§ 15. Mr. HOUSTONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Shipping whether he is aware that a British steamer which loaded in a certain British port was ordered to another British port, then to a French port, where she arrived at 2.30 a.m. on 3rd May, but was prevented from entering that port by the examination boat, which came out and ordered the master to hang off till daylight, when a pilot would be sent to him; whether he is aware that two hours afterwards this steamer was torpedoed by an 12 enemy submarine; whether he can state why permission was not given to the master to enter the port; and whether he will see that representations are made to the French authorities with a view to preventing further disasters of a like nature?
§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING (Sir Leo Chiozza Money)The vessel which is presumed to be referred to was unavoidably kept waiting outside the French port for a period of about two hours, because there was reason to believe that mines bad been laid, and that it would be dangerous for her to enter. At the end of that time she struck a mine in what was supposed to be a safe channel, and more mines were afterwards discovered. It appears that such measures as were possible were taken to prevent mishap, but, unfortunately, without success.
§ Mr. HOUSTONIs the hon. Gentleman aware that it is quite customary for the French authorities to keep British shipping dodging about at night off the ports to suit the convenience of the pilots?
§ Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEYI do not think that arises out of the question. As regards the specific question, I have made careful inquiry, and am satisfied that the precautions taken were proper precautions.
§ Mr. HOUSTONThey did not succeed, did they?
16. The hon. Memberasked for information as to the number of steamers, together with their respective gross registered tonnage, which have arrived with coal at West African ports since 1st January, 1917, and the time each of these steamers occupied in discharging their coal; how many of these steamers carried cargoes of coal for account of warships; and whether it is the practice to allocate certain colliers to certain warships, keeping the colliers waiting for the specified warships, or whether various warships replenish their bunkers as required from one collier, enabling that steamer to be discharged promptly, utilising the steamers in turn as they arrive instead of keeping a large number of collier's partially discharged for lengthy periods, thereby wasting tonnage?
§ Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEYI regret that it is not considered desirable in the public interest to give the information asked for in this question. I may say, however, with regard to the last part of it that it is not 13 the practice to allocate certain colliers to certain warships, but that they are normally cleared in the order of their arrival, unless, of course, special considerations arise which prevent this being done.
§ Mr. HOUSTONCan the hon. Gentleman say when this improved method was instituted? It must have been quite recently, because seven ships were lying there a short time ago.
§ Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEYThe course taken is clearly expressed in the answer I have given. There is no question of a ship being allocated to a certain warship. It is a question of meeting the need that arises at any particular moment.
§ Mr. PRINGLEIs the hon. Gentleman not aware that it has been constantly the practice to allocate particular colliers to warships, and that within the last ten days?
§ Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEYThat is a question which my hon. Friend should address to the representative of the Admiralty.
§ 17. Mr. HOUSTONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller whether be is aware that a three-deck steamer of large measurement capacity was requisitioned and taken away from her liner employment to carry a cargo of coal to Trinidad although she was unsuitable for this purpose; whether lie is aware that after arrival in Trinidad she lay ten days idle before breaking bulk, and that the cargo was not discharged until twenty-six days after arrival; and whether, in view of the unsuitability of three-deck steamers for carrying coal, means and methods will be adopted to prevent such waste in future?
§ Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEYI am aware that a vessel of the type described was used for the purpose indicated. Unfortunately, it is not infrequently the case that so many vessels are required to carry coal for war purposes that it is impossible to use solely such ships as would be devoted to carrying coal in time of peace. This, I am sure, the hon. Member will readily understand. As regards the particular vessel referred to, her cargo was partly discharged at Trinidad and partly at St. Lucia, a fact of which the hon. Member does not appear to be aware. Her movements, of course, followed upon the necessities of His Majesty's ships.
§ Mr. HOUSTONIs the hon. Gentleman not aware that this steamer occupied at least three weeks longer in discharging than she ought to have done, and that she was bringing a cargo of sugar home to this country, which was badly wanted, and that she was delayed three weeks?
§ Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEYMy information is that the movements of this vessel were determined by the needs of His Majesty's warships, and there is nothing to add to that.
§ 18. Mr. HOUSTONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller whether is is aware that a British steamer of about 10,000 tons capacity arrived from a foreign port in Falmouth about the end of March; whether she lay at that port awaiting orders for two days, was then ordered to a French port where she lay two days again awaiting orders, was then ordered to another French port, where she lay about eight days awaiting orders; whether the master was then ordered to another French port, but was unable to enter that port on account of his draught; whether she was eventually sent across the Channel to Southampton, where her cargo was discharged into several other vessels, occupying about a month in doing so; whether one of those vessels was sent across the Channel short of some 2,000 tons of her carrying capacity; and whether greater care will be exercised to prevent this waste of tonnage?
§ Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEYMy hon. Friend has been misinformed.
§ Mr. HOUSTONOh, no.
§ Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEYThe first vessel referred to was, it is true, delayed at certain ports, but what is described in my hon. Friend's question as "awaiting orders" was, in fact, proper regard for the safety of the vessel, and the further actual delay was the result of a collision, of which my hon. Friend does not appear to have been informed. In the case of the second ship referred to, there was no waste of carrying capacity. Her cargo, which had to be loaded into her as it was discharged from the former vessel, happened to be of heavy weight, with the result that although she loaded her full deadweight capacity she had empty space. It is not the case that any avoidable waste of tonnage occurred in connection with these ships.
§ Mr. HOUSTONCan the hon. Gentleman say who was responsible for ordering the vessel in question to Boulogne, into which port it was impossible for her to get?
§ Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEYThe hon. Gentleman has put down this question in ignorance of the facts of the case.
§ Mr. HOUSTONOh, no.
§ Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEYHe has suggested to the public in his question that this vessel was improperly handled. If he knew that a collision occurred he ought to have stated that in the question.
§ Mr. HOUSTONMay I point out that my question is strictly accurate so far as the delays at different ports are concerned?
§ Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEYThe hon. Gentleman gave the public to understand that this vessel was delayed through mishandling. As a matter of fact, it was delayed through a collision.
§ Mr. HOUSTONIs the hon. Gentleman aware that I have not been guilty of the motive he imputes to me, namely, to mislead the public, but to bring home to his Department the waste of tonnage, of which this ship is an illustration?
§ Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEYI did not say that he deliberately misled the public.
§ 19. Mr. HOUSTONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller whether he is aware that a British steamer on a recent trip fom Southampton to a French port carried, amongst other cargo, 350 tons of corrugated iron which had been loaded by night and day work, and that on arrival at the French port the master was told they did not require this corrugated iron and was ordered to carry it back again to Southampton; and whether he will undertake that greater intelligence and co-ordination will be exercised to prevent this wasteful procedure?
§ Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEYThe hon. Member has again been misinformed. The quantity of iron on board on the occasion referred to was only thirty-six tons. The ship commenced to load galvanised iron for a French port, but on receipt of an urgent demand for hay from a different port in France the loading of iron was stopped, and the vessel completed with hay. The quantity of hay excluded by the thirty-six tons of iron on board 16 was, as the hon. Member will understand, quite insignificant, and the delay which would have resulted from the discharging of this small bulk cargo would have been a disadvantage. It follows that it is the suggestion of the hon. Member, and not the practical course taken, which would have been wasteful.
§ Mr. HOUSTONWill the hon. Gentleman make further inquiries, and he will find my statement correct?
§ Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEYI have made very careful inquiry, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the amount of iron on board was thirty-six tons.