] Amendment put and declared lost.

Mr. Lemass: I move:—

In page 18, section 33 (2), to delete all words after the word “any,” line 22, to the end of line 24, and substitute the words “manufacturing enterprise.”

The Bill provides that any premises occupied by any “individual, partnership, unincorporated association, or corporate body wholly or partly for the purpose of carrying on therein any business, profession, trade, manufacture, or other commercial or industrial pursuit,” shall be registered on the commercial register and be given special facilities in the election of members to the council. The Minister has informed us that this commercial register scheme has been devised to ensure that commercial interests will not be neglected by the city council, and that there will be certain members of that body authorised and competent to speak for those engaged in trade and commerce in the city. He therefore proposes to give votes to the proprietors of beauty parlours, bookmakers, mock-auctioneers and quack doctors, or to anybody engaged in any conceivable form of remunerative enterprise who occupies premises in Dublin with a valuation of £20 or more. It is presumed these people will elect business experts who are to provide for the proper government of the City of Dublin under the Minister's scheme. My amendment seeks to limit registration on the commercial register to those who are engaged in manufacturing enterprises. There is a case to be made for giving special representation to Irish manufacturers on local government bodies, but there is no case whatever to be made for giving special representation to those engaged in enterprises of the kind I have just mentioned, who give no benefit to the community and who have no interest in the city except the profit that they make out of it.

The manufacturer is anchored to the spot, as it were, and has a direct interest in the burden of rates, and [1931] in the improvement of public services in the city. It was argued by the Minister on the Committee Stage that the giving of these facilities might weigh the balance in a decision as to whether or not a manufacturing enterprise should be established here. In fact I think that was the only argument he advanced for the established of the commercial register.

General Mulcahy: It was not an argument of mine.

Mr. Lemass: It was not an argument of any value. It was an argument used by the Minister. I do not say it was his.

General Mulcahy: No.

Mr. Lemass: I am quite certain it was.

General Mulcahy: I am certain it was not an argument of mine.

Mr. Lemass: That argument will remain valid even if this amendment is carried. I do not think any case whatever can be made for giving special facilities to persons not engaged in some enterprise that confers a benefit on the people of Dublin. The giving of these facilities to persons engaged in enterprises of all kinds is, in fact, making a mockery of the idea of special commercial representation.

Mr. Byrne: I think that is a most extraordinary doctrine for a business man like Deputy Lemass to propound—that no one is performing any services to the city except Irish manufacturers. I never heard such a doctrine proposed by any man claiming to be an economist as Deputy Lemass claims to be. I always understood that the distributor was as important, or nearly as important, as the manufacturer.

Mr. MacEntee: He may cost more.

Mr. Byrne: There must be a proper distribution if goods are to be sold, and if the wants of the people are to be attended to. I think it is [1932] the most ridiculous argument that I ever heard coming from the Front Opposition Bench.

General Mulcahy: Deputy Lemass would seek to make it the basis for giving a vote on the commercial franchise that the person should be a manufacturer. That is not what we seek. We say that there is a special burden of the cost of local government placed on the shoulders of a person who occupies premises for business purposes generally, as distinct from occupying them for personal use, and that is the basis for setting up this commercial register. To accept the principle put forward by Deputy Lemass would be to depart entirely from that. As Deputy Byrne stated, it would be to leave out the whole of our distributing trade, which is an important side, and which, perhaps, from the point of view of the amount of rates paid for the occupation of premises, bears a bigger burden of rates than our manufacturing industries.

Mr. Lemass: But what is the case for giving them special representation?

General Mulcahy: The case is that unless they are given special representation like this they will be denied a voice in local government, for which they pay.

Mr. Lemass: They have as much voice as anyone else.

General Mulcahy: The basis of local government representation is the payment of the cost of local government. The amendment proposes an entirely different basis for the commercial franchise, and I do not accept it.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Mr. O'Kelly: I move:—

In page 18, section 33 (4), line 41, to delete the words “two or more premises” and substitute the words “one premises only.”

If an individual, a partnership or a company, as the case may be, is to get representation, such representation should be restricted to their [1933] headquarters, wherever they are. If a company or individual has two, three or four branches in the city it should be sufficient that that company or individual would have a vote in respect of where the headquarters and the registered offices are. To take into account every establishment of one kind or another in different parts of the city, and to add together the valuation of these rated premises, is carrying this principle too far. I think it is unjust to the other voters. I do not see any case whatever for it. If there is a case for giving votes to an incorporated body, or to an individual with business premises, whether manufacturing or distributing premises, who are rated out of these premises, and who otherwise have not a vote, I think that a case can be made for, perhaps, giving such persons or person a vote out of the registered offices. But to add together valuations of all the premises they might have an interest in or own, or be the rated occupiers, and to give five or six votes is carrying this proposal of the commercial register to a limit that we ought not vote for.

Mr. Byrne: I think Deputy O'Kelly's amendment would be more injurious as far as the democratic aspect of the case is concerned than perhaps appears to him. I happen to have more than one business premises, and I know a great many other ordinary individuals in the same position.

Mr. Lemass: That is not an argument in favour of it.

Mr. Byrne: These men can be pretty well relied upon to keep up the national end of the question, which is an aspect of it that has been stressed. It has been said that under this proposal we are giving representation to non-nationals. Small business men will