§ 87. Mr. PETOasked whether the Board of Trade have received any information as to the putting back of the steamer "Cape Antibes" to Falmouth with her 448 deck cargo adrift; whether he will ascertain fully the nature and weight of this deck cargo; in what way it broke adrift; and what structural or other damage has been sustained by the steamer as a result of this deck cargo?
§ The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton)From a report made by the Board of Trade surveyor at Falmouth it appears that the "Cape Antibes" put into that port to have her deck cargo re-secured. That deck cargo consisted of locomotive frames, cylinders, and boilers, and weighed 121 tons. One of the locomotive frames broke adrift owing to two of the ringbolts to which the frame was lashed tearing away from the angle-iron to which they were riveted. The vessel did not sustain any structural damage, but the handrails on the port side were broken and bent, and the topmast backstay screw was broken.
§ Mr. PETOWill the right hon. Gentleman take early steps to see there are a sufficient number of surveyors with actual knowledge and experience to inspect those vessels before they go to sea?
§ Mr. BUXTONSo far as I know, there are adequate surveyors. In this particular case I do not think it was due to any neglect of the surveyors.
§ 88. Mr. PETOasked whether the right hon. Gentleman could give the number of cases where ships put back to port owing to deck cargo shifting or going adrift; the number of cases in which structural damage is caused by deck cargo in heavy weather, even when the vessels are not reported as putting back to port; and whether he proposes to take any further steps to regulate the carrying deck cargoes?
§ Mr. BUXTONNinety-one vessels registered in the United Kingdom were reported to the Board of Trade as having sustained casualties while carrying deck loads of timber during the year ended 30th June, 1912. Of these vessels, seventy-two sustained damage, and nineteen lost part of their deck cargo without damage to the ship. Eleven of the ships put back into port. Any representations that the hon. Member or others may desire to make to me on the subject will receive careful consideration.
90. Mr. CATHCART WASONasked if the Regulations issued in 1906 are mainly 449 applicable to comparatively new vessels and allow vessels of an older type to be loaded to a considerably greater extent than prior to 1906; if he is aware that persons well qualified to judge consider that such extra loading is responsible for shipwreck and loss of life; and if he will consider the desirability of amending the Regulations as applied to vessels of the older type?
§ Mr. BUXTONThe revised tables of freeboard issued in 1906 are applicable to all seagoing vessels irrespective of their age, but the reduced freeboards allowed by these tables can only be obtained by vessels which comply with modern conditions and the revised standard of strength and efficiency laid down in these Regulations. As I have stated before in this House, the assertion that the deeper loading allowed under the Regulations of 1906 is responsible for increased wrecks and loss of life is not borne out by the statistics of shipping casualties. I am inquiring into the whole subject in connection with the loss of the "North Briton."