§ MR. J. G. BIGGAR (Cavan, W.)I beg to ask a question of the Secretary to the Treasury. The hon. Gentleman said I think, last night, that he expected a very substantial increase in the charges under the head of Tramways in Ireland. Now, the hon. Gentleman must be aware that the tendency is to decline. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has reduced the rate of interest for Consols from 3 to per cent, and it seems to me that if money is only worth 2¾ per cent it is rather extravagant that the ratepayers in baronies should have to guarantee a larger amount of interest on these undertakings. Cannot the hon. Gentleman see his way to lower this guarantee of interest of from 4 to 5 per cent and make it more in conformity with the present value of money? If he does not do so I fear there is some danger of the baronies repudiating their liability. I think some scheme of conversion should be arranged. When the Tramways Act was first passed by this House the Government proposition was that 4 per cent should be the amount of the guarantee, including the Government subvention, but an Amendment was moved by Captain O'Shea to raise the guarantee from 4 to 5 per cent in the interests, I have no doubt of friendly company promoters, who paid him a fee for his action, and the result was that the unfortunate ratepayers in these baronies now pay 3 per cent, whereas they would only have been called upon 446 to pay 2 per cent for these guaranteed railways if the Bill had been passed in its original form. There is another matter to which I should like to call the attention of the hon. Gentleman, and that is in regard to Foynes Pier, in the county of Kerry. On a recent occasion he explained that he had no responsibility as to whether or not the money granted for this undertaking was misspent: all he had to do was to see that the Treasury got proper security for it. That may be so from a strictly legal point of view, but as it is the ratepayers' money which is lent for these works there should be some supervision over the expenditure of it. Government money may be foolishly or badly laid out if there is no supervision, and then there may be no return to the ratepayers. I see in this Estimate there is a sum of £3,500 for the Ulster Canal. What is the position of this canal at present? Is this £3,500 a final gift? Do the Government intend, and have they undertaken, to lend any sum for this canal? If any has been lent how has it been expended? If the hon. Gentleman will answer these questions I shall be very well satisfied. I hope he will be able to say he will save the interest of the taxpayers and protect the guarantors of railways in various districts.
§ *MR. W. L. JACKSONSpeaking for myself, I cannot hold out any hope of the adoption of a scheme by which the rate of interest on guaranteed lines—lines guaranteed by certain baronies, can be reduced. I should like to point out that this is an obligation which has been deliberately entered into and which is legally binding, and there is no power on the part of the Government to alter or reduce the rate of interest. The hon. Member has hinted that, in his opinion, the taxes out of which these loans are guaranteed by the baronies will be repudiated. I am exceedingly sorry that he should give utterance to such a sentiment. I do not believe that these loans which have been so guaranteed will be repudiated either by the barony which guaranteed them or by the taxpayer; on the contrary, these railways are conferring considerable benefits on many districts, and I hope that before long many of them will be much nearer paying their working expenses than they are a present. I stated the 447 other night that some of the shares stood at a premium in the market. Of course, the amount of interest guaranteed is of importance to the barony, but I imagine that in the future, in consequence of the cheaper rate at which money can be obtained, no barony will give a guarantee in excess of 4 per cent. I have every reason to believe that the extension of these lines in Ireland will prove of great advantage to the districts intersected, and therefore to the taxpayers who are called upon to pay the burden. As to the question of Fenit pier and harbour, I pointed out the other night that the Board of Works in Dublin, who lend the money, only have authority to inquire as to the security offered them, and I think it should rest with the Pier and Harbour Commissioners who borrow the money, to investigate the expenditure and see that full value is obtained for it. I should strongly deprecate any interference on the part of the Government Department, except such as is necessarily part of its duty, and I am strongly in favour of local self-government in that sense. The hon. Member also asked about the Ulster Canal, and if the £3,500 is a final gift? Yes, Sir, it is a final gift, so far as I am able to say, and I have no reason to say that it is otherwise. It is the whole of the money which the Government has promised for the undertaking, and the most stringent conditions have been inserted to secure what the hon. Member very properly desires: that the money shall be spent on the improvement of the canal. The hon. Member also asked, whether the money which the Government undertook to lend has been lent. Sir, the Government has undertaken to lend no money. The hon. Member will recollect that I was called upon to give evidence before the Select Committee that inquired into this question, and I then stated that no promise had been made to lend money, but if a loan were made it would be on the merits of the security offered. I cannot pledge myself to say that under no circumstances will the Government make a loan supposing that the security offered was satisfactory. As a matter of fact, no application has yet been made for a loan, and the £3,500 is the total sum which the Government intend to give.
§ MR. M. J. KENNY (Tyrone, Mid)Sir, as a rule, these guarantees are equivalent to 5 per cent on the amount borrowed, but in some cases, where the amount is 4 per cent, the guarantee is in perpetuity; when it is 5 per cent it is sometimes only for a period of 35 years. As a matter of fact, in some of the cases the railways guaranteed cannot by any possibility pay for the next 25 or 30 years, and they never will be able to pay the full amount of interest charged on the loans. Now, my hon. Friend has said that, in his opinion, some of the baronies are so taxed that they may be induced to repudiate their debt. Of course, repudiation is a very strong measure, which cannot be successfully accomplished without a very great effort. If the barony had an opportunity of contracting itself out of the debt, repudiation would be a very improper measure, but they have not that opportunity. The baronies are not rated by the Grand Jury. The presentments come before the Barony Sessions, which are composed of persons nominated directly or indirectly by Dublin Castle, and in no sense represented the ratepayers. Under the circumstances, the ratepayers have every reason to protest against the attitude of the Treasury in not affording them any relief.
The Resolutions were agreed to