HC Deb 28 May 1889 vol 336 cc1247-55

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Herbert Gardner.)

* SIR J. PULESTON (Devonport)

I regret that I feel myself compelled to occupy the time of the House in moving the rejection of this Bill. I believe that there is no opposition to the measure except to Clauses 13 to 18, which relate to the pilotage. If these clauses are struck out no objection whatever will be made to the progress of the Bill. I hold a statement in my hand which has been issued by the promoters of the Bill, and it suggests that the immediate necessity for the measure has arisen out of the refusal of the Cardiff Pilotage Board to fix pilotage rates. In a second statement, which has since been issued, the promoters frankly own that other and very important points are raised by the Bill, and that the opposition is only directed to an incidental part of the measure. In that case we are entirely ready to meet the Barry Company on the question of rates if they will leave the matter to the Board of Trade, or to be settled by business men in a business way under the supervision or by the Board of Trade direct. A specious argument, however, is raised that the Bill ought to go in the usual way for the consideration of a Committee upstairs. [An hon. MEMBER: Hear, hear.] My hon. Friend says "Hear, hear," but I venture to say that if the proposals contained in all Bills brought in by private companies, were to be inquired into by this House, the time of the House of Commons would be principally occupied in matters in which they ought not to concern themselves. As I have said we are prepared to meet the promoters' contention, that the sole reason for the introduction of the Bill is the alleged refusal of the Cardiff Pilotage Board to reconsider their determination as to the fixing of pilotage rates by leaving the matter to the proper authorities or the Board of Trade. The Barry Company appear to have been anxious to avoid any discussion upon the question of rates. and a gentleman who is largely interested in promoting the Bill has told me that he is thankful he shall not to be required to give evidence in favour of the measure upstairs. This, I think, shows that the real desire and object of the directors of this great important and wealthy company is not so much to advance the public interests as the pecuniary interests of the company. Now, I maintain that the House of Commons ought not to be asked to decide questions affecting the direct interests of corporations, where the public interests are not concerned. It is urged that both parties will receive fair play at the hands of a Committee. I grant that, but what does it mean to the pilots? It will undoubtedly entail a very heavy tax upon the pilotage fund, which means the savings of the pilots themselves, to have to fight this Bill in a Committee of the House of Commons. It will be said that the Bill has already passed the House of Lords. No doubt that is so,but it only passed, I am told, by the casting vote of the Chairman. Then, again, I must remind the House that there is a Bill before the House founded on the report of the Pilotage Committee of last year, and one of the strong recommendations of the Committee was that the system of employing choice pilots being a real grievance should be got rid of. In the face of that recommendation, this Bill is based on the principle of preference, and it is sought to establish a new Pilotage Authority involving all the objectionable features of choice pilots. The Pilotage Committee also reported that they attached great importance to the Pilotage Superannuation Fund being maintained on a solid basis, as affording security for the continuation of the best class of men in the service. Yet that is another part of the report which the promoters of this Bill seek to set aside. The passing of the Bill will very seriously interfere with the Superannuation Fund. The expenses will remain the same, but the income of the pilots will be destroyed by at least one-third. It is said that the pilots earn good wages. The average in earnings per man in 1887 is put down by the Barry people at £396, but out of that sum £130 went to maintain efficient craft, and there was the interest of £25,000, the amount invested in 33 boats, to pay in addition to other expenses. It is said that the Barry Company have no pecuniary interest in the pilotage clauses. If that is so, it will be easy for them to come to the arrangement I suggest, namely, that the matter should be submitted to the Board of Trade. There is no precedent whatever for the creation of two Pilotage Authorities within the same port. At present the docks have not been opened, and therefore there is no existing grievance; the proposals of the Bill are opposed to all the arrangements made in the Bill of 1884, and the Bill of 1885. The pilots supported the Bill of 1885 on the distinct understanding that the pilotage of Cardiff as then settled was not to be interfered with. We have it in evidence before the Committee last year that the pilotage of the port as now constituted works smoothly and satisfactorily for all interests, and there was not one word from the Barry Dock Company to imply that it is working otherwise than satisfactory. The report of the Pilotage Committee was unanimous on the points mentioned, and I think that its recommendations ought to be adhered to. It is said that the constitution of the Pilot age Board of Cardiff is one-sided and antagonistic to the interests of Barry Docks. Now, I have no interest in this question, either directly or indirectly, and my sole object is to represent the interests of the pilots; and what I object to is that they should be converted into a kind of battledore and shuttlecock for the convenience of two opposing authorities. The representation of the port at this moment includes six representatives of the Bute Docks, seven of the Barry Docks, and five who are neutral. Surely that is not so much a one-sided Pilotage Board as the promoters of the Bill would lead us to think. The Barry pilotage ground only covers five miles, whereas that of Cardiff covers 60 miles. Yet the Barry Board want to have the pilotage under their own exclusive control, and I trust that hon. Members if they desire to act fairly, will hesitate before they interfere with the arrangements which now exist. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time this day six months.

Amendment proposed— To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words upon this day six months.'"—(Sir John Puleston.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

COLONEL HILL (Bristol, S.)

I happen to have a very intimate knowledge of the waters of the Bristol Channel, and also of the present Act which governs the Cardiff Pilotage Board. I may add that I was the moving spirit which caused an application to be made to Parliament for the improvement of what I considered at the time to be a very improperly constituted Board, seeing that neither the shipowners nor the pilots were represented upon it. We met with much opposition from the Docks, from Lord Bute, and from the Corporation of Cardiff, but in the end we obtained the inclusion upon the Board of three shipowners and two pilots. The arrangement has been perfectly satisfactory to all parties ever since, and I have heard that the Bill which was thou passed held up as an example of what a Pilotage Bill should be. The Barry Docks are some seven or eight miles from Cardiff and they do not possess a sheltered roadstead like Cardiff, and in certain prevailing winds from the Southwest they are much exposed. This is important because a pilot in order to ensure the safety of a vessel under his charge from Lundy Island must know the waters not only up to Barry but into the Penarth Roads. The pilotage waters of Barry are therefore precisely identical to those of Cardiff. The Barry Docks are, as a matter of fact, situated within the limits of the Port of Cardiff. The Barry Docks are not yet opened, and should it be found hereafter that the present arrangements are inadequate an application may be made to Parliament for further powers. But the House is now asked to supersede the Cardiff Board altogether and, contrary to all precedent, to establish a second Board within the limits of the same port. At the present moment there are 120 pilots at Cardiff with 80 apprentices ready to fill any vacancies that may occur. They are a most respectable class of men, earning moderate incomes. There is no new trade going to be developed by the Barry Dock Company, but the Docks are to be devoted to the shipping of coal which will be taken away from Cardiff. As, therefore, no accession of ships is likely to take place—if the Boards license pilots for the same service—it is easy to see that the pilotage will be reduced, but in what proportion I cannot venture to say. I believe I have fairly stated the facts, and upon these facts I invite the House to reject the Bill, principally on the ground that the existence of two Pilotage Boards in the same waters must lead to inconvenience and even danger; and that it will tend to the deterioration of the pilot service, because it is most important for the security of life and property that the best men should be attracted into the service. I am told that the Barry promoters are not satisfied with the proposed rates, but that is hardly a question I need enter into, because it is a matter which the Pilotage Board can regulate. Upon that Board there are already six shipowners, three appointed by Cardiff and three by Barry, and they will naturally be not anxious to pay more money than is necessary for securing an efficient pilot service. I am quite aware that it is unusual to refuse a Second Reading to a Private Bill, and that the House is generally disposed to send a Bill of this nature to a Committee for investigation. But I submit that I have shown clear reasons why the Second Reading in this case should be refused. Perhaps the House may be induced to consider, in addition, the enormous expense to which these poor pilots will be put in fighting, in a Select Committee upstairs, the wealthy promoters of the Bill. Nor must it be forgotten that a Select Committee has already considered the whole question of pilotage, and that it is at least premature to sanction a measure of this kind until effect has been given to the recommendations of the Pilotage Committee.

MR. STOREY (Sunderland)

I have plenty of sympathy for pilots, but I am of opinion that there are other interests besides those of pilots concerned in the passing of this measure.

* SIR J. PULESTON

There are no other interests whatever. I know of none.

MR. STOREY

Some of my hon. Friends are taking notes as if they were interested in Barry and the Barry Docks.

* SIR J. PULESTON

So they are.

MR. STOREY

I take it that my hon. Friend opposite has only at heart the interests of the pilots?

* SIR J. PULESTON

Quite right.

MR. STOREY

Now I have nothing to do with the Bristol Channel, nor am I one of the persons connected with the Barry Docks. I come from the far North, but it is because in the far North that we have precisely the same state of circumstances that exists in the Bristol Channel, and that we have suffered in Sunderland in consequence, that I intend to support the Second Reading of the Bill. In Sunderland we are part of the port of Newcastle, although we are 10 miles from the mouth of the Tyne, and we were under the control of Newcastle for pilotage purposes. Sunderland protested and demanded their own Pilotage Board and they got it, as I hope the Barry people will. It has been urged that if the Barry Company get this Bill through the pilot interest will suffer, for it is urged that any reduction in the pilotage rates caused by the competition must be at the expense of the pilots, who will be the sufferers. Is that true? What are the circumstances of the case? Here is Cardiff in the Bristol Channel, and here are the New Barry Docks 10 miles further down the Channel. Ships going to Barry escape the dangerous navigation between the Barry Docks and Cardiff. What the present arrangement has ended in is that pilots are permitted to charge for carrying ships into the Barry Docks, 10 miles further down the Channel, the same rates which they charge for carrying ships into the Cardiff Docks.

* SIR J. PULESTON

An offer has been made to accommodate them.

MR. STOREY

Surely, if a pilot carries a ship a distance less by 10 miles, and escapes a slow and tedious. and dangerous navigation, it is only fair that he should receive a less rate of payment.

* SIR J. PULESTON

Hear, hear.

MR. STOREY

If my hon. Friend agrees to that, why does he oppose the Bill on the Second Reading? The immemorial practice of the House in the case of private Bills, as well as public Bills, if there is no objection to the principle of the Bill, or, in the case of private Bills, if the Board of Trade do not report against them, has been to send such Bills to a Committee. My hon. Friend says he does not object to send this Bill to a Committee if the promoters consent to drop certain clauses, but those clauses are the essence of the Bill. I trust the House will not assent Ito the Amendment.

* THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir MICHAEL HICKS BEACH, Bristol, W.)

I was unable to he present when my hon. Friend (Sir J. Puleston) commenced his observations, but, having listened to the latter portion of his speech, and also to the speech of my hon. colleague (Col. Hill) in the representation of Bristol, I confess that I do not exactly understand the precise ground of the pilots' opposition to the Bill. At any rate, the question whether the Bill should be read a second time or not appears to me to have no bearing whatever upon the merits of the General Pilotage Bill, which I have already obtained the permission of the House to introduce. Moreover, I cannot see why, if this Measure should become law in its present shape, the interests of pilots, in whose behalf my hon. Friends are very properly so anxious, should be injuriously affected. The Board of Trade proposed in the Report they made on the Bill certain Amendments dealing with the position of pilots who might be licensed under it by the proposed Pilotage Board. Those Amendments have been inserted in the Bill by a Committee in another place. Therefore, the Board of Trade's views have been met by what has been done. If anything further is desired, unquestionably the proper place to discuss and investigate it is the Committee upstairs. Therefore, I feel altogether unable to support the proposal of my hon. Friends.

* SIR E. J. REED (Cardiff)

I am sorry to say that my constituents are very much divided on this question, because the promoters and the owners of the Barry Docks are amongst the wealthiest and most important people in the district, and the pilots are men who have no such influence, but who deserve every consideration from us. I am unable to approve of the Amendment, and the ground of my disapproval is that it is premature to ask the House to stop the Second Reading of the Bill and so prevent it from going before a Committee of the House. That would be a very strong measure, and it is one to which no doubt a substantial majority of the House at all times objects. But at the same time there is a great deal to be said on behalf of the Amendment from the point of view of the pilots. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) has referred to the case of the Tyne and Sunderland as a parallel to this. I would remind my hon. Friend and the House that it is nothing of the kind. Sunderland was an old and well established town with corporate bodies and institutions well capable of protecting all the interests that might be involved in the question of pilotage, but at Barry there is no town, or if there is a town it mainly consists of buildings erected for the accommodation of the men engaged on the construction of the docks. The Bill for the Barry Docks was obtained on the distinct understanding that it was not to interfere with Cardiff as a port. The pilotage was dealt with and settled in a subsequent measure; and now before the Docks are opened, and because the parties are dissatisfied with the rates the Cardiff Pilotage Board have fixed, a Bill has been brought in and backed up by all the power and wealth of the Barry Dock Company, for the purpose of putting the pilots at a very great disadvantage indeed. After all I would advise my hon. Friends to let the Bill go without a division to a Committee upstairs, and then if the decision of the Committee should be found to be such as to justify further opposition in the House, let them move for the recommittal of the Bill, with a view to the point of pilotage being further considered. Personally I feel that a division in the House would rather prejudice the case of the pilots than otherwise. I hope they may rely with confidence upon the Committee upstairs doing full justice to all parties.

* SIR J. PULESTON

I will not press the Amendment.

Amendment by leave withdrawn. Main question put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time, and committed.