HC Deb 05 June 1883 vol 279 cc1756-9
MR. M. BROOKS

said, the first four Questions upon the Notice Paper were in the name of the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray); and as the hon. Member was not present he wished to put the first of these Questions to the Postmaster General. The Question stood in the following terms:— To ask the Postmaster General, whether ha will afford the House an opportunity of discussing the terms of the new Postal Contract for conveying- mails between London and Dublin, tenders for which are to be sent on or before 11th of July next?

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

wished to ask the Speaker if it was in Order for an hon. Member to ask Questions standing in the name of another hon. Member without having, in the first instance, obtained the permission of the hon. Member who had placed the Question upon the Paper.

MR. SPEAKER

It has been the general practice of the House—and the House has always concurred in that practice—that no hon. Member should put a Question standing in the name of another Member unless requested to do so by that Member. Therefore, the Question now proposed to be put by the ton. Member for Dublin (Mr. M. Brooks) cannot be put, except by the indulgence of the House.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

said, he would not have noticed it, if he had not understood that the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray) was in London; and the Question might very well stand over until to-morrow, when the hon. Member would be in his place.

MR. FAWCETT

Sir, the Question is of so much public interest that I am quite ready to answer; and I think it will be convenient if I answer the hon. Member for Carlow's four Questions together. In answer to the first Question, I beg to say that full opportunity will be afforded to the House of discussing the terms of the new Postal Contract as soon as possible after the tenders have been received. In answer to the second Question, I may say that my attention has not been drawn to the advertisement to which the hon. Member refers; but that, inasmuch as the London and North-Western Company, equally with the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company, are bound, under the contract still in force, to effect the conveyance and deliver of the Irish mails within a specified time, the interests of the Public Service appear in this matter to be sufficiently protected. With regard to the third Question, it has been assumed that whatever contractors may, after the expiration of the present contract, be employed to carry the mails between Holyhead and Kingstown, the London and North-Western Railway Company will afford facilities for passenger traffic by the mail trains, and in connection with the mail boats. But, in order to avoid any misconception, there is no objection to state that it will be made a condition of any contract for the conveyance of the Irish mails between London and Holyhead that passengers shall be carried by the mail trains, and that through booking arrangements shall be made between the London and North-Western Railway Company and any contractors for the sea service. With reference to the fares to be charged by the London and North-Western Railway Company, the hon. Member is, no doubt, aware that these fares cannot be raised above the maximum rates specified in the Acts of the Company. He is, no doubt, also aware that litigation has taken place on the subject between the Dublin Steam Packet Company and the London and North Western Railway Company. Under these circumstances, there seems to be some difficulty in interfering with the ordinary course of the law. But the matter shall be carefully considered, with a view to securing, as far as possible, that no inconvenience is caused to passengers. In answer to the fourth Question of the hon. Member, the terms of the tenders for the new contract contemplate the contingency of the new contractors for the sea service not being ready to commence on the 1st of October; and in view of such contingency steps have been taken, as the public advertisement will show, to provide for a temporary service until such time as the contractors can commence the full service.

MR. GIBSON

As this question attracts great interest and also considerable uneasiness in Ireland, particularly in reference to the closing words of the right hon. Gentleman, I would like to be quite clear as to when this matter is be brought under the notice of Parliament for discussion. The date for receiving tenders was the 11th of July. Now, we all know that a discussion brought on in Parliament in August, when, I hope, we will be all thinking of going home, is not likely to be a very lively discussion, or to be attended with very great advantage to anyone. What I would like to know is whether, when the Government selected July 11 as the date for receiving the tenders, was it with the intention that the discussion should take place while there was a full attendance of Members?

MR. FAWCETT

Sir, I am free to confess that there is considerable difficulty in fixing the particular date for receiving tenders. I recognize, on the one hand, that we ought, if possible, to secure a proper discussion before the House will become empty. But I feel, on the other hand, that if too short a time were fixed for receiving tenders, intending contracting parties would say that they had no reasonable opportunity of making tenders. And, therefore, after careful consultation with those who were practically acquainted with the subject, we came to the conclusion that in order to secure the advantages of anything like open competition the 11th July is not too early a date. The only assurance I can give the House is this—that the very moment the tenders are received, not an hour shall be lost in giving them most careful, consideration, and coming to a decision as rapidly as possible. And as soon as that decision has been come to, although I have no authority to state what the Business arrangements of the House may be, I think I am not going too far in saying that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, recognizing the importance of the subject, will do all in his power to allow the subject to be discussed as early as possible.

MR. M. BROOKS

said, he desired one word of explanation. The fact was, he had prepared a Question of similar import to that standing in the name of the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray); but as he thought he would have no opportunity of putting it to-day he had not placed it on the Paper.