§ 5. Mr. AUGUSTINE ROCHEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether the members of the Dundalk Urban Council have been threatened with a surcharge of £63, the fees due to Mr. Hughes, poor-rate collector, and for the payment of which he got a judgment of the High Court of Justice in Ireland; whether Mr. Hughes was appointed under the old rules governing collection of rates; whether, when the new order was issued in 1906, Mr. Hughes was exempted from its operation and the collection each year was satisfactory; and will he say on what grounds they now wish to enforce the order which they waived in 1906?
§ Mr. BIRRELLThe members of the Dunkalk Urban Council have been surcharged a sum of £63 by the auditor, 379 which surcharge has been upheld by the Local Government Board. This sum represents poundage in connection with the collection of Mr. Hughes, poor rate collector in the urban district, who issued a civil bill against the council, which the latter body did not oppose but allowed to go by default, although they had from time to time been warned by the Board that Mr. Hughes was not entitled to any poundage fees in the event of his failing to lodge the full amount of his warrant each half-year. As the council did not appear against the civil bill, the judge gave the necessary decree for the amount claimed, £63. Mr. Hughes was appointed poor rate collector towards the end of 1899, and in 1905 was granted the usual exemptions from the Public Bodies Order, 1904. His collection, far from being satisfactory, as stated in the question, has for a number of years been most unsatisfactory, and eventually in May, 1911, the Board withdrew the exemptions which had been granted to him. This is not an isolated instance of exemptions being withdrawn in the case of poor rate collectors, as for some years past the Board found that in the interests of the ratepayers these exemptions should not be allowed to continue, and where the collections were unsatisfactory the Board withdrew them forthwith.