CLAUSE 35. (Hansard, 17 May 1898)

§ MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)
The words which I propose to leave out are laid down by the Government at the commencement of clause 35, and refer to certain excluded charges subsequently described. My object in moving this Amendment is to challenge, at the earliest possible moment, the general policy of the Government in reference to these excluded charges. On subsequent Amendments these charges can be challenged each on its merits, if necessary, but I would now ask the right honourable Gentleman responsible for the Bill to compare the wording of this clause and the wording of clause 4 of the Agricultural Rating Act. The first sub-section of clause 4 runs— The Local Government Board shall, as soon as may be after the passing of this Act, certify the amount. There are no words in that clause which correspond to clause 35 of this Bill, such as the words to which I now object. Clause 35 begins— Subject to the provisions hereinafter contained with respect to excluded charges, the Local Government Board, on the report of the Commissioner of Valuation, shall, as soon as may be after the passing of this Act, certify," etc. Now I cannot see why clause 35 should not commence in the same way as clause 4 of the Agricultural Railing Act. 1558 That would not bind the Government against exempting in any subsequent clauses certain charges if they thought fit. It would not tie their hands. As a matter of fact there are, of course, certain rates exempted in the English Act, but, as I shall show, the principle on which these rates have been exempted is totally different from the principle applied in the Irish Bill. The only rates that are excluded under the English Act are those specified in clause 1, sub-section 2, as follows— (a) Which the occupier of agricultural land is liable, as compared with the occupier of buildings or other hereditaments, to be assessed to or to pay in the proportion of one-half or less than one-half, or (b) which is assessed under any commission of sewers, or in respect of any drainage, wall, embankment, or other work for the benefit of the land. Therefore, in the case of the English Act, relief was extended to all kinds of agricultural land, and in respect to all rates except a rate in which land was assessed in lower proportion than buildings, or a rate in respect of work specially constructed for the purpose of benefiting the land, such as drainage work or an embankment, or some other work specially directed to the improvement of the land in question. Now, Sir, I would not object to that being applied to the Irish Bill, but the priciple of exclusion in the case of that Bill is far more extensive than in the English Act. It may be said that under the Irish Bill certain new rates and a number of new Acts are specially exempted. But, in the case of England, the relief was not confined to the old standard rates, such as those levied for county boroughs and for the poor, because we know that relief was given in the case of the school rate—quite a modern rate—and I fancy it was given in the case of several other rates excluded from the Irish Bill. When we turn to the clause we find that the rates to be excluded are, first, expenses in relation to additional constabulary; and, second, compensation for criminal injuries; in addition to which there is a long list of Acts, including the Tramways and Public Companies Act, the Light Railways Act, 1890, the Piers and Harbours Act, the Public Loans Act, and the Relief of Distress Act, 1559 1880, and Acts amending the same. The Relief of Distress Act is one of the most outrageous of the exclusions, but I do not intend at this portion of the Bill to argue on the merits of particular exclusions, which can be raised subsequently. All I desire is to get some declaration from the Government as to their policy on this matter, and to urge them to assimilate the wording of clause 35 to that of clause 4 of the English Act.

§ THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE LORD LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,) Leeds, Central
The honourable Member for East Mayo has asked me to give the general views of the Government with respect to these excluded charges. But may I point out that the system of taxation in Ireland is altogether so different from that in England that it would not have been easy to follow the terms of the English Act. For instance, in England police and school board charges are paid by the local rates; in Ireland they are paid out of the Exchequer. Then, again, in England the grant is not given to burial boards, or for the expenses of Parliamentary registration, or for overseers in connection with the collection of rates, whereas in Ireland it will apply. The parish councils' rate in England is also excluded. I mention these to show the difference in the conditions of the two countries. The honourable Member has given a list of the excluded charges, which are as follow:—Expenses in relation to additional constabulary, compensation for criminal injuries, and any amounts raised in connection with any railway or tramway under the Tramways and Public Companies (Ireland) Act, the Light Railways Acts, the Fisheries (Ireland) Act, 1846, the Piers and Harbour (Ireland) Act, the Public Works Loans Act, the Relief of Distress Act, navigation works under the Drainage and Navigation Act, and special expenses under the Public Health Acts. A number of those rates are not levied in England at all, and, therefore, it was for the Government to consider whether they were to be included or excluded. Speaking generally, I might say there are 1560 obvious reasons why the rates for extra police and for malicious injuries should not be included in the agricultural grant. The county guarantees for railways are peculiarly Irish charges, and the same may be said of harbour loans. As regards the Relief of Distress Act, which the honourable Member seems to think extraordinary that it should be excluded, I think, perhaps, he is not aware of the particular nature of the expenditure under this Act. As a matter of fact, most of these excluded charges will expire within the next two years, and, if they were included, would constitute a permanent charge on the Exchequer. There is only one of these charges that will last, and that is the charge for the inspection of piers. Drainage and navigation loans are peculiar to Ireland. I have stated generally the views of the Government with reference to excluded charges, and later I will be able to give the reasons which have determined the Government in each particular case; but I think the honourable Member will not deny that some charges must be excluded, and accordingly it will be necessary to retain the words in the clause.

§ MR. FLYNN (Cork, N.)
It is obvious that the excluded charges will be discussed in detail on clause 40, but it appears to me we are now prejudging the merits or demerits of that clause by inserting these words when they are not necessary. The clause we are now discussing begins, "Subject to the provisions hereinafter contained in respect to excluded charges." Now, that is more or less anticipating the fact that the Committee will more or less agree with the proposal of the Government, that all these excluded charges should be retained in clause 40. We are not at all agreed as to that. We maintain that several of these charges should be included. But by putting the words objected to by the honourable Member into this clause, it appears to some extent to prejudge the decision of the Committee with regard to clause 40.

§ MR. GERALD BALFOUR
It is necessary that the words should be retained in their present position.

§ MR. DILLON
I do not see the use of discussing the matter further in this stage. I believe the phrase is unneces- 1561 sary and objectionable, but if the Government will not give way I will withdraw the Amendment.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. ATKINSON,) Londonderry, N.
We have followed exactly the English Act.

§ MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL (Tyrone, N.)
The word "deemed" is more familiar.

§ MR. GERALD BALFOUR
I shall certainly accept that word with the greatest of pleasure if it is more usual than "taken."

§ MR. T. M. HEALY (Louth, N.)
I hope the Government will see their way to make this clause clear. The right honourable Gentleman admitted, in answer to a question, that under the English Act the amount which had been expended in the standard year was the amount of the grant. In the section as it stands the gum to be taken under the new Act is estimated as having been raised. I wish to insert the words "or expended." In the case of the Millstreet and other unions the guardians were compelled by the Local Government Board to raise a larger sum than they required, with the result that they started the standard year with a larger sum in hand, and accordingly struck a smaller rate. It was the Local Government Board that compelled these unions to raise these large sums, and it appears to me, therefore, that it is absolutely necessary to insert the words "or expended," or else these unions will not receive the grant to which they are justly entitled.

§ MR. GERALD BALFOUR
With all due respect, Sir, I submit this Amendment is out of order, as, if adopted, it 1562 might carry us beyond the scope of the financial resolution. I may say, however, that such exceptional cases as those to which the honourable Member refers would undoubtedly, in my judgment, come up for consideration.

§ MR. T. M. HEALY
That is the funniest explanation I have ever heard. Either my Amendment is right or it is not; either it covers the ground or it does not. If it covers the ground it must be within the resolution, and if it is within the resolution now is the proper time to carry it out. The right honourable Gentleman states that these cases will be considered, and that it is competent for the Government to take them into account. Of course, if they went beyond the resolution the Government would be incompetent to deal with them.

§ MR. GERALD BALFOUR
The clause as now drafted would enable the Government to take into consideration the cases referred to by the honourable Member.

§ MR. T. M. HEALY
That is only fair play. I submit, Sir, the right honourable Gentleman has hardly treated the Committee with candour. He was asked a question on this point several weeks ago, and it was pointed out that these unions were, by the coercion of the Local Government Board, compelled to raise larger sums than they required, and he replied that the matter would be dealt with in the Bill, and that it was possible to deal with it. Accordingly we assumed that justice was to be done, but now it seems we are not to get justice as an abstract commodity, but we are to get it as it appears to the right honourable Gentleman. In other words, it will be competent for him to include or exclude these balances as he thinks fit. That is a latitude we do not like to allow to the right honourable Gentleman. It is a matter of absolute justice, and it can be argued on that ground, and on no other. Let us take a given union: it can meet its poor law expenses by raising £10,000. In steps the Local Government Board and says, "Your estimate is too low; it must be for £12,000"; and the union, with reluctance, and under pressure of the 1563 Local Government Board, raises the larger sum. Then it turns out that the guardians were right and the Local Government Board was wrong, and accordingly they start the next year with a credit of £2,000. Of the people who paid this money, many of them are dead, others have emigrated; but what we desire is that the question shall not be left to the discretion of the Government, or to that penurious institution, the British Treasury, whether credit shall be allowed for these balances. What we desire is that the Act should positively require the Government to base the grant on what would have been the normal amount raised had not the Local Government Board foolishly interfered. In reply to that demand, the right honourable Gentleman starts a point unworthy of him. He first tries to bowl me over on a barren point of order, by saying that my Amendment is not within the ambit of the resolution. If it is not it is the intention of the Government to swindle unions in the position of Mill-street, and get the benefit for the Treasury of the credit balances. Does the right honourable Gentleman think we move these Amendments for fun? What we are striving for is absolute justice, and to prevent the injustice which will arise owing to the action of the Department of which he is the head, if the clause is not amended. And, being the head, he should be the very first man to remedy the injustice caused by his own act, for he has stated that he does not allow the Local Government Board to take any step without his sanction; and, therefore, every act of the Board must be taken as the personal act of the Chief Secretary. He ought to be the first man to accept an Amendment of this kind, instead of which he says to these unions: "According to my good judgment and benevolence you shall have this bonus if you are good boys, if you attend to law and order, and if you pass resolutions of a particular kind; but if you misbehave you shall not have it." And this is the hard-earned money which the ratepayers were compelled to raise in 1896 by the Local Government Board. We acquiesced in the view of the right honourable Gentleman regarding the adoption of a 1564 standard year, because he told us it would be modified, and now he tells us that that modification is not to be a matter of absolute right, but of British justice, as administered by himself.

§ MR. GERALD BALFOUR
The honourable and learned Member has made a very extraordinary attack on me for having exactly followed the English Measure. The same words appear in the English Act, but the interpretation put upon it by the English Local Government Board is explained in the following memorandum— (1) For the purpose of certifying the share of the annual grant payable to each spending authority the Board had to determine the amount which was to be taken to have been raised for the expenditure of each spending authority, by rates to which the Act applies during the last financial year before the passing of the Act. In order to enable the Board to arrive at the amount to be so determined, it was provided by the regulations issued under the Act that Returns should be made by the spending authorities as to the rates raised by them during 1895 and 1896, and that the amount included in the precepts made payable during the financial year, or in the case of a rate collected by the authorities, the amount collected during the year should be taken as the amount realised during the year. The Board were to take into consideration any sums raised during the year by the predecessors of the spending authority, constituted after the commencement of the year, and were empowered also to take into consideration any alteration of area and any special circumstances. (2) The Return prescribed by the Board should be not only the sums called by the precepts or raised by rates during the prescribed year, but also like particulars prior to the commencement of that year and subsequent to that year. The Returns were carefully examined by the Board, and were compared with the financial statistics of local taxation returns and other substantial information in the possession of the Board, with the view of testing the accuracy of the Returns, and at the same time ascertaining how far the amount of rates raised in the year 1895–96 might fairly be taken as a test of a fixed grant. For my part, we shall exactly follow the English procedure, and even if the words which the honourable and learned Member now desires to put in were accepted they would compel us to leave out considerations which were taken into account in estimating the English grants. The Local Government Board in Ireland will 1565 be prepared to do what the English Local Government Board did.

§ MR. T. M. HEALY
Are there in England any boards of guardians compelled by order of the Local Government Board to raise a larger sum in a given year than they otherwise would have raised? There is not one such case in England where a board of guardians is compelled by authority to raise £3,000 or £4,000 more than they required. What I complain of is that the course of the Government is hardly candid. I was not considering the words in the Bill, but I was considering the difference between the answer given by the right honourable Gentleman to-day and that given by him a few weeks ago. We raised this point in the case of given unions, and we showed that the standard year would be unfair to them. I am in favour of the standard year myself, taking it all round, but it is undoubtedly just that the case of these unions should, as a matter of course, be taken into account.

§ MR. GERALD BALFOUR
Certainly. What I object to is being asked to state beforehand what, on consideration, the Local Government Board may decide in any particular case. It is true that the Amendment was out of order, because it might compel us to increase the agricultural grant as a result of taking such matters as this into consideration. In extreme cases, such as have been mentioned by the honourable and learned Member, it is very probable that the Local Government Board would take into favourable consideration the claims of such unions; but I cannot undertake that the Local Government Board should decide every case in that manner, which would be the effect of accepting the Amendment. I really think I must have been entirely misunderstood.

§ MR. MAURICE HEALY (Cork City)
As I understand the right honourable Gentleman, if any local authority starts the standard year with a large credit balance, that fact will be taken into account when the Local Government Board has to determine the standard rate; and the converse case will also be taken 1566 into account, namely, where a local authority starts the standard year with a large indebtedness, and has raised in that year a rate to meet that indebtedness.

§ MR. GERALD BALFOUR
That is so.

§ MR. MAURICE HEALY
I think that is quite fair. The unions cannot have it both ways. If it is to be the law that a union starting with a large credit balance is to have it taken as having been raised in the standard year, then I think, on the other hand, if a union starts with a large debit balance and raises it in the standard year, that that also should be considered in estimating the standard rate. The fair thing is to calculate what the normal rate ought to be; that is, fair to the unions and fair to the individual, whose deduction ought not to be calculated on any abnormal figure. In listening to the statement read by the right honourable Gentleman as regards the principle which regulated the practice of the Local Government Board in England, I heard nothing with reference to unions which started the standard year with large debit balances.

§ MR. GERALD BALFOUR
The only reason I did not read further was that I was dealing with the particular point raised by the honourable and learned Member for Louth. With reference to the last-mentioned point, the Memorandum states— If the comparison showed that the rates received in the year were abnormally high, inquiry was made of the local authority as to the cause of the increase. Among the causes of increase thus ascertained were the following:—The raising of rates in 1895–96 to wipe off adverse balances from previous years, or to increase the existing balance; the raising in 1895–96 of rates to meet expenditure ordinarily defrayed out of capital moneys—e.g., for the erection of hospital and other buildings; the raising of rates to meet exceptional cost in connection with law suits; the raising of rates to meet extra expenditure on highways, or expenditure of an unusual character.

§ MR. MAURICE HEALY
I thank the right honourable Gentleman. I did not at all pretend to have mastered the document. As he read it, it struck me it did not cover the case I had in my mind, but I now recognise that it does. As 1567 this is an important matter, and has been agitating boards of guardians all over Ireland for the past three or four months, may I ask if these regulations have been published?

§ MR. GERALD BALFOUR
Yes, Sir.

§ MR. MAURICE HEALY
As they stand, these rules are not applicable to the Irish case; and as the right honourable gentleman has already gone to a great deal of trouble, in some cases, in setting out Orders in Council, and what Government Departments would do in these cases, I would ask him, for the enlightenment of the public, and to enable us to judge them, if he could have the rules which the Local Government Board will put in force drawn up, so that we may have an opportunity of considering them before the Report stage.

§ MR. GERALD BALFOUR
I do not know whether I shall be able to have the rules drawn up before the Report stage. When they are drawn up they will be laid on the Table of the House, but something must be left to the discretion of the Local Government Board.

§ MR. T. M. HEALY
I am sorry I cannot agree with my honourable Friend the Member for Cork. The statement read by the right honourable Gentleman is the most important he has yet made in connection with this Bill, because it is a revelation to us that there is to be no standard year. There is only to be an average of years, with the Treasury and the Local Government Board presiding over the investigations to our disadvantage. That is exactly the answer the right honourable Gentleman has given. What we previously understood was that everything raised in the standard year was to be taken into account. Now the confession is made that, if a union starts with a debit balance of £5,000, the Local Government Board will have the right to inquire into it, and if it finds that the year is above the normal by reason of the union having to erect a hospital, or having paid off some bill incurred through litigation, or something of that kind, to have the right to strike these items out of the account. That is a stupendous revelation, because I understood that what the Government said 1568 was: "We have not taken the year 1897–98, because, after the announcement of the First Lord of the Treasury, the guardians would at once commence to strike a higher rate in order to diddle the British Government." Now the suggestion of the Government is that although a rate is struck in 1896–97 in the normal and natural manner, having regard to the requirements of the union at a given moment, it is open to investigation. That is the circular we have heard read. Let us have one of two things. Are you to give us the whole of the rates raised in Ireland in 1896–97, or are you not? That is a plain question. It is open to a plain answer. Otherwise the rates will be jerrymandered as against the unions. That is the plain construction of the statement just read. It is no answer to me to say that this circular was issued for English Unions. In England the valuation on land and buildings may vary from year to year. We have a uniform valuation. One of the explanations of the defeat of the Unionist candidate at South Norfolk was that he took the rates off land and put them on buildings. Such a condition of affairs is impossible in Ireland, and accordingly it is most essential that we should insist on getting the benefit of the entire sum raised in 1896–97. The answer given us is that we get the advantage in cases such as Mill-street, but for every union in Ireland that started the standard year with a credit balance a hundred unions started with debit balances. Accordingly it is the essence of our case that the standard year shall not be subject to variation or jerrymandering. You selected it yourselves as being of advantage to us. The Government said: "Take the standard year; it is fairer to Ireland. Rates are rising mechanically, and the last rate unaffected by political considerations will be the highest rate struck." We thought we were on velvet, and we thought it was the fairest thing to take the last rate raised, which was unaffected by the statement of the first Lord of the Treasury. Now we are not to get it at all. The Government are to pick and choose, and in all cases the Treasury is to have the right to preside over the inquiries, and say what is to be struck 1569 out. Here are the opening words of the clause— Subject to the provisions hereinafter contained in respect to excluded charges, the Local Government Board, on the report of the Commissioner of Valuation, shall, as soon as may be after the passing of this Act, certify. And again— The sum payable to each county out of the agricultural grant shall be equal to half the amounts so certified. And further— For the purpose of certificates under this section the Local Government Board, on the report of the Commissioner of Valuation, shall determine in the prescribed manner the adjustments which are to be made in consequence of any difference. And finally— The Local Government Board, on the report of the Commissioner of Valuation, may in the case of error amend. Now, Sir, all this really means that Mr. Holmes, the Treasury Remembrancer in Dublin, will be strolling round to the Local Government Board every afternoon to see what union accounts have been made up. He will find that a particular union in the county of Cork has built an additional wing to a hospital. "Oh," says Mr. Holmes, "that is not fair to the British Treasury; out it goes." Then he may find in another union something in respect to another charge. They may have got in a water supply, and he will act in the same way. We will be delivered over to the enemies of Ireland, who will preside over the settlement of the account between the two nations without anyone representing Ireland being present to see fair play. That is the substance of this sub-section. Do not tell me that English Members could be in this position. The Government depends on the votes of English Members, and if they had a complaint they would only go to the Local Government Board and say, "Our votes keep the Government in office." What chance has Ireland of getting fair play? We are always in a minority in this House, and we never can bring pressure to bear on the Government, and therefore. I say that the substitution now made instead of the standard year—the picking and choosing of the Government— 1570 will spread alarm and dismay among the unions of Ireland.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir M. HICKS-BEACH,) Bristol, W.
I can assure the honourable and learned Member that there is really no ground whatever for his suspicion that Ireland will suffer at the hands of the Treasury in this matter. The Treasury did not interfere in the smallest degree in England between the Local Government Board and the various spending authorities concerned as to the manner in which the amount of the grant in each case should be settled, and the Treasury will take precisely the same course now in regard to Ireland. It will be a matter left to the Local Government Board on the one side and the spending authorities on the other. There is really no ground for this suspicion, that the action of the Treasury will be in any way unfavourable to Ireland. For what happened in England? These accounts were sent in, and considered by the Local Government Board, according to the terms of the memorandum read by my right honourable Friend. There was a correspondence in many cases between the Local Government Board and the officials of the various spending authorities as to what should be allowed and what should not be allowed. Not in one single case did the local authorities question the eventual decision of the Local Government Board, and all was settled in the end in a reasonable time without the smallest friction on either side. And why? Because, as the honourable Member for Cork has seen, after listening to the memorandum, justice was always done. In some cases more was allowed than had been actually received from rates, and in other cases less was allowed. Does the honourable and learned Member really think that a local authority in England is less anxious to get a sufficient Treasury grant for their own purposes than a local authority is in Ireland? I can assure him that if the local authorities in England thought they were not fairly treated they would be the first to complain, and raise their voices through their representatives in this House. Precisely the same opportunity remains in regard to 1571 the local authorities in Ireland, and precisely the same course is to be taken by the Government, and that is the only possible course.

§ MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL
Mr. Lowther, I think the Committee, before deciding upon this sub-section, ought to have from the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary some clear statement of what the precise effect of the section is as it stands. For my part, I think it is impossible to try and understand this very long and this very complicated Act or Bill that we are dealing with, and I want to deal with the section apart altogether from the English Bill. We are now legislating for Ireland, and, though the ground of that legislation may be to assimilate the English and the Irish law, what we are dealing with is a Measure which is to pronounce what the Irish law is. Now, I confess that I thought I understood, until I heard this Debate and heard the arguments raised, the meaning of the standard year, and I am quite sure that many right honourable Gentlemen and honourable Gentlemen who have listened to the Debate thought it meant this: if in any given county not overlapping another county consisting of a certain number of electors between 1896 and 1897—that is the standard year—a certain sum was raised in the whole of that county for the purposes of the poor rate and county cess, that was to be the standard basis on which a certain sum of this agricultural grant was to be awarded to that county. As I understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary, the Local Government Board have by some rule, or otherwise, the power to modify that. Now, the section we are dealing with does not contemplate the Local Government Board giving any certificate with regard to sub-section 2. The certificate of the Local Government Board is confined to subjection 1, clause 35, because it says— Subject to the provisions hereinafter contained, with respect to excluded charges, the Local Government Board, on the report of the Commissioner of Valuation, shall, as soon as may be after the passing of this Act, certify as respects the standard financial report. 1572 Now we come to sub-section 2. There is nothing here about the certificate of the Local Government Board at all. It runs thus— In estimating the sums to be taken for the purpose of this Act, as having been raised in any county, or district, or union, or in estimating the standard rate, all sums raised to meet expenses which, if this Act had been in force in the standard financial year, would have been raised equally over the whole country, or district, or union, shall be treated as having been so raised. What does this mean? If in, say, the county of Cork, several thousand pounds were raised for the county rate—the poor rate and the county cess—in the standard year, is that to be the estimate—I am leaving out of sight altogether the excluded charges, because we are not dealing with them here—is that to be the measure of what is to be granted out of the agricultural grant for that particular county? That seems to me to be the meaning of this particular section. If that is so, I do not know what is to become of the argument of the right honourable Gentleman in which he referred to the rules of the Local Government Board. And now, as I understand it, it is suggested that if a union is in debt at that date, before the commencement of the standard year, and if the poor rate is raised for the purpose of paying off that debt, that is not to be taken into account in estimating the sum to be allocated to a particular county. I certainly think that the Committee are entitled to a clear explanation of what is the meaning of this subsection, and not leave the matter, when it afterwards becomes law, to be a burning question, dragging people in Ireland from the various courts of justice to the House of Lords. Let us clearly understand now what it is that the right honourable Gentleman wishes the Committee to pass.

§ MR. GERALD BALFOUR
I think the right honourable Gentleman has omitted to notice, or to take into account, clauses 29, 30, and 31, which deal with the expenses to be distributed over the union. With regard to the other point raised in the vast majority of cases, the exact figures are given by 1573 the Commissioner of Valuation with regard to the raising of the rates in the standard year. It is only in cases of exceptional circumstances to be taken into consideration on the one hand, so as to raise the amount received, and in another case, possibly, to diminish it. I imagine that in 19 cases out of 20 the amount fixed will not be altered. Really, I do not think that there is anything to justify the fears of honourable Gentlemen upon these points.

§ MR. CLANCY (Dublin Co., N.)
I merely wish to ask the question of the right honourable Gentleman, whether the language of the English Act under which the Local Government Board propose to make this valuation is the same as that in this Bill, because I think that that is really an important point? May I also suggest that the regulations which the right honourable Gentleman proposed to issue might be laid on the Table?

§ MR. GERALD BALFOUR
I will do that.

§ MR. CLANCY
Is there anything in the English Act analogous to this? Is the language of the Bill the same?

§ MR. ATKINSON
It is practically the same, but it is not word for word.

§ MR. T. M. HEALY
After the assurance that has been given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the right honourable Gentleman the Chief Secretary, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

§ MR. FLYNN
I do not think that this Amendment would place the Local Government in any difficult position whatever. The honourable and learned Gentleman has referred to the Mill-street Union, which is in my constituency, or, at least, the larger portion of it. I will not go over the same ground again, but let me give to the Committee the amount of the rates a few years prior to this particular year in the Mill-street Union. I have got the returns, and here they are, and they vary very much. Now, the poor rate in this union for 1890–91 was 3s. 5d. in the £; in 1894–95 it was 3s. 4d.; in 1895–96 1574 2s. 2d.; but owing to the action of the Local Government Board the rate in 1896–97, the standard year, was only 1s. 5d. in the £, as compared with 3s. 5d. seven years previously. There is a case, surely, in which the Government should not be unreasonable. Even supposing they adopt the words of the Order in Council as regards the English Bill, they should have the option of dealing with a union like this. The right honourable Gentleman will remember that he read only the first portion of the Order in Council—

§ MR. GERALD BALFOUR
I have explained in general terms what I read out to-day in the general discussion that took place on the standard year. I really think that it is not legitimate that imputations of that kind should be made.

§ MR. FLYNN
Then I withdraw the imputation. Most Members, I think, however, are not aware of the proposals in the latter portion of the Order in Council, and the right honourable Gentleman will perceive the apprehension with which we regard these particular cases, because of the manner in which the Local Government Board will deal under this clause with a union like the one I represent, where the disproportion of rating is so great. As the representative of that union, I thought it was my duty to bring the matter forward.

§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon)
My honourable Friend the Member for Louth has presupposed a case starting with a surplus. Might I be allowed to suggest another case, that of a union which starts without a surplus, but with a debt in which its expenditure exceeds its estimate? This is a very usual case, not only in Ireland, but in this country as well. I should like the right honourable Gentleman's interpretation of the word "raised" in that case. Would it be raised by rates? If not, that would not be the current expenditure of the year. I will take £10,000 as the estimated expenditure. Now, owing to no exceptional circumstances, but owing to the fact that they have under-estimated certain small items in different parishes, the expenditure reaches £11,000. What 1575 they do in those cases is this: they do not issue a supplementary rate, but they overdraw their account, and then the next year, when they have another rate to levy, they meet that extra expenditure. I want to know in that case what will be the sum raised within the meaning of this section. Will it be exactly the same as the estimated, or as the actual expenditure?

§ MR. MAURICE HEALY
In consequence of the pledge given that the whole question of the agricultural land in urban areas will be reconsidered, I do not propose to go further into that question, but I wish to point out one thing which is, perhaps, not relevant to this particular Amendment. I allude to the absurdity to which the system of the Government leads us, as illustrated by the final words of this clause. Take the instance of the city of Cork. Suppose, within the next five years, the city of Cork extends its boundaries and takes in certain agricultural land. Until that agricultural land became included within the city of Cork the grant was paid in respect of it. The moment the land becomes included in the city of Cork the grant continues to be paid; but how is it paid? Half of it is paid into the local taxation account, and the other half, Mr. Lowther, does not go to the county to which the agricultural land has been newly added, but goes to the benefit of the county from which the agricultural land has been taken away. I think the right honourable Gentleman will see that that is a great absurdity to follow in the framing of his Bill in dealing with agricultural land in urban areas. Of course, it can only arise where there is a change of county. The moment these urban areas extend their boundaries and take in agricultural land, the absurdity which I have pointed out will continue, that the portion of the agricultural grant applicable to county charges in respect of agricultural land taken into the county borough remains payable to the county from which the land is taken away. That, I think, is a great absurdity, and I hope the right honourable Gentleman will bear this in mind when he comes to consider the whole question of agricultural land within urban areas.

§ MR. GERALD BALFOUR
I will consider those questions.

§ MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL
The point of my Amendment is quite independent of the 12 months, and it is to strike out the whole of the sub-section upon a different ground altogether. The 12 months was only in case of section 28 being put into operation within 12 months, but now it stands— Where, by virtue of any order respecting the constitution of an urban district, any agricultural land in a rural district becomes included within the boundaries of that urban district. Then it goes on to provide what is to be done with the—

THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS
It has just been decided to insert the words, "where by virtue of any" in this clause, and, therefore, we cannot go back upon that.

§ MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL
My Amendment does not question the section as amended. The point of my Amendment is equally good, whether the clause is as it originally was or as it is now amended, because the point of my objection is this: it reads now— Where, by virtue of any order respecting the constitution of an urban district, any agricultural land in a rural district becomes included within the boundaries of that urban district, the sum payable out of the agricultural grant in respect of union and district charges raised over such rural district shall be reduced by a sum proportionate to the rateable value in the standard financial year of that agricultural land, and the amount of such reduction shall be accumulated in the Local Taxation (Ireland) Account, and be applied in such manner as Parliament directs; but the amount of agricultural grant payable to the council of the county in respect of county-at-large charges shall not be diminished. My objection stands good to the sub-section which I have just read as amended, just as it did to the original.

THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS
The right honourable Gentleman has permitted the insertion of the words, "where by virtue of any," and they now form part of the sub-section. Therefore, he cannot now move to omit those words. The Committee have just decided to insert those words, and, therefore, he cannot go back upon that. If the right honourable Gentleman has any other Amendment to move he is entitled to move it.

§ MR. SERJEANT HEMPHILL
Am I now at liberty to move that the sub-section as it stands be struck out?

THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS
No, for the Committee have just decided to retain it. They have decided what the words shall be. The question now is— That clause 35 as amended stand part of the Bill.

§ MR. JOHN DILLON
I want to make a few suggestions to the right honourable Gentleman. With reference to the Return showing the sums estimated to have been raised in the standard year, I think that in that Return, wherever the Local Government Board departs from the sum actually raised, there should be a short memorandum stating the grounds of it. I think it will be only fair that the boards of guardians should know that, and there should be some brief explanation of the grounds on which they have departed from the ordinary course. In connection with this, the right honourable Gentleman said that in nine cases out of ten the sum estimated to be raised will be the sum actually raised, and it will only be in exceptional cases that a departure will be made, but I think there should be a short memorandum of the difference. That is one of the suggestions I have to make. My other suggestion is this: there are certain unions—of course, I am more particularly interested in the west of Ireland—in which the circumstances may be entirely different. Take the case of a union with a debt. They may be gradually working off this debt, and if they strike a higher rate in this particular year for the express purpose of work- 1578 ing off this debt, I do not think it would be fair to take that as the estimated expenditure. I think the right honourable Gentleman ought to take into consideration all these circumstances.

§ MR. GERALD BALFOUR
I may remind the honourable Member that the circumstances he has mentioned will be taken into consideration.