§ MR. D. KILBRIDE (Galway, N.)
I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what is the amount of the advances made by the Commissioners of Public Works (Ireland) to the River Suck Drainage Board prior to the passing of The River Suck Drainage Act, 1886, and the amount of the advances made between that date and the passing of the River Suck Drainage Act, 1889?
§ MR. KILBRIDE
I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury (1) what is the total amount of the loans made by the Commissioners of Public Works, Ireland, to the River Suck Drainage Board; (2) on what terms as to repayment was the money advanced; (3) what sum was given by way of free grant to the Board: (4) what was the total value of the lands situated within the improvement area prior to the commencement of drainage works; (5) what is the addition to said total value resulting from the execution of the drainage works; (6) what are the amounts payable annually by the occupiers and proprietors respectively; (7) and on what basis has the apportionment as between occupiers and proprietors been made?
§ MR. HANBURY
The total amount advanced has been £122,802 9s. 8d., of which sum there is chargeable on the County Cess £1,815 for bridges (already repaid) and £13,000 under the Act of 1889. The terms or repayment are by annuity of £4 10s. per cent, (covering principal and interest) for forty years, as laid down by the Acts of 1889 and 1890. The amount of the free grant is £50,000. The original value of the 16,500 acres improved, as put forward by the promoters of the drainage scheme in 1877 and revised by the Inspector who held 1602 the Inquiry under the Drainage Acts, was £6,176 14s. per annum. The additional value resulting from the works is £3,013 12s. 2d. per annum. The annual charge is £3,013 12s. 2d. on the occupiers, and £3,139 15s. 8d. on the proprietors. The hon. Member will see that the charge on the occupiers represents the actual improvement to the lands. The charge on the proprietors represents the sum which will repay in forty years the balance of the advances, i.e., the unremunerative expenditure, including interest during construction, but excluding of course the amounts chargeable on the County Cess.
§ MR. KILBRIDE
asked whether the £3,189 now charged to the owner meant that the occupier got no corresponding advantage whatever for it?