§ 47. Sir HILDRED CARLILEasked the Prime Minister whether the proceedings of the Development Fund Board can be discussed in this House; and, if so, what opportunity will be afforded?
§ 48. Mr. BRIDGEMANalso asked what opportunity the House will have of discussing the administration of the Road Board Fund?
§ The PRIME MINISTERAn opportunity will arise for discussing these matters when the Treasury Vote is taken.
§ 89. Mr. CLANCYasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether an application has been made by the Dublin County Council to the Road Board for a Grant to improve the road from Dublin to Garristown which serves an extensive district without any railway communication; whether that application has been refused without any reference to the Irish Advisory Committee appointed by the Board to advise as to the distribution of Grants for roads in Ireland; if so, why; and what purpose is served by the appointment of the Advisory Committee referred to if its advice is not even asked as to the merits of each case in which an application for a Grant is made to the Board?
§ The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Masterman)I understand that the Road Board have received a resolution passed by the Dublin County Council on 11th February urging the Board "to make a Grant-in-Aid for the restoration of the Dublin to Garristown road." The Board understand that the proposed improvement is to enable a local motor-bus service to be started between Oldtown and Garristown. The road between the towns referred to does not form part of one of the principal trunk roads radiating from Dublin, and the Board informed the Dublin County Council that they are unable to make any contribution to its improvement until the necessary road crust, improvements on the Dublin-Bray road, Dublin-Drogheda road, and other trunk roads passing through the county have been completed. A committee of Irish road engineers has been recently appointed by the Board to advise them on certain technical matters, but there is no intention to seek advice from that engineering committee on individual questions in regard to the distribution of Grants.
§ 96. Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the Secretary to the Treasury what is the object and ultimate intention of the Development Commissioners in investing moneys, amounting to £2,500,000, belonging to the Development Fund; whether this sum and the further cash balance of £296,000 in their hands are moneys for which they have no present use or for which there is no present demand for such purposes of rural development as are specified in Section 1 of the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909; and whether the Board of Agriculture has applied for a larger aggregate amount than that which has been actually granted for its several requirements?
§ Mr. MASTERMANThe object of investing moneys not immediately required for expenditure from the Development Fund is to earn interest for the benefit of the fund. It must not be assumed that moneys are being unnecessarily accumulated in the hands of the Development Commissioners. A large proportion of the balances referred to is definitely earmarked in connection with schemes of which the Commissioners have approved in principle but the details of which are still under consideration, and to meet the annual requirements over a period of years of other schemes now coming into operation which involve large expenditure. In some instances the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries has applied for larger advances from the Development Fund than have been actually recommended.
§ 97. Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the Secretary to the Treasury what portion of the sum of £85,391 granted by the Road Board for the purpose of widenings has been specifically allocated to and expended upon cutting off dangerous corners; and whether, considering the risk to life involved by the existence of such corners in country districts and the rash driving of pleasure-seeking motors ignorant of the locality, he will represent to the Board the urgent necessity of devoting more of the Road Improvement Fund to this object?
§ Mr. MASTERMANImprovements of corners are frequently included in schemes for widening considerable lengths of road and are also frequently described as widening in applications for Grants, and the Road Board have found it impracticable to classify such works otherwise than under the heading of "Road Widenings 1633 and Improvement of Curves and Corners." It is impossible, therefore, to state separately the expenditure on widenings at corners. The Board consider all applications from highway authorities for improvement of corners on their merits, and Grants are given in all cases where it appears to them that the conditions involve any exceptional risk of accident.
§ Colonel YATEWill the right hon. Gentleman give a Grant for the purpose of cutting the hedges at dangerous corners?
§ Mr. MASTERMANI cannot give a Grant. It is given by the Road Board, which is altogether independent so far as the Grant is concerned.
§ 92. Mr. HOAREasked what has been the amount of the revenue that the Road Board has received since its creation; and what has been the amount of its expenditure up to 1st January, 1913?
§ Mr. MASTERMANThe total revenue from all sources received by the Road Board since its creation up to 31st December, 1912, was £2,804,903 14s. 7d.; the total Grants to the same date were £508,559 4s. 3d., and the total loans £92,563. I may perhaps remind the hon. Member that, as stated in my answer to the hon. Member for the Wilton Division on Monday last, the amount of Grants indicated is very considerably in excess of the amount actually paid at present.
§ 93. Mr. HOAREasked what has been the amount of the revenue that the Development Commission has received since its creation; and what has been the amount of its expenditure up to 1st January, 1913?
§ Mr. MASTERMANThe answer to the first part is £2,927,763; to the second £120,309.
§ 95. Mr. C. BATHURSTasked if the provision of cottages for rural labourers is deemed by the Development Commissioners and the Treasury to be one of the objects towards which a portion of the Development Fund may properly be applied by way of loan or otherwise; whether any application has been made to the Commissioners for a Grant for this purpose; and, if so, whether it has received their favourable consideration?
§ Mr. MASTERMANThe provision of cottages for rural labourers does not fall under any of the heads enumerated in 1634 Section 1 of the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909, in respect of which advances from the Development Fund are specifically authorised, and the Commissioners have been advised that the general words at the end of Section 1 (1) cannot be held to cover economic development that is not in eodem genere and cognate with the subjects specifically named. No application for an advance for the purpose in question has been made to the Development Commissioners.