§ MR. O'SHEE (Waterford, W.)I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that on the evidence of the promoters of the Cork City Railways and Works Bill a local contribution of £50,000 is not forthcoming either from private persons or by way of guarantee from public bodies towards the construction of the proposed line for connecting the railways in Cork City; whether the Treasury, in view of this fact, and of the undischarged parliamentary obligations of the Great Western and the Great Southern and Western Railway Companies under the Fishguard and 1142 Rosslare Act of 1898, will strictly adhere to the conditions laid down last session, and re-affirmed by them this session, and decline to make any grant of public money, unless £50,000 is found locally, in connection with this Bill; whether the Great Western Railway Company now appears as the principal promoter of this Bill, and has agreed to find part of the £98,000, the estimated cost of construction, and to undertake the management of the proposed new line; whether, as the construction of this line was one of the obligations undertaken by the two companies mentioned in 1898, and that no question of a grant of public money towards the same was then raised by them, their obligation to construct such line with the co-operation and consent of the local bodies and the existing railways in Cork City still remains undischarged; and whether, as they have at length obtained such co-operation and consent in support of the scheme in this Bill, they are now bound to give effect to it without the help of public funds.
§ THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. MCKENNA, Monmouthshire, N.)It is true that one of the conditions on which the Treasury were prepared to invite Parliament to contribute £60,000 last session towards a scheme for connecting the railways at Cork by a bridge over the River Lee was that a sum of £50,000 should be forthcoming locally, and that this condition has been reaffirmed during the present session. The local support was not forthcoming and the pledge therefore has lapsed. The scheme last year was calculated to cost £180,000, but this year there is a scheme for building the bridge, which is now under consideration in Committee, involving an expenditure of about £100,000, towards which local contributions to the extent of £25,000 are proposed. Should this scheme be reported by the Committee to be in the best interests of the economic development of the South and South West of Ireland, the Treasury are prepared, subject to the local contributions of £25,000 being obtained and to certain other conditions, to invite Parliament to contribute the sum of £25,000. I believe the Great Western Railway Company are supporting this Bill, but this fact has had nothing to do with the Treasury decision which has been taken 1143 solely with a view to encouraging the development of the South and South West of Ireland. Had either of the other two Bills which have been before the House this Session obtained the sanction of the Committee rather than the Bill which the Great Western Railway is supporting, the Treasury would have considered the claims of those Bills in the same way.
MR. POWERIs it because the Great Western Railway fail to carry out their solemn obligation to the House that they are now to be given this £25,000?
§ MR. MCKENNAThe solemn obligation of the Great Western Railway was to use their best endeavours to obtain the consent and co-operation of the Cork Commissioners for certain work. They have obtained the assent of the Cork Commissioners and they now propose to carry out by this Bill the project to which the hon. Gentleman refers. The co-operation of the Commissioners would not have been given but for the fact of Treasury assistance, and that is the ground of our Act.
MR. POWERSurely the hon. Gentleman does not maintain that the company are carrying out their obligations.
§ MR. MCKENNAIf the hon. Gentleman will refer to Section 12 of their Act he will find out the promise to have been exactly as I stated.
§ MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN (Kilkenny)I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the Parliamentary obligations accepted by the great Western and Great Southern and Western Railway Companies in 1898, and of the action of Parliament in reference to the matter in July 1901†, and the decision of a Committee of the House with regard to a similar Bill last session, he will decline to allow a grant of public money for the project in the Cork City Railways and Works Bill which those companies undertook to carry out without such grant; whether he is aware that both these companies are supporting this Bill in the expectation of a grant of public money, while they continue in default as to their obligation to build the Cork and Fermoy
†See (4) Debates, xcvii., 856.1144 direct line, towards which they were to have obtained a grant of £93,000; and whether there is any precedent for making a grant of public money to assist four railway companies to connect their systems for their own benefit.
§ MR. MCKENNAThe proposed grant towards the scheme for a connection between the Railways of Cork does not relieve the companies from their obligation to construct the Cork to Fermoy line. The grant is not made to assist the railway companies to connect their system for their own benefit, but in order to secure the carrying out of a scheme in the general interests of railway communication in the South of Ireland, which there was reason to believe could not be carried out without Government assistance.
MR. POWERMay I ask the hon. Gentleman in connection with this Question whether on July 19th, 1901‡, the then Prime Minister said that the Treasury had not the power, nor if they had would they exercise it, to sanction any escape from the Parliamentary obligations which had been entered into.
§ MR. MCKENNAYes, Sir, the Treasury was then bound up to 1903 for the building of the Fermoy line, but the power to build the line expired in 1905, and when that power did expire the Treasury were no longer under any obligation to allot the £92,000 for that purpose.