§ 55. Mr. BARNESasked the President of the Board of Agriculture if vouchers or other proof of expenditure said to have been incurred by the Dorset County Council for adaptations on the Winterbourne Zelstone estate have been submitted to his Department or to any public authority other than the said county council; if such vouchers or proofs have been submitted to the small holders who have been called upon to pay for such adaptations; and will he say whether the Board of Agriculture ordered the production to the small holders of such vouchers or proofs, and, if so, why this has not been done?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANA county council is not required to submit to the Board vouchers for their expenditure, and the Board have not asked to inspect the vouchers in the case of the work done at Winterbourne Zelstone. The vouchers have been submitted to the Local Government Board auditor, who has just completed the audit for the year ended 31st March, 1912. The Board have not ordered the production of the vouchers to the small holders, but I may point out that public notice of the audit is given in the Press, together 1886 with an announcement that the vouchers, etc., are open to inspection by all persons interested for seven clear days before the audit.
§ Mr. BARNESHow are these small holders to have any proof that the money has actually been spent?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANThe proof is that the matter was before the Local Government Board auditor.
§ Mr. BARNESHow far have these small holders to go to find these things, out—that the money has been spent?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANBefore the audit the vouchers are open for the inspection of any ratepayer.
§ Mr. J. WEDGWOODHave the small holders to pay all this in increased rents?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANNot that I am aware of.
§ Mr. BARNESIs it a fact that £3,500 that has been spent in the cost of these applicatons is put on to the rents'?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANNo, not that I am aware of.