LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND.) BILL. (Hansard, 14 August 1901)

§ MR. TULLY (Leitrim, S.)
said he had a small Amendment to move, which he hoped the Chief Secretary would accept. It was to omit in line 16 "one farthing" in order to insert "an eighth of a 1d." Where small sums had to be levied, it was very inconvenient that no rate less than a farthing could be levied. In his own constituency £50 had to be raised in order to pay £3, and the balance of the money had been hung up ever since. He thought an eighth of a 1d. would meet the necessities of many cases.

§ MR. CLANCY (Dublin County, N.)
said he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not accept the Amendment. Its effect would be to increase the expense of collection, and it would be impossible to collect the rate at all in many parts of Ireland.

§ MR. WYNDHAM
said that he believed the clause met with universal acceptance and hoped the hon. Member would not insist on his Amendment.

§ MR. TULLY
moved to strike out "one year" in order to substitute "five years." He thought it was reasonable that the option should extend over a period of five years. If small bodies had a longer period in which to decide, the clause might be used more extensively. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would accept the Amendment, as it would give increased opportunities to local bodies to take advantage of the benefit of the section.

§ MR. T. M. HEALY
said that the clause was a very curious instance of the effect of the flight of time. Two years ago the Government strongly opposed a similar proposal which he himself had moved. Now, two years later, they proposed it themselves.

§ MR. WYNDHAM
said that on the general ground he had mentioned he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not persist in his Amendment. The Bill as it stood had been generally accepted.

§ MR. CLANCY
said he desired to repeat one or two observations which he had made on the Local Government Vote the other night, which the right hon. Gentleman heard, but did not answer at the time. The County Council of Dublin were entirely opposed to the clause, and for his part he sympathised with them. He had no desire to obstruct the passage of the Bill, but he desired to put before the right hon. Gentleman the views of the county council. There were nine urban districts in the county of Dublin, and therefore the matter was of the very gravest importance. Those urban districts, when they became urban sanitary districts, made certain bargains with the county of Dublin. They kept those bargains as long as ever the grand jury lasted, but the moment the grand jury was abolished and the county council substituted they wanted to break through their bargains. Where a township was created more than fifteen years ago he entirely agreed that it should have the right to revise its arrangements, but a township created less than fifteen years ago ought not to be allowed to break the bargain it deliberately made. If the right hon. Gentleman would give him an assurance that the Local Government Board would not do what they stated they intended to do, namely, make the order without local inquiry, he would not persist in the motion which he intended to make, namely, that a clause be omitted. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman that under Clause 71 of the Local Government 837 Act the Local Government Board was authorised to make a readjustment of the financial relations existing between townships and the county council, but only after a public inquiry had been held. No public inquiry had been held in the case of Dublin, and if the right hon. Gentleman would give him an assurance that it would be held before the order was made he would not proceed.

§ MR. WYNDHAM
said his information was that the clause was generally acceptable throughout Ireland. He understood that the right hon. Gentleman asked him for an undertaking that the Local Government Board should hold an inquiry, presumably only when an inquiry was asked for by one or other of the parties. He was quite willing to give that undertaking, and certainly thought that an inquiry ought to be held.