§ MR. HAVELOCK WILSONTo ask the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that James Pinto, a Lascar, native of Karwar, India, was rejected at the Barry Mercantile Marine Office when about to sign on the steamer "Ethelreda" on the 25th July, 1908, on the grounds that he was unable to satisfy the superintendent that he had had sufficient sea service under Section 27 (2) of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1906, to sign on as cook; whether he is aware that on the same day Pinto was allowed by the superintendent of the Mercantile Marine Office at Cardiff to sign in the same vessel as ship's cook; whether he is aware that the same James Pinto was discharged at Newport on the 14th September, 1908, being rated as ship's cook; and whether 51 he will cause inquiries to be made as to why this man was allowed to sign on when unable to comply with Section 27 (2) of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1906.
§ (Answered, by Mr. Churchill.) I understand that the seaman referred to by my hon. friend attended the Barry Mercantile Marine Office for engagement as ship's cook on the ss. "Etheldreda," but did not then sign articles, as he could not prove that he was "duly certificated" within the meaning of Section (27) 2 of the Mercantile Shipping Act, 1906. He was, however, subsequently engaged as cook on the vessel at the Cardiff Mercantile Marine Office, the master explaining that he had endeavoured to obtain the services of a cook with the qualifications required by Section 27, but had failed to do so. The date and place of the seaman's discharge are as stated. The officers of the Board of Trade have no power to prohibit the engagement of an unqualified cook, but I am prepared to institute proceedings in cases where the master or owner of a ship has failed to comply with Section 27 without sufficient reason. In the present case, however, the superintendent at Cardiff has reported that, in his opinion, the master's explanation was a reasonable one.