§ MR. JOHN O'CONNOR (Kildare, N.)I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to the fact that a letter has been received by the secretary of the Kildare County Council informing him that, owing to the loss on the land stock for the purchase of farms in the county of Kildare, the whole of the Probate Duty Grant, and a sum of £5,507 4s.6d. from the Agricultural Grant, making a total of £8,464 12s. 9d., has been withheld from the county; whether he is aware that the rate for the current year, for county council purposes, was struck before this intimation was received; whether he is aware that this stoppage of £8,464 12s. 9d. means an increase of 1s. 6d. in the pound upon the rates of the county; why it was that two years' loss was allowed to accrue before any intimation was made to the council; will the council now be compelled to go to the labour and expense of striking a new rate and preparing fresh rate books and demand notes because of this delay on the part of the Treasury; and will he explain how these arrears have arisen, in view of the repeated assurances given to this House that there were little or no arrears as to the payment of purchase annuities, or are the Treasury charging to county finances in Ireland liabilities arising out of discount of Irish land stock, which discount was specifically intended and declared to be provided for from other sources.
§ MR. M'HUGH (Sligo, N.)I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state, for the year ended 31st March 1907, the total amount of deductions made from grants to county councils in Ireland in recoupment of losses incurred by the Irish Land Commission under the Irish Land Acts of 1891 and 1903; is he aware that inconvenience is likely to result from the failure of the Local Government Board to furnish particulars of proposed stoppages before the preparation of rate estimates for the ensuing year; and will he direct the Local Government Board for Ireland to furnish 620 county councils with such information as will enable them to check their accounts, and make provision for possible stoppages in future.
§ MR. J. P. FARRELL (Longford, N.)I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutentant of Ireland whether he is aware that a letter has been received by the secretary of the County Council of Longford, informing him that, owing to the loss on land stock for the purchase of farms in county Longford, a sum of £1,200 was stopped out of the half-yearly Estate Duty and agricultural grants to the county; whether he is aware that the rate for the current year for county council purposes in county Longford was struck before this intimation was made, and the applotment of the rate, including the writing up of the rate books and filling of demand notes, is now practically done; whether he is aware that the stoppage of this £1,200 means an increase of 4d. in the pound upon the rates of the county; why it was that two years' loss was allowed to accrue before any intimation was made to the council; and will the council now be compelled to go to the labour and expense of striking a new rate and preparing fresh rate books and demand notes because of this delay on the part of the Treasury.
§ MR. BIRRELLThe deductions in respect of land purchase which were made from the grants paid last month to county councils in Ireland amounted to £73,218. These deductions were made by the Local Government Board in pursuance of certificates, under Treasury regulations, from the National Debt Commissioners and the Irish Land Commission. The total of £73,218 comprises £60,144 in respect of the present year, and £13,074in respect of last year. By a clerical oversight in the Chief Secretary's Office, which is regretted, the certificates for last year were not forwarded to the Local Government Board in time for the deductions to be made from last year's payments, and hence have had to be included this year. It will be seen however, that the amount for last year is little more than one sixth of the total, and the situation, therefore, is not seriously affected by the omission. The amounts deducted in the ease of Kildare and Longford were £8,464 and £1,465 621 respectively, and these are equivalent to rates of about 6d. and 2¼d in the pound respectively. As to how the deficiencies certified by the National Debt Commissioners arose, I must refer hon. Members to the Secretary to the Treasury. I understand that only a comparatively small portion of the deficiency arises from arrears in the payment of tenant-purchasers' annuities, and that no permanent loss on this head need be anticipated, seeing that the counties are credited with the amounts deducted when the arrears have been paid. Such arrears, I understand, are invariably paid. For instance, more than one-half of the arrears which existed on 1st February in respect of annuities due on 1st December last have already been received and paid over to the National Debt Commissioners. It is a matter for regret that inconvenience should be caused to county councils which had already struck their rates in the expectation that grants of the usual amount would be received. The question whether it may be necessary to strike a fresh rate in any given county is one for the council to determine. In deciding that question it is desirable that the council should bear in mind the possibility of a further deduction to be made next year, in which case a very heavy rate might be necessary, if the present year's burden is not borne at once. I have represented to the Treasury the desirability of considering whether some amendment of the regulations or other change may not be devised so as to make it possible to give notice to the county councils of the deductions before the time for striking their rate arrives.
§ MR. JOHN REDMONDCan the right hon. Gentleman say what proportion of the £73,000 is for arrears on the payment of the annuities?
§ MR. BIRRELLWell, I cannot say, but it is a very small portion indeed.
§ MR. JOHN REDMONDI would like Mr. Speaker, with your permission, to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can give the Answer which the right hon. Gentleman says he is not in a position to give, as to how this enormous deduction from the grants to local authorities has arisen in connection with the Act of 1903.
§ MR. RUNCIMANI am afraid I cannot on the spur of the moment. If the hon. Gentleman will put down a Question I will see.
§ MR. JOHN O'CONNORI desire to know whether the Chief Secretary is aware that the instalment due by county Kildare in respect of land purchase amounts to only a few hundred pounds; and how, therefore, does it come to pass that there are deductions from the allowance due to the county of £8,000. I should also like to know whether the Irish Development Grant, which is earmarked in the first instance, is still in existence or is it entirely exhausted?
§ MR. BIRRELLThe reason why Kildare has to bear this large sum is that under the Act the counties have to bear in proportion to the amount of land purchased and transferred, and the Duke of Leinster's property being in that county is the reason why it has to bear so much. It is done in proportion to the amount of transactions in the respective counties. If a county had no land purchase it would not be called upon in this way. As to the amount of the Development Grant, it is not yet completely exhausted, but I think you will find that under the provision of the Statute the obligation is placed upon the counties in the manner complained of. But when the Treasury conies to look into it you will find fresh regulations will be made to obviate anything of the kind.
§ MR. JOHN REDMONDI wish just to add one more sentence, for the matter is one of enormous importance—the deduction of £73,000 from this grant. I wish to ask the Treasury whether—inasmuch as we are told that this does not arise from non-payment by the tenants—it is not the flotation of stock, and is it not provided by the Act of Parliament that that loss is to be met by the Development Grant and otherwise, and whether those provisions of the Statute have been, as a master of fact, over-ridden by some regulation of the Treasury of which we hear to-day for the first time?
§ MR. BIRRELLMy hon. friend (Mr. Runciman) knows that the loss did not arise from the flotation of stock.
§ MR. JOHN REDMONDNo; but the right hon. Gentleman knows what the cause is, and he is such a frank man that I am sure he will tell me.
§ MR. BIRRELLI only know in part, and I certainly will not take the responsibility of appearing for the Treasury in this matter.
§ MR. LONSDALEasked how much of the Development Grant had been utilised in connection with the working of the Act.
§ [No Answer was returned.]
§ MR. JOHN O'CONNORIs it possible to put a stay upon the present quarter until the arrangements have been altered, and can the hon. Gentleman say, when these have been made, will they have a retrospective effect?
§ MR. RUNCIMANIt is quite impossible without notice to give an Answer to a highly technical Question. I can assure the hon. Member that the matter will have the fullest consideration, and that there will be no intention to withhold any part of the information.