§ (1) The power under Section two of the Isle of Man Harbours Act, 1883, to impose a duty on passengers carried for hire is hereby extended so as to include a power to impose, as respects vessels holding a Board of Trade certificate for the conveyance of passengers, a duty on passengers whether carried for hire or not.
§ (2) One shilling shall be substituted for threepence as the maximum duty on a passenger under proviso (1) to Section two of the Isle of Man Harbours Act, 1883, as respects passengers embarked or disembarked at a harbour on Sunday between the hours of eight o'clock in the forenoon and five o'clock in the afternoon.
§ Mr. MOONEYI beg to move to leave out Clause 6. I do so in order to get from the Parliamentary Secretary some expla- 2210 nation of Sub-section (2), which authorises the Commissioners to charge a sum of 1s., instead of a sum of 3d., for every passenger that may be landed in any harbour of the Isle of Man on Sunday between the hours of eight o'clock in the morning and five o'clock in the afternoon. As I understand, this increased charge has been proposed to do away with what is considered to be an influx of trippers on Sunday. I have no objection to make from that point of view, but I have an objection to the Clause, as it enables a charge of a shilling to any person embarking or disembarking on Sunday. This Sub-section is not governed by the words of the first Sub-section with the result that a passenger landing or embarking could be charged the quadruple rate. For instance, a person coming in a yacht or driven into a harbour through stress of weather would be liable to be charged the quadruple amount. I do not think that is intended, but I would be glad, if my interpretation of the Subsection is correct, to have an assurance that words will be put in that this quadruple charge is only to have effect on passenger-carrying boats. The other point I desire to refer to is the provision in the next Clause that a debt of £700 may be compounded. That Clause is extremely vague. It provides that the Commissioners may accept any smaller amount in full discharge of the debt. Surely it would be better to state what amount is to be accepted in place of £700. I very much regret that the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) is not here, because last night he took exception to the Public Works Loans Bill on a particular matter, and here is a remission of a debt of £700, and we have not been told how much is going to be accepted in consideration of that amount.
§ Mr. PATRICK WHITEI beg to second the Amendment.
§ 9.0 P.M.
§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Tennant)My hon. Friend has put two questions to me; one with regard to the compounding of a debt. I am not really aware what actual sum is contemplated, but the Harbour Commissioners do not think it would be reasonable to exact full dues for this vessel. I imagine that they would make a considerable reduction—the exact amount, I suppose, will depend on the condition of the finances of the Harbour Commissioners. With regard to the other point, to which I imagine he attaches more im- 2211 portance, I should like to remind him that the charge of one shilling is a maximum amount. It is not to be exacted in all cases. When he asks me to insert words to differentiate as between passengers coming on a steamer and passengers coming on a yacht I think the House might have something to say against that as one law for one class and another for another class. All these matters are within the discretion of the Harbour Commissioners. We only give power in the Bill for the maximum duty. Therefore, it will be perfectly within the competence of the Commissioners to say that on certain classes of vessel they will charge higher rates than on other classes. I do not imagine, and I am informed so, that they contemplate having to make the full charge of 1s. They hope to be able to effect the object they have of limiting the number of trippers by a considerably smaller sum than 1s. Ninepence or 8d. would probably effect their object. I will communicate with the authorities of the Isle of Man to see if they can agree to what the hon. Gentleman suggests with regard to yachts. I would remind him that it is only within certain hours that this maximum will be chargeable. I will communicate the result of my inquiries to the hon. Member, and if the authorities are agreeable to the insertion of other words I will see that that is done in another place.
§ Sir W. BYLESThere were considerable objections raised in the Grand Committee to this proposed increased charge. I am not so solicitous of the interests of the yachtsmen, as I am of the interests of the trippers who go from Manchester and Sal-ford to the Isle of Man. We appreciate the Island very much for its natural beauties and the facilities it affords us for an easy and healthful excursion. It will come very hard upon poor families in that district who make trips to the Isle of Man if they are charged 1s. instead of 3d. per person on landing. The authorities may not impose the full charge, but they will have the power to do so. If a man with a family of three or four has to pay 1s. each on landing—and I am not sure whether he will not have to pay 1s. each to get them away again—it will add very much indeed to the cost of the holiday. What is the object of the Isle of Man authorities in asking for far-reaching legislation of this kind? The charge is limited to passengers who land between eight in the morning and five in the afternoon on Sundays. It is evident 2212 that it is not a tax for revenue. It is a tax for Sabbatarianism and nothing else. The inhabitants of the Isle of Man no doubt, have some claim to enjoy their homes in peace on Sunday, but I think it is going a very long way to shut out on the whole of Sunday the great population who use the Isle of Man as a playground, Sunday probably being the only day on which many of them can take a holiday at all.
§ Mr. MOONEYMay I point out that the Clause to which I have referred has reference to the remission of an existing debt of £700. If it is an existing debt, the promoters of the Bill must have known what sum they were going to take in respect of it. I object to the loose way in which the Clause is drafted. It would enable 2d. or 3d. to be taken for a debt of £700. If a company or corporation are to be allowed to forego a legal liability which they have incurred, Parliament ought to insist on the consideration for the waiving of the liability being embodied in the Bill. I protest very strongly against the slipshod manner in which these Bills are drafted. Nearly every departmental Bill which we have considered in the last three months has been drafted in a manner which would be a disgrace to an apprentice in a solicitor's office.
§ Mr. TENNANTAny amount which is agreed upon will have to pass the Court of Tynwald in the Isle of Man.
§ Clause agreed to.
§ Bill reported without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.