HC Deb 26 April 1898 vol 56 cc1173-84

On the Order for Second Reading,

MR. WILLIAM FIELD (Dublin, St. Patrick)

I claim the indulgence of the House for a few moments. I regret very much, at this late hour, that private business occupies so much of the time of this assembly, but the position has been forced upon me of opposing this Bill before the House this evening. Now I am not in opposition to the Bill in connection with the expenditure of the money, or in regard to the improvement of Liverpool. On the contrary, I only desire that the improvement should be extended to the home trade, and that more money should be laid out. It has been represented that I am in opposition to the shipowners because the shipowners have presented a petition in favour of this Bill. Now I wish to point out—my remarks will be as concise as possible—that the Liverpool Shipowners' Association passed a resolution to the effect that it was essential that the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board should consider the necessary requirements of the home trade. That is precisely the position I occupy upon this matter. In the year 1893 the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board came to this House voluntarily, without any pressure whatever, and asked for certain powers, among which was the construction of a landing-stage at Waterloo Pier. The Mersey Docks and Harbour Board have carried out almost all the powers given to them under the Act of 1893, but they have neglected to carry out that one in regard to the landing-stage. Further, the Prince's landing-stage was for the purpose of affording accommodation to the coasting trade, and that stage, which was used for that purpose, has been practically taken away. The result is that instead of the Act of 1893 increasing, as it was hoped, the facilities for the coasting and the cross-Channel trade with Ireland, they have been decreased by the action of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board. With regard to my personal interest in this matter I only claim to represent other people. Allow me to point out, if that Board did as it ought to have done, it would have afforded facilities for the home trade. At an enormous cost they have afforded facilities for the American trade. To that I have no objection; nor have I any objection to the Board spending £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 of money in improving the docks generally for the foreign trade which comes to Liverpool; but I do most respectfully submit to this House that if millions of money are to be expended for the benefit of the foreign trade, then we, who are home traders, whose trade is not in any way to be despised, are certainly entitled to receive equal treatment at the hands of the Board. I submit that the expenditure of a large sum of money like this amounts to a bounty to foreign trade. I have no hostility to the improvement of Liverpool. On the contrary, I desire most earnestly to see Liverpool as a port improved and increased in activity and efficiency, because Liverpool is the principal port in England of which use is made by Irish producers; and anything which forwards the interests of Liverpool must of a necessity forward the interests of Ireland. But what I object to is that, while they do everything in their power to benefit the foreign they do nothing whatever to assist the home trade. That view may be denied, but if it is I will ask this question and press for a definite answer upon the point: Why is the Irish trade exactly in the same position as it was 60 years ago? It has not improved. An honourable Gentleman says that it is worse, and I believe it is worse; and there is no clause in this Bill which proposes to expend any portion of all these millions of money for the purposes of improving that trade. The Prince's landing-stage as I have already pointed out, gave some facilities for the Irish cross-Channel trade, but even that has been taken away. I have had personal experience in this matter, because I have been down to Liverpool several times in connection with it. The result of that is that you will see three or four boats lying out in the middle of the river waiting for the tide, and only a very small place available for them at the landing-stage. This should not and ought not to exist. I know perfectly well that the smallness of a certain portion of the trade is the reason given why the subject should not be pressed, but this. Mersey Docks and Harbour Board is not a trading concern—it is a public trust, which is administered for the benefit of the port and for the benefit of the whole of the traders who, from choice or necessity, use the port of Liverpool. With regard to the traffic coming from Ireland—I will not weary the House very long. I find the six of the Steam, Packet Company's vessels in the year 1896 carried nearly 146,000 packages, 254,000 cattle, 380,000 sheep, 6,900 horses, and 38,000 tons of produce. I submit respectfully to this House that this is a trade worth catering for. It is the absolute duty of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board to provide faci- lities for the carrying on of that trade. It may be said that this is entirely an Irish question, but I deny that. I would like to point out that now the war has broken out between Spain and America it is more important that facilities should be given for landing supplies from Ireland than hitherto. The position taken up by the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board is that there is no certainty as to the situation of the Liverpool cattle market, and that the Bootle market scheme might be revived. I wish to disabuse the minds of honourable Gentlemen opposite of this kind of fairy dream. The Bootle market is dead, and cannot be revived until the matter again comes before the House of Commons. The Mersey Docks and Harbour Board applied for certain powers last Session to build a jetty, which were refused to them by this House. [An HONOURABLE MEMBER: They were glad it was refused.] Yes. Sometimes even an opponent can set a body like the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board right. We saved them from themselves last Session, and I hope we are going to do the same this Session. Surely the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board do not labour under the delusion that the Corporation of Liverpool are going to allow Bootle, or any other place, to start a market for Liverpool? This House has had before them this evening a proposal of a private syndicate in London, where private syndicates generally rule the roast, to obtain a certain portion of London so that profits may be made out of it for the benefit of certain shareholders, and that proposal was carried by an enormous majority. Now, I want to know, is this House going to pass another Act of Parliament giving a certain number of interested gentlemen in Bootle the power to start a private syndicate with greater powers against public utility than that which was sought for by the Victoria Embankment Extension and St. John's Improvement Bill? I make bold to say, as a young Member of this House, having some knowledge of the principles which guide its action, that no private syndicate in Great Britain or Ireland have any chance whatever of obtaining from this democratic House of Commons power to start a private market which would in any way affect the food supplies of the people. The proposition is absurd, but the Mersey Docks and Harbbour Board seem to think differently. I trust it will not be necessary for me to divide the House in opposition to this Bill. I hope honourable Members opposite will give some cue as to the line of action proposed to be taken. This question affects, undoubtedly, the prosperity of the producers of Ireland, and I appeal most earnestly to the right honourable Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture to place his views on this question before the House, as he always does, in a perfectly fair and straightforward manner. I do not desire to delay the time of the House further. I would not have taken up such a long period of its time did I not feel that this is a matter of national importance to Ireland, because Liverpool is the principal receiving port for Irish produce in Great Britain, and I say it is the duty of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board to provide at least the same facilities for native producers as that which it proposes to give to foreign importers.

MR. W. F. LAWRENCE (Liverpool, Abercromby)

Mr. Speaker, I do not think we who represent the city of Liverpool have anything to complain of in the way in which the honourable Member has stated his opposition to the Bill, although I must say I think on the whole the House will agree with me that there have not been sufficient reasons given for the line of action which apparently he has taken. I understand that he is not anxious to hang up this very important Bill, and that his criticisms deal rather with the Instruction on the Paper. I do not think I can minimise the importance of the Bill to the locality which I and my colleagues have the honour to represent. It deals with the expenditure of a sum of three and a half millions, and it will bring about the construction of three new graving docks and six new branch docks, and the expenditure will be extended over no less than eight years. And when I tell the House that this money will not be spent in the purchase of land, but almost entirely in the employment of labour, the House will see of what extraordinary importance the Bill is to the community. It will so influence certain parts of the city of Liverpool that have somewhat stagnated of late years, owing to the obsolete character of the docks, as to probably impart entirely new life to those parts of the city. The importance of renewing the docks is shown by the very striking increase that has taken place in the length of vessels. I do not intend to go into any great quantity of details, but I should like to point out that, whereas in 1872 ships were commonly 440 feet long, with a tonnage of 4,000 odd, they now are 615 feet long, with a tonnage of 12,000 odd, and there is one being built of 700 feet. Therefore the House will see that docks built 20 years ago are entirely obsolete. The honourable Member desires to convey to the House the impression that this public Trust, whose duty it is to carry out its work with due regard to the public good, and for no other purpose—a Trust that is manned by the most intelligent leaders of the mercantile community in that important district—has been regardless of the interests of the city which he has the honour to represent. I should like to inform the House that while the honourable Gentleman is Member for Dublin, and represents the Dublin community, yet I have authority for saying that the Belfast people are perfectly content with what the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board has done and is prepared to do. The honourable Member seemed to think that the Board has been unduly careless of his interests, but I think that in past years they have shown that they have been quite alive to the obligation which rested upon them to discharge fully their duties with regard to any trade which enters the Port of Liverpool. During the last few years they have appropriated to the coasting trade practically the whole of the Prince's and Victoria Docks, which were both formerly used by the foreign trade, and which are most conveniently situated. They have increased the landing-stage by 400 feet, and built a jetty 300 feet long at the northern end of the extension. They have also doubled the accommodation for ships of the length of 250 feet; that is to say, the number of berths have been increased from 28 to 51 since 1872. The length of the quay space in 1872 was 2,300 feet. Now it is 2,430 feet. I think I have shown that the Board have been from time to time quite alive to their obligation. The honourable Member seemed to complain that a year ago the Board were prepared to take powers to create a connection between the river and a certain market at Bootle. I submit that that cannot in any sense be credited to the Board as an improper action. The fact is, this House in two consecutive years approved the removal of the market from Stanley to Bootle, and it was only at the end of the second year that the Corporation of Liverpool came in and said they thought, on the whole, it was most improper that a private company should undertake the discharge of public duties. It is to me rather an interesting fact, Mr. Speaker, that I was strongly of that opinion. I did not associate myself with my colleagues in taking the line they did, and I did not sign the Whips sent out in support of the Bill at that time. I was of opinion that a private company was not quite the proper body to attend to such an important public duty, and, therefore, when I come to the House this year and join in the Whip in support of this very important Measure, I think I may be looked upon as an impartial authority. The honourable Member has mentioned that he desires that the Board should go to the expense of £350,000 in making a new wharf and floating pier opposite the Waterloo Docks, but those works were never a part of a definite scheme, as one would imagine from the honourable Gentleman's remarks. As a matter of fact, in 1892, when that Bill was first on the tapis in Liverpool, the Chairman of the Board said that this particular matter was not of immediate pressing importance, but that the Board proposed to apply to Parliament for powers to carry out this scheme in case it should be found necessary. Therefore, they never did intend to carry out this scheme unless it was necessary, and no one in Liverpool considers this floating pier to be at all necessary. I will read to the honourable Member a letter which I have received from the Secretary to the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, which, I think, the House, and the honourable Gentleman himself, will agree is couched in very moderate terms. It is written to myself, dated April 26th, and is as follows— With reference to the Mersey Docks Board (New Works) Bill, which comes on for second reading this afternoon, you may state to the House, on behalf of the Mersey Docks Board, that if they were sure that the site of the cattle market would remain at Stanley the Board would at once proceed to carry out the remainder of the works between the stage and the pier, under the authority of the Act of 1893, and which would have been carried out before this if it had not been for the altered condition of things brought about by the legislation of 1896. The future location of the Liverpool Cattle Market is at present uncertain, and until the question has been settled by arrangement between old and new cattle market companies and the Corporation, or otherwise, the Board do not consider that they would be justified in expending money, which might be thrown away should the site be changed. You may assure the House that when the future position of the market is known, the Board will do what may be reasonably necessary, either to improve the existing accommodation, so far as the improvement may be requisite, or to provide new accommodation elsewhere, suitable to the altered position of the market. The dock engineer has already taken measures to remedy the difficulty which has been experienced in the use of the jetty at the north end of the Prince's Stage during strong ebb tide. Well, Mr. Speaker, I hope the honourable Member will recognise that this is really a very reasonable proposal. The Board does not intend in the least to run away from their obligation to the cattle trade; they desire to have regard to the interests of that trade, and it is only owing to the legislation which took place in 1895–96 and 1897 that they have any hesitation in incurring further expenditure which this letter foreshadows. I do not think I need really dwell further on the matter. The honourable Member has told us that a few months ago the cattle trade had to give way to the Atlantic liner. I have authority to say that during the last year an Atlantic liner only on one occasion ousted a cattle coaster. I hope, Mr. Speaker, under these circumstances, and having regard to the letter which I have read, that the honourable Member will accept my assurance, on behalf of the Board, that they have no desire to enter any non possumus to the requirements of the trade, and that they desire to discharge their duty in regard to the great public interests which their position entails upon them.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (Liverpool, Scotland)

Mr. Speaker, I am sure every Member for Liverpool will be very glad indeed that this prolonged controversy has come to a final and satisfactory conclusion. No Member has a greater desire to see that controversy closed than myself. My honourable Friend would have placed me in a position of difficulty if he had gone to the length of opposing the Second Reading of this Bill, because I could not have found it consistent with the interests of my constituents in Liverpool to oppose a Measure which will largely increase the facilities, and therefore the prosperity, of the city, and also give the labour of the city a very large amount of work to do. But, at the same time, I think we must all agree that this is a controversy which ought never to have arisen, and certainly ought not to be prolonged. I cannot myself quite understand where the difficulty exactly arises, except that it is owing to the question of the Stanley Market to a certain extent lying open. My honourable Friend behind me is perfectly justified—in fact, it is his duty, as representing the people of Dublin—in bringing before this House on every occasion the just and supreme demand of the trade of Ireland upon every facility that can be given to it by Liverpool. On the other hand, I cannot understand any citizen of Liverpool being undesirous of giving every facility for carrying on the trade upon which not merely the prosperity of Ireland but also the prosperity of Liverpool largely depends. This being to the interests of both sides I confess, speaking as impartially as I can, I cannot quite understand why there should be any difference of opinion. With regard to the complaints of the Irish cattle trade, I cannot come to the conclusion that those complaints are made without some just and adequate cause. I would be glad if the undertaking given by the honourable Member who has just preceded me, on behalf of the Board, were of a stronger character than it is. I am sure some of the other Members for Ireland will rise up and say that the Irish cattle trade ought to be assured that, not in an indefinite period, but promptly, their needs and demands will be considered in Liverpool, and every reasonable and just ground for complaint removed. These being the facts of the case, I do not think my honourable Friend will feel himself called upon to divide the House against the Second Reading of this Bill. At the same time I hope the Minister for Agriculture will be able to give some assurance that will satisfy the trade which he represents in this House.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. W. H. LONG,) Liverpool, West Derby

The situation, as I understand it, is a simple one. I have had the advantage of frequent interviews with honourable Gentlemen who believe that their interests are jeopardised, and also with leading members of the Dock Board and of the Liverpool Corporation. So far as the Dock Board is concerned I have found in all cases a desire to put their case fairly, and I can safely say that I am convinced that they are not only anxious but determined to do everything they can fairly and justly do for the safe and convenient conduct of the trade which comes into their docks. But they have stated to my honourable Friend behind me that, so long as there is an element of doubt as to the future situation of the cattle market, it is not reasonable or fair to call upon them to spend a large sum of money on putting into a proper condition a landing stage which may prove unsuitable if a distant locality were afterwards selected for the market. I take it the suggestion of the honourable Member for Dublin is not that the large expenditure authorised by the Act of 1893 should be undertaken, but that proper provision should be made for the cattle trade at a spot convenient for the existing market. The answer to that is that that market may not continue to exist, and that the proposal before the House last year with regard to the market may be revived. Well, Sir, I can only say that the Department for which I am responsible would view with the greatest possible apprehension and with the greatest possible regret any attempt to establish in a great city like Liverpool a market which is not owned and controlled by the Corporation, who would be responsible to the Board of Agriculture for the conduct of that market. One of the most important details of our work is the superintendence of the various large markets of this country, in order to secure that they shall be properly conducted as regards sanitation, and that their condition shall be such for the reception and distribution of the cattle as shall secure the least possible amount of cruelty, ill-treatment, and suffering on the part of the animals Well, the experience of my Department has always been that it is in the interests of all concerned—Government authorities, individuals, and the trade—that these large markets should be owned and controlled by local bodies, who ought to be responsible for these details of local government. I, therefore, cannot help thinking that the difficulty as to the possible revival of that scheme is not a very real one, and I cannot myself help being convinced, after the assurances that have been given to me, that there will no longer be any unnecessary delay, and that there will be every effort on the part of the Corporation to provide a suitable market, and on the part of the Dock Board to give suitable means of access to it; because I think that these great bodies, who are trustees for the public good, have gone as far as one can reasonably ask them to go in the existing circumstances. I hope that the advice which has been given by my honourable colleague the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool will be accepted by honourable Members opposite without putting the House to the trouble of a Division, and that, considering the large space of time occupied to-day in the transaction of private business, and especially Irish business, we shall now be allowed to bring this Debate to a close. I am as anxious as honourable Members opposite can be that the interests of this great trade should be safeguarded. I believe that no risk whatever will be run by taking the course that has been suggested, but that, on the contrary, it will further the object that they and I, and I certainly hope my honourable Friends behind me, have in view.

MR. FIELD

After the explanation given by the honourable Member for the Abercrombie Division of Liverpool, I feel that I should be only acting against my own judgment and against the interests which have been confided to me in dividing the House. I am quite satisfied that the right honourable Gentleman will safeguard the interests of the Irish cattle trade, and of the live stock trade generally, and I therefore accede to the suggestion that I should withdraw the Motion.