HC Deb 25 July 1898 vol 62 cc1137-9
MR. CAPTAIN DONELAN (Cork, E.)

On behalf of the honourable Member for Galway, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that the Board of Works refused to sanction a letting of premises by the Galway Harbour Commissioners to Mr. James Behan, and assigned as their reason for so doing that the premises had not been advertised; if the Board of Works in any case of letting previously had ever suggested or insisted upon due advertisement; if yards were let without advertisement, with the approval of the Board of Works, to the Congested Districts Board, Messrs. Hutchison, the Galway Bay Steamship Company, Mr. Worthington, Mr. John Lynch, Mr. John O'Donnell, and Mr. Holland; whether he is aware that Mr. Behan's yard was vacant, without even a gate, when he got possession; and that he is paying the same rent as the previous tenant, £20 a year, while the Congested Districts Board have theirs for £5; if he is aware that this decision of the Board of Works tends in the direction of creating a monopoly of the coal trade of Galway; and whether he is prepared to lay upon the Table a copy of the correspondence between Messrs. Hutchison and the Board of Works?

THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. R W.HANBURY,) Preston

The Galway harbour undertaking is in the hands of a receiver for the Board of Works. The Board refused to sanction the letting of a portion of the premises to Mr. Behan, because they were informed that other persons were willing to tender, and they considered it desirable, in the interests of the harbour revenue, that tenders should be invited as the best means of ascertaining the true value of the premises. The Board have not previously had occasion to insist upon tenders being invited; in some cases the Harbour Commissioners have taken that course spontaneously, and in other cases there have been special circumstances which rendered it unnecessary. Of the cases cited in the third paragraph, the leases to the Limerick Steamship Company (not the Galway Bay Company) and to Mr. Holland were granted after tenders had been advertised for; Messrs. Hutchison's was not a new lease, but a sub-lease under an existing tenant; and the lettings to the Congested Districts Board and to Mr. Worthington were in connection with works of public benefit to the locality. The circumstances of the other two cases cannot be stated without further inquiry. It is true that Mr. Behan's predecessor paid the same rent, £20 a year, and that the Congested Districts Board pay only £5 a year for their premises; but these facts afford no proof that £20 is the full letting value in the present instance. I cannot regard insistence upon open competitive tender as being the way to create a monopoly. Messrs. Hutchison are creditors of the harbour undertaking under a judgment summons, which they cannot enforce while the Board's receiver is in possession. Consequently, that firm have a distinct interest in the financial working of the harbour, and they were quite within their rights in protesting against the course which the Harbour Commissioners proposed to take. If, as appears to be alleged, they have also a private interest in opposition to Mr. Behan, that merely shows how ill-advised the Commissioners have been in their action. The only objection to publishing the correspondence which has passed is that it is not of sufficient importance or general interest.