MERCHANT SHIPPING (TONNAGE DEDUCTION FOR PROPELLING POWER) BILL. (Hansard, 24 May 1907)

*THE CHAIRMAN
replied that he really did not know what the hon. Baronet meant. He had put the Resolution to the House and read the whole of it.

§ SIR F. BANBURY
said he had no intention of opposing the Bill, because he believed that upon the whole it was as good a measure as this Government 1269 could be expected to bring in. The Bill was a very short one and possibly a very good one, but it was quite impossible for them to understand it without an explanation. There was not even the memorandum which had been usual in the case of Bills of this class. He asked for a short explanation of the measure.

§ THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,) Carnarvon Boroughs
said it would be within the recollection of those interested in the Merchant Shipping Bill of last year that Members representing constituencies in which there were docks complained of the system of measurements of ships, and said that the ingenuity of naval architects had been exercised in such a way as to deprive pilots of their legitimate earnings. This Bill was brought in to remedy that state of things. He promised last year that if a private Bill on the subject was introduced, as Bills had been introduced in previous years, the Government would at any rate do what they could to see that the subject was investigated by a Committee. Several Bills were brought in, including that of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, and there was a general feeling expressed by shipowners that it was not a question for private Bill legislation, but that it ought to be dealt with by the Government. He agreed with that view, and the present Bill was introduced. It went upon the principle that the maximum deduction that could be made for propelling power in fixing the net register tonnage should be 60 per cent. of the gross tonnage. There was no interference in regard to crew space. It was very important that every inducement should be given to shipowners to afford as much accommodation as possible for the crews, and, therefore, they decided that there should be no charge by dock owners, pilots, or anyone else in respect of legitimate deductions made in respect of the sleeping, messing, and other accommodation for the crew. The deductions dealt with in the Bill were purely in respect of propelling power. After the measure was introduced, a good deal of feeling arose on both sides. The shipowners thought that it went too far; the dock authorities that it did not go far enough. He invited representatives of both parties to a conference at which all 1270 interests were represented—the liners, the dockowners, the trampowners, pilots and others. They held two or three meetings, and eventually arrived at an arrangement which gave satisfaction to everybody, except Mr. Beesley of Penarth, who was very difficult to persuade. It was agreed that 55 per cent. instead of 60 per cent. should be fixed as the maximum, and that to avoid making immediately a change in the law of so considerable a character the Bill should apply to all ships constructed after 1st May, 1907, and to existing ships on 1st June, 1914. In regard to Mr. Beesley's opposition, he proposed that the Bill, if it received a Second Reading, should go before a Hybrid Committee, when Mr. Beesley and the interests he represented would have an opportunity of appearing by counsel and of calling witnesses. The Government would support the compromise by counsel, for he thought it would not be fair to put to the expense the shipowners and dockowners who had agreed.

§ *MR. MORTON (Sutherland)
said that although the right hon. Gentleman had said that he had consulted everybody, as a matter of fact he had not consulted the Thames Conservancy at all. The suggested alteration from 60 per cent. to 55 per cent. was of great importance to the Port of London. The question of tonnage was a very serious one to the Port of London because it was almost their only source of income. They were obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for bringing in the Bill in accordance with his promise last year, and if they got the 55 per cent. which was suggested they would be fairly content, but he (Mr. Morton) was not quite certain as to the fairness of waiting till 1914 for existing ships.

§ *SIR J. RANDLES (Cumberland, Cockermouth)
asked whether the advantages promised by the right hon. Gentleman at the Shipping Conference on the Bill, which applied to ships now being built under contract, would be extended to ships under construction at the same date but not under contract.

§ MR. LLOYD-GEORGE
said that the hon. Member put the point before him the other day and he promised that if the words in the Bill did not cover the case 1271 the hon. Member put to him he would see that words were introduced for the purpose.