§ As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
§ Mr. AMMONBefore passing this Bill, I think there are one or two things on which we should have a little more information. As I understand, the Bill seeks to abolish the old Coastguard which has been under the Admiralty for about 200 years, and to redistribute the 1815 Coastguard under three other authorities, the Admiralty, the Board of Trade and the Customs and Excise. It also seeks to acquire sites, etc., which have formerly been held by the Admiralty. The first question I want to ask is, what has happened to those sites already under the Admiralty? A number, I believe, have been sold. Will it be necessary again to acquire some of those, and shall we have the experience of having sold Government property at knock-out prices and having to buy it back again at greatly enhanced prices?
Another thing I understand is that about 100 men are to be retained by the Admiralty for wireless service, and then it is understood that a. small force is to be retained by the Board of Customs and Excise for preventive work. This, I understand, will be an increase to the old existing staff, and it is interesting to know that one of the outcomes of the passing of the Safeguarding of Industries Bill has been to increase one of the old picturesque trades—namely, that of smuggling, because if I read the Bill aright, there will be about £50,000 addition devoted to preventive work-that is to prevent an increase of smuggling which is expected to take place under the new legislation passed through this House. So that we have, at least, some revival of trade in one particular direction, but this is likely to be an expanding industry, which is likely to cost this country dear in the long run. Then it is understood that there will be a saving of about £300,000, or, roughly, 50 per cent. How is that saving to be effected? Is it to be by reduction of staffs and buildings or in the cost of wages, salaries, etc.? These two or three points might be cleared up to the advantage of the House.
§ Mr. ERNEST EVANSI should like the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade to give us an assurance that in the alterations that are being made in the Coastguard service he will ensure that adequate provision is made along the coast for the purpose of affording aid to vessels that may be in danger, or wrecked.
A little while ago there was a disaster on the West Coast of Wales, off Cardiganshire, and I believe that all the persons concerned lost their lives. Bitter 1816 complaint was then made against the existing state of things, which undoubtedly, in the opinion of those who complained, led to the deaths of persons who, otherwise, would have been saved. I do not know whether the President of the Board of Trade received any protests in regard to that matter, but I understood that a protest was to have been sent. This is a matter which, I am sure, interests all in the House, and we shall be glad to receive an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that this very vital and valuable service will be continued.
§ Captain GARRO-JONESThere are two or three parts in this Bill enclosed in brackets in order to avoid any question of privilege. I should like to ask about them.
§ The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister)That matter was raised yesterday in Committee, and I then explained that the House would have the opportunity of saying what it had to say on the subject.
§ Captain GARRO-JONESAnother point I should like to put is that opportunity seeing to be made for some private Members of the House who wish to make speeches, out the Patronage Secretary appears tr make no attempt when we want to discuss something from these benches.
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERIn regard to the last point of the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Garro-Jones) it does not seem to be very relevant to the Bill before us, but perhaps; the most effective way to secure the attendance of Members is for hon. Gentlemen to secure the attendance of members of their own party.
With regard to the point of property raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) it is not a now proposal that is put forward in the Bill. The property is surplus to that required by the coastguard at the present time. The only object of the Section dealing with the vesting of property in the Office of Works is the administrative convenience of having one Department alone responsible for the administration of land.
In regard to whether the new allocation of the work means greater economy 1817 or greater extravagance, I may say at once that already there is an economy of over £250,000 a year. As a matter of fact, what happens in this Bill, and what the House has already approved of is this, that each Department now becomes responsible for the work which it does. In the olden days the Admiralty were really doing work for three Departments. They did coastguard watching for the Board of Trade; they did preventive work for the Customs and they were doing this particular signalling work which still remains under the Admiralty. Now each of the appropriate Departments has control of its own work, land being vested in the Office of Works.
My hon. Friend the Member for the Welsh University (Mr. Ernest Evans) need be under no apprehension that the coast-watching work will not be carried on as heretofore. The Admiralty were doing that work for the Board of Trade before and there was very close liaison. No station is dispensed with until after the most careful consultation with all those responsible for it and it has been decided that it is really unnecessary.
I am not aware of the particular case he referred to on the coast of Wales, but if he will send me particulars I will see that the case is looked into. The men who do this work, and it is work of the greatest importance, will be the same men who were doing it before, and who, quite rightly, have the confidence of the whole coast population and of the whole mercantile community. The hon. Member, I know, wished also to raise the question of recruiting. The force will be recruited in future exactly as it has been in the past.
In so far as new recruits are taken in, in the first place, it will be my object to see that any man already having coastguard experience who is ready should have the opportunity of entering on that service again; and, subject to that, we should also recruit for that service men of the fullest seafaring and mercantile experience. In most cases they will be men who have been in the Royal Navy: in other cases they will be men who have been serving in the mercantile marine.
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERIn nearly every case they will be naval men, but I 1818 am sure the hon. Member will agree that, after all, it is one great service, and if some of these recruits come from the Mercantile Marine as well as from the Royal Navy, it will not be resented by other sections of the Service.
§ Mrs. PHILIPSONDo I understand that some of the coastguards dismissed from the service will be allowed to enter again?
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERWhat I said was that so far as they can be secured we will try to take back into the service any men who become surplus to requirements.