§ SECOND READING.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
§ (3.5.) MR. LLEWELLYN (Somerset, N.)I beg to move, "That the Bill be read a second time upon this day three months." I take this step with regret, as the Bill at first sight appears to relate to local matters; but beyond, there is a question of very great importance involved which has already attracted the attention of several Governments, and which one Government after another has failed to legislate upon. With regard to the local aspect of the question, I should like to point out that the Bill seeks to restrict the area within which the Bristol pilots may exercise their calling. Hitherto the limit has been Lundy Island, a distance of 75 miles. The new limit is to be the Holms, 14 miles. At the present time there are about 35 fully licensed Bristol pilots. These men have passed through their apprenticeship and are fully qualified; but in addition there are apprentices, and others who having passed through their apprenticeship are waiting their turn to become pilots. The Bill proposes a reduction of about two-thirds of the area in which these pilots may ply their calling. This will be simply disastrous 1358 to them, as it will bring them into active competition with the pilots of the port of Cardiff who number 160 men. The Bristol pilots complain loudly of this Bill, and their complaints are not unreasonable. They say that they are perfectly willing to agree to the restricted area imposed by the Bill, provided the necessity is shown, but they also say that no Local Authority has a right to destroy the living of a class of men without showing them some consideration and granting them compensation for their loss. It will be urged that the high pilotage dues have affected the trade of Bristol. I will not say that any decline in the trade is due to mismanagement on the part of the authorities of Bristol, but I do say that they have no right to make these pilots who have been serving the post for many years suffer for their own want of management. The pilots have always performed their share of the contract they entered into with the Corporation of Bristol. They have to be at sea in all weathers, to run every risk, and at all times of the year keep the sea, as far down as Lundy. They have performed their share of the duties well, and I have never heard a single complaint against them. On the contrary, I have heard great praise given them for the manner in which they perform their duties. Many of the ships coming to Bristol carry their own pilots in the masters or mates on board, and in fine weather these ships take no notice of the Bristol pilot, but are piloted into port by their own masters and mates. In foul weather, however, they act differently; these masters and mates will not take the responsibility of piloting their ships up the difficult channel, and they then take a pilot on board. They will not run the risk of getting their vessels aground, so they put the risk on the certificated pilot. Any hon. Member who has been at Bristol and has stood on the Clifton Suspension Bridge at low water, will have some idea of the difficulty of piloting ships up that river. Yet the Bristol pilots are constantly doing that and, considering the difficulty of their task, they make very few mistakes. Sometimes they spend weeks cruising about outside without earning anything. Last week one man returned home after three weeks knocking about in the Bristol Channel 1359 without earning anything at all, while another man was five weeks at sea without earning anything. It is a hard life that these men are called upon to lead, and yet they must do the work. If compulsory pilotage is done away with, not only will ships and cargoes be endangered, but human life as well. When this Bill was first spoken of not one word was said about the reduction of rates; yet, now, not only are the rates to be reduced, but the Bristol men will have to suffer from the competition of the men from Cardiff. It has been put forward in some quarters that under this Bill the rates will be increased. Why should pilots oppose this Bill if the rates are to be increased and their position bettered? It is not the fact that the rates are to be increased, for what right have the Corporation of Bristol to increase them if the trade is decreasing, as alleged? The pilots have not applied even for an increase. In order to show that the rates will not be increased I will quote from the Bill the scale of pilotage rates, showing that on vessels over 1,000 and under 1,100 tons the scale is reduced from £12 15s. to £5 0s. 6d. On vessels over 1,100 and under 1,200 tons there is a redution of £7 7s. 3d., and on vessels over 1,200 and under 1,300 tons the reduction is from£12 15s. to £5 15s., a loss of £7. In fact, all along the line there is a reduction, beginning at vessels of 100 tons, on which the rate is reduced from £3 13s. to £1 3s. 3d. That will show whether the rate is increased or not under the Bill. The House will probably hear something about the scheme of compensation that is promised to the men. There is a sum of £8,000 which has been applied for about 60 years to the superannuation of pilots and to no other purpose. The proposed scheme is to do away with that capital sum, and with it to grant annuities of £30 a year. The men do not want that; they want to go on with their occupation, and they do not want this fund to be exhausted, but to remain in the hands of the Corporation for their benefit as heretofore. I hold in my hand a Petition from the inhabitants of the village of Pill, which the forms of the House do not enable me to present. The petitioners pray the House to reject the Bill, knowing as they do that the passing of the measure will mean absolute ruin to them, for they 1360 would be entirely at the mercy of the Corporation of Bristol. This is a little Bill, but behind it there is a great question—a question which more than one Government have shirked or declined to touch, namely, the abolition of compulsory pilotage. If passed, this Provisional Order will have the same effect as a public Act, and it will be followed by Provisional Orders from other places. At this moment Swansea has a Provisional Order to do away with compulsory pilotage awaiting the passing of this. I ask the House if it is now going to do away with a system which Government after Government and Committee after Committee have declined to touch? This matter has been before the Board of Trade, and they have decided entirely upon hearsay evidence. I wish there had been some inquiry made on the spot, for I am satisfied the Inspector would have found that the passing of the measure means ruin to a great number of men who have earned the respect of the Corporation of Bristol by the way in which they have performed their duties, also to the whole village of Pill. I assure the House that the people of Pill are anxiously awaiting its decision, and I hope that decision will not be such that those people will shortly find themselves deprived of the means of livelihood.
(3.25.) MR. BAZLEY - WHITE (Gravesend)I beg to second the Motion for the rejection of the Bill. What I especially wish to call attention to is the attitude of Her Majesty's Government to the compulsory pilotage question; I contend that this is a stab in the dark to the system. During the last 20 years there have been two Select Committees appointed to inquire into the law with regard to compulsory pilotage, and both have reported distinctly in favour of the maintenance of the system. Looking at this fact, I maintain that the question ought to have been dealt with in a larger measure than this Provisional Order Bill, and I deprecate piecemeal and narrow-minded legislation of this sort. I want the right hon. Gentleman either to withdraw the Provisional Order or to introduce into it clauses which would deal with the question of compensation. In 1870 a Bill introduced by the late Mr. Bright and others with regard to compulsory 1361 pilotage contained provisions for giving compensation not only to the licensed pilots, but to all who would suffer under the Bill. We have put upon the records of the House a Resolution that the drink traffic shall not be interfered with without compensation. On the liquor traffic there may be a division of feeling; but on this question of water traffic I do not think that there is any difference in this respect. I believe that this Provisional Order is really the outcome of an answer given by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade to a deputation of shipowners a few weeks ago. I would ask the Government either to deal with the question in a broad, general, and wide way, accompanied by compensation, or to introduce into this Bill clauses which would provide compensation in the manner to which I have referred. In the Bill of 1870 compensation was to be given out of funds to be provided by Parliament to all who suffered any diminution of income under the Act; and I hope that in this case the Government will reconsider their decision.
§ (3.30.) THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,) Bristol, W.My hon. Friends have drawn a very terrible picture of the probable results of this Provisional Order. The hon. Member for Somersetshire (Mr. Llewellyn) anticipates ruin to some of his constituents, the destruction of the whole pilotage system of the Bristol Channel, losses and wrecks innumerable, and all from the curtailment of the limits of the Bristol Pilotage District, and then he went on—and the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Bazley-White) followed him in the same line,—to say that this is a stab at the system of compulsory pilotage, that it is contrary to the recommendations of the Committee of 1888, and that, in fact, it is the exact reverse of the policy which Parliament has hitherto pursued. I traverse those statements entirely. In the first place, I desire to say that in addressing the House on the Bill I do so not as a Member for Bristol, but as President of the Board of Trade. I have endeavoured to keep out of the question altogether my own connection with Bristol, and to deal fairly by those whom the hon. Member for Somersetshire represents. What has occurred in regard 1362 to this matter is this: In the autumn of 1889 the Corporation of Bristol, being at that time the Pilotage Authority, applied in the ordinary way to the Board of Trade for a Provisional Order, curtailing the limits of the compulsory pilotage district of Bristol. I declined at the time to proceed with the Provisional Order, because the question of pilotage generally had been occupying the attention of Parliament, and Parliament had, in the preceding Session, passed an Act, by which pilots and shipowners were entitled to obtain representation on Pilotage Authorities if they so desired. The pilots of Bristol had applied for a Provisional Order giving them that representation, and, therefore, I postponed the consideration of the present Provisional Order until the Pilotage Authority of Bristol had been re-constituted by the admission of the representatives of shipowners and of pilots. The Pilotage Authority was re-constituted last year, and, having been re-constituted, it continued the application for the Provisional Order, which is now before the House. Until 1861 pilotage was compulsory throughout the whole of the Bristol Channel to the east of Lundy Island; but in that year, on the application of Cardiff, Newport, and Gloucester, compulsory pilotage was abolished with respect to those three ports, and at present the only compulsory pilotage in the Bristol Channel exists with regard to the old pilotage district of Bristol and ships going inwards to Swansea. Under such circumstances, what was to be my answer to the application of the Bristol Pilotage Authority? What reason was there for retaining the old and unnecessarily extended limits of the Bristol compulsory pilotage district, when pilotage was absolutely free to the other great ports in the Bristol Channel? The present district extends 80 miles, from Bristol itself to Lundy Island. Anybody who knows the Bristol Channel must admit that in the present state of our system of lighthouses and charts, and in view of the general and increasing substitution of steamers for sailing ships, it is perfectly absurd that the compulsory pilotage district should extend to what is, practically, the open sea. I felt obliged by the action which Parliament took in 1861 to assent to the application of the 1363 Corporation of Bristol for this Provisional Order. But in doing so I took care to have regard to the interests of the existing pilots. I called the special attention of the Corporation to the resolution by which they had bound themselves to deal with the subject in a spirit of compensation for existing interests—firstly, by increasing the charges for pilotage within the limits of the diminished district, by pensioning the old pilots—no inconsiderable number out of the 34 — out of a Fund, which never was contributed by pilots at all, but which came from charges on foreign ships, and which was in the possession of the Corporation. And, further, the Corporation had undertaken to provide a future Superannuation Fund by a small contribution made by the pilots themselves and a similar contribution made by shipowners, and by some charge upon masters and mates who, by the possession of pilotage certificates, escaped the employment of pilots on their ships. It would be perfectly possible for those interested, if they were not satisfied with these provisions, to have their case fully represented to the Committee upstairs. Personally, I should be very glad to see inserted in the Provisional Order provisions relating to compensation. As to the assertion that the Bill amounts to a stab at the system of compulsory pilotage, I think I have shown that, with regard to the Bristol Channel, by this Provisional Order we are simply following the action of Parliament in 1861, and also, later, the action of Parliament in regard to the Barry Docks. I entirely disagree from my hon. Friends in the opinion that this Provisional Order is contrary to the recommendation of the Committee of 1888. That Committee reported—
They are of opinion, taking all the circumstances into consideration and having regard to the advantages of decentralisation, that the principle of compulsion as it now exists should not be interfered with, leaving to Local Pilotage Authorities full and ample powers to adopt such system and frame such regulations, subject to the sanction of Parliament, as may be most conducive to the interests of; the trade and shipping of the particular port over which their jurisdiction extends,which was precisely what has been done in this instance. The principle of compulsion has been retained. Pilotage will be compulsory within the restricted area.
§ MR. LLEWELLYNMay I point out that the taking up or letting off of a pilot at the Holms will be attended with great danger on account of the narrow channel and strong tides.
§ SIR M. HICKS BEACHThe pilots themselves admit that the maintenance of a compulsory district extending to Lundy Island is indefensible. I leave my colleagues in the representation of Bristol to state their opinions as to the effect of the existing system on the commerce of Bristol, and I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading, with the understanding that provisions for the compensation of those whose interests will be prejudicially affected may be fairly considered by the Select Committee. I may add that the Government will be glad to assent to the insertion of clauses dealing with the matter.
§ SIR J. WESTON (Bristol, E.)I wish to refer to the disadvantage Bristol trade is under in consequence of the compulsory pilotage, a disadvantage from which other ports in the Bristol Channel, including Cardiff and Newport, are free. Upon the first application of Bristol to be exempt from this condition, the Board of Trade recommended the Corporation to appoint a Committee, consisting of members of the Town Council and representatives of shipowners and pilots, to thoroughly investigate and consider the whole matter. This recommendation was carried out, with the result that bye-laws and a schedule of rates and charges were framed, which were afterwards affirmed by the Corporation. In the course of the proceedings, the chief objection made on behalf of the pilots was that their receipts, under the altered arrangements, would be diminished. The Corporation have since carefully considered the position of the pilots, and are of opinion that their interests have been cared for in the schedule of rates and the proposal for superannuation, to which the President of the Board of Trade has referred. The feeling in favour of the Bill is well-nigh unanimous in the Town Council, and public opinion in Bristol thoroughly realises that the Bill is necessary to the prosperity of the trade of the city, which hitherto has been severely handicapped in competition with other ports, while the pilots will be affected only, if at all, 1365 in an inappreciable degree. I give a hearty support to the Bill.
§ (3.50.) COLONEL E. S. HILL (Bristol, S.)I rise to support the Bill now before the House, and in doing so I desire to say, as a shipowner, that I am strongly interested in the maintenance of an efficient pilotage service, for the shipowner's only chance of profit rests in the safe navigation of his vessels. Much has been said touching the inexpediency of abolishing compulsory pilotage. In narrow waters this system must always remain, whereas in some places its expediency is an open question, but this question is not raised by the Bill before the House. It has been asserted that the Bristol Channel is dangerous to navigate. This is not the case, and I believe I am correct in stating that a vessel may shape her course from the Holms to New York without requiring to alter it. Whatever dangers there are, do not commence until the Holms are passed. My hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset has quoted some words of a speech of mine, in which I expressed my opinion that the pilots should be compensated for any change that might be made. I do not recollect the exact words I used, but, doubtless, they were to that effect, and I am prepared to stand by them. The pilots are a most respectable body of men whose interests ought to receive the most careful attention; and if I did not think that this had actually been done, I should not be here to support the Bill. In days not long ago gone by, Bristol was the dominant port in the Channel to which she gave her name, and the entire pilotage system was under her control. The great ports of Cardiff and Newport were unknown, whilst Swansea and Gloucester were comparatively unimportant; but in the year 1861, these ports had undergone a wonderful development, and they came to Parliament and asked to be relieved from the "yoke of Bristol," and to have pilotage systems of their own. This request Parliament granted, and with it gave them non-compulsory pilotage, and that without any compensation to the then existing interests of the pilots. It is not for me to question the wisdom of Parliament in so doing, but I think the House will feel that when non- 1366 compulsory pilotage has been granted in the case of nine-tenths of the vessels using the British Channel, to retain the other tenth under a compulsory system would be an anomaly and absurdity. Bristol asks Parliament to do her the justice of relieving her from a condition which, in these days of fierce competition, tend to handicap her trade, and place her in a position of disadvantage. It is therefore proposed to restrict the area of compulsory pilotage to the limits of her own port—that is, to the Holms, and in fixing this limit a desire has been evinced to treat the pilots generously, inasmuch as vessels proceeding to Gloucester may navigate from the Holms to King Road without a pilot. If it had been proposed to retain the present rates within the restricted area, the pilots would distinctly have been injured, and would have had a good case, but the existing rates are to be increased; for instance, in the case of a vessel not exceeding 500 tons, from the Holms to Bristol the rate is increased from £2 6s. to £2 15s. 6d.; under 1,000 tons, from £3 11s. 6d. to £4 13s. 6d.; under 1,500, from £4 to £6 9s. 3d., and under 2,000, from £4 to £8 4s.; and I believe I am correct in stating that these rates are higher per mile than is at present charged for any other portion of the Channel. It is in this increase of rates that the compensation of pilots chiefly exists. As to the general result upon the gross earnings of the pilots, it is quite evident that the pilotage over an area, that has been restricted some 70 odd miles, must require less time to perform, and, consequently, there are fewer pilots. The number of pilots is now 34, but it is believed that 25 will suffice, in which case their gross earnings per man will be much the same as at present. It has been wisely resolved to establish a Superannuation Fund, and 5 per cent. is to be deducted from the earnings of the pilots for this purpose. Of this sum the shipowners contribute 2½ per cent., the rates having been increased accordingly. Something has been said about the western men or sailors employed in the pilot boats. No doubt fewer of them would be required, but these sailors will have no difficulty whatever in finding profitable employment elsewhere. My hon. Friend the Mem- 1367 ber for North Somerset has maligned the Bristol Channel in stating that it contained no fish. Doubtless he is unaware that there are no less than 21 steam trawlers now engaged in the fishing industry of the Channel. In addition to the increase of rates, within the restricted area, the present pilots are to have given to them a vested interest in a sum of about £8,000, which was collected by a surcharge upon the pilotage of foreign vessels between the years 1810 and 1837. It is proposed to give a pilot, having attained the age of 65, a pension of £30 a year. There are, I am informed, nine or ten who have already passed that limit, and although I do not say they are not good pilots, it seems to me that when a man has attained that age he may well think about retiring from active service. Sir, although I have the misfortune to disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset on this occasion, I still yield to none in my appreciation of the services of pilots, or my desire for their welfare. Some years ago, before I had the honour of a seat in this House, I brought in a Bill at much personal trouble and cost for the purpose of placing pilots upon the Cardiff Pilotage Board. I succeeded, and I am glad to find that the principle is now thoroughly acknowledged. The Bristol pilots, who have hitherto been practically under the control of one man, will now be under a duly recognised Board upon which three of their own Members have seats. It has been urged that if this Bill be sent to a Committee, the pilots are too poor to represent their case. I cannot see the necessity for incurring heavy expense. The pilots can themselves appear before the Committee with a plain, unvarnished tale, and I am quite sure the Corporation of Bristol would be ready to acquiesce in whatever the Committee might consider that justice demanded. In the interests of Bristol, and in the interests of the pilots themselves, I urge the House to read this Bill a second time.
§ (4.5.) SIR E. J. REED (Cardiff)When the Debate commenced, I was disposed to support the Motion for the rejection of the Bill; but what the President of the Board of Trade has said has influenced me in favour of the Bill. The interests of a class of men like pilots are not to be 1368 lost sight of. When questions of compensation are raised in reference to many trades and classes, there is no body of men whose claims are entitled to more attention than that of the pilots of this country. But the President of the Board of Trade has given what amounts to an undertaking, that in Committee the claims of the pilots to compensation shall be very carefully considered, and with that assurance the hon. Member (Mr. Llewellyn) might I think be content.
§ MR. W. ABRAHAM (Glamorgan, Rhondda)I do not understand that the right hon. Gentleman has given any such assurance. He has only said he would be glad if the Committee would consider the question of compensation.
§ SIR M. HICKS BEACHPerhaps I may explain that it is not in my power to give any such guarantee. The decision must rest with the Committee. I have expressed the view of the Board of Trade that the question of Compensation should be brought before the Committee, and that the Committee should give due weight to the Petition, and will, no doubt, take evidence and come to a decision which the Board of Trade would gladly carry out.
§ MR. W. ABRAHAM(continuing): I intend to vote against the Second Reading, because, before the Committee, these pilots will have all the disadvantage of poor men fighting a rich Corporation like that of Bristol with the resources of public money. It is a case in which the House should take action without leaving the matter to a Committee. It is one of those matters that might well be relegated to the Labour Commission. Each pilot has served seven years' apprenticeship, has bought a boat at a cost of £350, the repairs of which average £50 a year, and he has to pay a man to assist him £1 a week. All these considerations establish a strong case for compensation, and the Superannuation Fund referred to is one to which the men have indirectly contributed.
§ Mr. LLEWELLYNrose to speak, but Mr. SPEAKER reminded him he had no right of reply.
§ (4.30.) The House divided:—Ayes 165; Noes 119.—(Div. List, No. 255.)