§ MR. MOONEY (Newry)I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that on the Civil Service Estimates for this year, Class VII., Vote 2, under Sub-head H, there appears a Vote of £6,500 for Irish passenger train service; if this sum has been annually paid to the London and North Western Railway since 1899 for an acceleration of the train known as the Irish mail; if he is aware that this train takes five hours and thirty-five minutes on the day journey to Holyhead, and five hours and thirty-two minutes on the night journey, and that since this subsidy was granted the railway company have run and are running a train in competition with the London and Kingstown route, known as the London and North Western boat train, which does the journey to Holyhead in thirteen minutes less on the day journey and seventeen minutes less on the night journey than the so-called accelerated passenger train; and whether, in view of these facts, it is proposed to continue this annual payment for a train service slower than that supplied by the railway company without subsidy.
§ MR. RUNCIMANFor an explanation of this payment I beg to refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 26th July last year by my predecessor to the
† See (4) Debates, clxxvii., 1175.1559 hon. Member for West Cavan; † and may add that the payment has no reference to night mails. The accelerated day service still continues; and I see no reason at present for discontinuing the payment.
§ MR. MOONEYasked whether it was not the fact that this payment was for a so-called accelerated service, and that the ordinary train run by the company was a faster train.
§ MR. RUNCIMANsaid he believed that statement was correct, but the undertaking given by the London and North-Western Company was that the train should run at a certain speed, and that undertaking had been fulfilled up to the present.
§ MR. MOONEYasked whether it was not the fact that the Treasury were now paying £6,500 a year to the company for a train which was slower than the company's ordinary train.
§ MR. RUNCIMANsaid the payment was made in respect of an additional service, and he did not think the hon. Member would wish the company to withdraw that additional service.
§ MR. LEIF JONES (Westmoreland, Appleby)asked whether the public service would suffer in the slightest degree if this payment were withdrawn.
§ MR. RUNCIMANIt is not only a question of the public service. It is a question of convenience to the traffic of Ireland.
§ MR. MOONEYIs it not the fact that since the subsidy was granted the company have on their own initiative started a train at a later hour which does the journey more quickly?
§ MR. PATRICK O'BRIENIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that though this money was given to facilitate Irish traffic the way in which that is done is by packing this mail train with people who are booked to intermediate stations on this side only? The Company run a faster train than that, and will he interfere to stop this mail train
† See (4) Debates, clxi., 1474.1560 from being overloaded with people who are not going to Ireland at all.
§ MR. RUNCIMANI am sure the hon. Gentleman would not like the service to cease. It is a delicate matter of negotiation and we cannot have a triangular discussion across the floor of the House.
§ MR. JOHN REDMONDIn view of the fact that it is almost impossible to obtain from the Treasury any subsidy, no matter how small, for Irish industries, for piers or harbours, or anything, will the Treasury see that this money granted for a faster service is not continued now when the ordinary trains run at a faster rate?
§ MR. RUNCIMANI cannot admit the hypothesis of the hon. Gentleman.
§ MR. JOHN REDMONDIt is absolutely true.
§ MR. RUNCIMANIf he will communicate with me privately I will consider, but I do not think it can be done now.
§ MR. REDMONDIt is throwing away £6,000 a year.