[BILL 214.] COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 16 July 1885)

§ COLONEL NOLAN
said, he would like to know who had asked for the Bill? It was hardly possible to conceive a case in which the "a" portion of the 2nd clause could arise. He would really like to know what was the case contemplated by the clause? There was a most dangerous provision for shortening the notice. Ho (Colonel Nolan) was Chairman of two Unions, and he was proposed as Chairman of a third, but was beaten by two votes. The ex officio Guardians were in favour of the abolition of the Union, while the elected Guardians, who voted for him, were for keeping up the Union. It was possible that the Bill would bo put in force in that case.

§ MR. HEALY
said, that, some months ago, he was asked by the officers of the Newport Union, in County Mayo, to point out in the House the hardship of their position. Their Union had been amalgamated with the Westport Union; and they asked why they should not have some compensation on the abolition of office? It was not in the power of the Local Government Board, or the Guardians, to allow any payment out of the rates in such circumstances. As the Bill enabled Guardians to make some compensation, if they saw fit, he thought it marked a great advance upon the Bill brought in a couple of years ago to enable superannuations to be given to the Union officers. The previous Bill was one which put the power into the hands of the Local Government Board, and gave the local Guardians no power whatever in the matter. By this Bill, they had compelled the Government to come down from their high perch and give power to local Guardians.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)
said, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) had anticipated the explanation of the Bill he (Mr. 1014 Holmes; had intended to give. It would be observed that there was nothing in the Bill which enabled any Union to be abolished. That was done by different legislation, and when it was done, hardship was very often done to the officers. The object of the Bill, therefore, was to supply a superannuation. In those cases, as the House was aware, under ordinary circumstances, the holder of an office which was abolished was entitled to some kind of superannuation; he was also similarly entitled if he were obliged to resign on account of infirmity. Instead of giving the power, which was done, he believed, by the Bill to which the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Healy) had alluded, to the Local Government Board, it was left in the hands of the Guardians themselves. This was evidently a harmless Bill, but eminently a just Bill. He respectfully asked the House to allow it to pass.

§ MR. SEXTON
said that the former Bill referred to by the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Holmes) gave compulsory powers to the Local Government Board; but this was a much narrower and different Bill. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had not made himself clear whether the process of amalgamation was intended to be carried out to any large extent. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) had already mentioned the case of the amalgamation of the Newport and Westport Unions, He (Mr. Sexton) was aware that there was a very strong and indignant feeling amongst the ratepayers in the Oughterard district, because of a proposed amalgamation of their Union with an adjoining Union. It might be said that the Bill was one thing and the amalgamation of Unions another thing; but the introduction of this Bill might be regarded as a justification for many amalgamations. He thought the House was entitled to some explanation from the Government why the amalgamations referred to were thought desirable in the face of local opinion. He begged to move the adjournment of the debate.

§ MR. MOLLOY
seconded the Motion.

§ COLONEL NOLAN
said, he thought the Government ought to give some answer in regard to the ease of the Oughterard Union, with which ho was well acquainted, and in regard to the Newport Union, with which he was not well acquainted. The Government ought to disclaim that the introduction of this Bill was supposed to amount to the sanction of the House of Commons to the proposed amalgamations.

§ MR. HEALY
said that Newport assented to the amalgamation. He was sent a copy of a resolution, asking not only that the amalgamation should take place, but declaring that, if it did not take place, they would cease to pay the poor rate.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOE IRELAND (Mr. HOLMES)
said, that, as far as he could gather, this Bill was introduced to meet the hardship to which the hon. and learned Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) had called attention. If the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sexton) would allow the Bill to go through Committee, the third reading should be put down for some day next week, by which time his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland might be able to give some explanation on the subject.

§ COLONEL NOLAN
asked if the right hon. and learned Gentleman could not ascertain the facts by Monday, as he (Colonel Nolan) would like to refer to the matter on the Vote for the Local Government Board?

§ MR. SEXTON
said, he would ask for leave to withdraw the Motion; but he thought it would be well to report Progress at once.