§ 38. Mr. HOUSTONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Shipping whether he is now aware that the convoy which included the Liverpool liners A and B, loaded with general cargoes for Liverpool, did not proceed in its entirety to that port, the steamer B being diverted to an outport although there was included in her cargo a quantity of 1,660 tons of salted hides; and can he now state why Liverpool liners, loaded for Liverpool, are diverted to outports instead of sending tramp steamers to these outports?
§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING (Sir Leo Chiozza Money)If I am correct in my assumption as to the particular case to 1917 which my hon. Friend refers, the vessel in question, in addition to 1,660 tons of hides, carried 2,894 tons of wheat and other cargo. There was no question of breaking up a convoy The vessel sailed in a mixed convoy—that is to say, in a convoy containing steamers for various destinations, and while on passage was directed to the port of Avonmouth. Such diversions have been frequently necessary in the interests of safety, economy, and efficiency, and the action taken in this instance, after full consideration of all the relevant facts as to safety, port congestion, class of cargo, etc., involved no departure from the normal course of procedure.
§ Mr. HOUSTONThen may I ask the hon. Member if he can explain why he wrote me an absurdly inaccurate statement about one convoy going north to Liverpool and the other convoy going up south when, as a matter of fact, those ships were in the same convoy; and can he explain why he is invariably inaccurate when he answers my questions?
§ Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEYMy hon. Friend, I think, has arrived at his own conclusion on that matter, and I need not make any comment on it.
§ Mr. HOUSTONNaturally!
§ Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEYWith regard to the letter I wrote to the hon. Member, it was quite in conformity with the answer I have given him.