§ The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse), moved"That the contract dated the 11th day of June, 1909,between the Postmaster-General and the London and South Western and the London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway Companies for the Mail Steamer Service between Portsmouth and Ryde (printed in Parliamentary Paper, No. 230, of Session 1910) be approved."
§ Mr. DOUGLAS HALLI understand this Resolution is to confirm a contract made by the Postmaster-General for the conveyance of the mails. As it is of importance to the constituency I have the honour to represent, I should like to ask how it is that the subsidy has been increased by nearly £1,000 a year? It seems to me that although there may be more mails they do not require a very large extra sum to enable them to be handled. I should like the Postmaster-General to consider whether these joint railways are worthy of the support they get from public funds. It is notorious that they give the public a very wretched service across the Solent. Their boats are nearly thirty years old; there is no accommodation for third class or second class passengers, who may be drenched in wet weather; and they cause great dissatisfaction throughout the island. The joint 2501 railway companies have been approached by the Chamber of Commerce and by the different public bodies in the island, but they can get no redress. I ask that before the Postmaster-General completes the contract he should obtain some assurance, on consideration of the companies getting this large sum of public money, that they should give the public a little better accommodation. The boats are badly lighted, their rates are heavy, and, as the island is largely dependent for its prosperity on visitors, it is a very serious thing that two companies joined together in a monopoly like this should defy all the local authorities.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley)I do not see how the Postmaster-General can be responsible for the general service given by these companies. The hon. Member must confine himself to the matter of the mails.
§ Mr. DOUGLAS HALLMy point was that in allocating public money for the conveyance of the mails, the right hon. Gentleman perhaps has other means of conveying them, and in doing this he might consider the public interest at large, not only as regards the mails, but as regards the way the companies serve the public.
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEIt is quite true that the payment for the conveyance of these mails is very largely increased. The reason is this: the amount of mail matter which now has to be carried is more than double the amount which had to be carried under the old contract. I think it was so far back as 1905 that the companies gave notice of their intention to terminate the contract, and when the Postmaster-General endeavoured to renew that contract the proposals made to him by the steamship and railway companies were so high that he sought in other directions for the means by which to transmit the mails. It was not easy, in fact it was impossible, to find another alternative. Eventually a considerable reduction was made by the companies, and the sum was fixed at the £2,500 mentioned in this contract. As a matter of fact the Treasury were assured that the actual expense incurred in running the day and night services was £2,400. A very small profit, therefore, remains to the companies upon the actual transfer of the mails. It is, of course, unfortunate that the price should have gone up. It is very seldom, and equally fortunate, that the price for the carriage 2502 of mails does go up. This is one of the few exceptions, and it is really because the night and day services must be provided specially for the carriage of the mails that this extra expenditure must be incurred. The contract price is fully justified by the expenses of the contract.
§ Mr. DOUGLAS HALLCould not the right hon. Gentleman see that they have newer boats to convey the mails?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEThis contract is terminable by six months' notice on either side, but for the money we pay I do not think we could get a faster or better service. The journey is only twenty-five minutes from shore to shore.
Sir H. DALZIELI wish to know why this contract, which may be terminated in six months, goes back to 1906. It seems extraordinary that we should go back so many years in the case of a contract which may only last a very short time. Surely there was a contract in force for the last few years. Is it really fair to the House that we should be asked to-night to consider a contract of so retrospective a character? Is the increased sum to date back to 1906 when a lower contract was in force? Unless we have a satisfactory explanation I do not think the Treasury and the Post Office are treating the House quite fairly. It is asking us to endorse something that is going back to 1906.
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEThe explanation is this. Though notice was given in 1905 to terminate the contract, as a matter of fact the contract was not renewed definitely, but renewed from six months to six months, while negotiations were actually going on in order to arrive at a satisfactory price. The companies would not give way. It was impossible for the Postmaster-General to find other means, at an equally satisfactory price, of carrying the mails. Therefore a temporary contract was carried on until the negotiations could be concluded. As soon as these negotiations were concluded the form of contract was entered into, and this is the result of it. With regard to the apparently short time which the contract has to run I might explain that precisely the same thing happened in 1890. The contract then was made for a period of five years, and that contract ran for fifteen years. I think my right hon. Friend justly anticipates that though nominally the present contract is for five years, of which two or three have elapsed, it will run, under its provisions, for a similar 2503 period of ten or fifteen years. The House has effective control over this contract. My hon. Friend will see that it is not binding until it has been approved by a Resolution of the House of Commons.