§ Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked whether Section 4 of the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909, is being construed as meaning that no application for a grant out of the Development Fund by persons other than a Government Department can be favourably entertained by the Commissioners in the absence of a recommendation in its favour by the Government Department concerned; or whether it is open to the Commissioners to approve an application and make a grant in the face of an adverse report from such Department?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEThe answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; but in connection with the second part the hon. Member should bear in mind that the final decision as to whether an 18 advance shall be made rests not with the Development Commissioners but with the Treasury.
§ Mr. C. BATHURSTMay I ask whether that involves that all applications for grants out of the Development Fund are at the mercy of a Government Department?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEAll grants are at the mercy of Government Departments, subject to the control of the Treasury.
§ Mr. C. BATHURSTIs it not a fact that the Treasury makes the grant, and that it is subject only to the consent of some Government Department?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEThe Treasury exercise discretion whether or not a grant is deserved.
Mr. MONTAGUE BARLOWasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the Lancashire and Western, the Southern, the Eastern, the Northumberland, and the North-Eastern District. Fishery Committee, and the Wear Fishery Board have passed resolutions expressing disapproval of the advisory committee on fishery questions recently appointed by the Development Commissioners; and, if so, whether he proposes to take any, and what, steps to appoint a separate advisory committee which shall be representative of English and Welsh fishery interests?
§ Mr. NORMAN CRAIGasked whether protests against the constitution of the advisory committee for fishery purposes appointed by the Development Commissioners have been received by the Treasury from representatives of the following bodies, or any of them: Cumberland Sea Fisheries Committee, Lancashire and Western Sea Fisheries Joint Committee, Howey Fishery District Committee, Avon and Erme Fishery Board (Devon), Southern Sea Fisheries District Committee, North Eastern Sea Fisheries District Committee, Yorkshire Fishery Board, Board of Conservators for the Wear Fishery District, Kent and Essex District Fisheries Committee; and, if so, whether any action has been taken upon them?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEI have nothing to add to the reply made to the hon. Member for St. Austell's on the 5th instant.
§ Mr. YERBURGHasked whether, under the provisions of the Development and. Road Improvement Act, reports of the Development Commissioners upon applications referred to them by Government 19 departments have to be laid before any other Government department than the Treasury; whether the sanction of the Treasury is required before any grant can be made by the Development Commissioners; and whether the Treasury can veto any grant proposed by the Development Commissioners?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEThe answer to the first question is in the negative. The Development Commission do not make advances from the Development Fund: they recommend the Treasury to do so. The Treasury have power to withhold their assent to advances recommended by the Development Commission.
§ Mr. YERBURGHAm I to understand that the Development Commissioners are no more than an advisory body to the Treasury for the purposes of the Act?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSECertainly not. It would be with very considerable hesitation I think that the Treasury would dissent from the recommendations of the Commissioners unless circumstances necessitated it.