CLAUSE 5.—(Interpretation.) (Hansard, 18 June 1925)

§ Mr. GOSLING
I understand that an effort is going to be made for the purpose of meeting the point I wish to raise. I am not quite sure why the words that I wish to have taken out were ever put in. The Bill that was introduced last year complied with the Convention without these words being inserted. Anyway, I now understand that the omission of the words "or pilotage," which is to be moved on behalf of the Government, will bring the Bill within the terms of the Convention. Otherwise, it goes too far. If the omission of the words "or pilotage" will limit the jurisdiction of the port, I shall feel much safer than I should have done with the words left in. But my real object was all the time to protect the young people under 18, because I am not quite sure whether the Board of Trade realises that, taking two classes of vessels of exactly the same type, one will go on a Continental trip and do it in a week, and be under the Convention, but the other vessel, that works in and out of the ports in exactly the same way, the crew getting ashore no more frequently than on the first vessel, comes out of the Convention. The words that I proposed to leave out would have made that perfectly sure, but if I understand the real meaning of the Government's Amendment is to cover that point, I am content, and do not propose to move my Amendment.

§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Burton Chadwick)
I beg to move, in page 5, line 7, to leave out the words "or pilotage."
I need not describe the Bill, as the House knows already what it contains, but the point before us is that raised by my hon. Friend the Member for White- 896 chapel (Mr. Gosling). In the first place, we must give effect to the Convention, and neither more nor less than the Convention. Then we have to define, for the purposes of the Clause, the expression "vessel engaged in maritime navigation." There are a very large number of craft which in no circumstances could be described as engaged in maritime navigation, and these are such craft as are enumerated in Clause 5. At the same time, some of these craft go out to sea occasionally, and my right hon. Friend feels that Clause 5, amended as he desires, will draw a clear and workable distinction between those classes of ships to which the Convention is meant and those to which it is not meant to apply, namely, ships which occasionally find themselves at sea and ships which spend the whole of their time within the limits of the ports. Underlying the Convention is the intention to give protection to certain young people who are taken away from home on foreign voyages. That intention is made perfectly clear under Article 4 of the Convention, which provides that if, in urgent cases, a young person is embarked on a ship without it being possible for him to have been medically examined, he must undergo a medical examination at the first port of call, and Clause 5 emphasises this intention when it describes a ship as "any sea-going ship or boat." It is obvious, therefore, that this Amendment will carry out the letter and the spirit of the Convention.

§ Sir LESLIE SCOTT
The object of the Clause in the Bill as it stands was to exclude from the scope of the Bill vessels which it was not intended to bring within the scope of the International Convention, namely, vessels which for practical purposes did not navigate the high seas. That that was the scope of the Convention appears clearly in Articles 4 and 5 of the Convention, which provide what is to be done on voyages and what is to be done at the first port of call. The dock authorities of the country were very much concerned with the form in which the Bill appeared last year, and they raised the question of whether or not the dock authorities' vessels were to be excluded. I think the Clause, almost in its present form, was agreed last year, but on account of the Dissolution the Bill never reached 897 a stage when the question became practical. At any rate, when the Bill was introduced this year, the Clause was not in the Bill, and there was nothing to meet the position of the dock authorities. In another place, where the Bill was introduced, the Clause was absent, although it had been understood, as between the dock authorities and the Board of Trade, that the Bill would contain something of the sort. I am not suggesting that the dock authorities are complaining of any breach of faith, but merely that they expected the Clause. The matter was raised in another place, and this Clause was introduced, on behalf of the Government, at the Third Reading stage of the Bill in another place, in order to meet the views of the dock authorities.
I want to say a word in regard to the words "or pilotage," which it is proposed to omit. I recognise that there are certain pilotage districts which are very wide, and that if they were included you might inadvertently include sea-going voyages within this exempting Clause, and, therefore, exclude them from the scope of the Convention when it was not intended to do so. The difficulty is a purely practical point, and it is this. Dock authorities have vessels which are not really of a seagoing type at all, vessels such as dredgers, mud-hoppers and various vessels of a harbour type, which have to go in a seaward direction, very often a mile or two, or a few miles only, just beyond the reach of the harbour area. The omission of these words "or pilotage" would bring these vessels into the scope of the Bill and the Convention, when it is not intended, under the arrangement made, that they should be. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"] It may be that hon. Members opposite do not agree, but I repeat that the object of the Clause was to allow that type of vessel to stand outside the Convention, for this simple reason: The boys employed on these vessels live at home.

§ Mr. GOSLING
No.

§ Sir L. SCOTT
Yes, they do. A great many of them are in their home port, anyhow, and it is not quite the service that was intended to be covered by the Convention. The question is whether some words cannot be devised, on the omission of these two words "or pilotage," which will allow these vessels to go a mile or two beyond the harbour limit, 898 which they do at present, without, so to speak, losing the benefit of the Clause put in to exclude them from the Convention. I am not prepared at this stage, in this House, to suggest words which will do it. The matter has only been brought up today. It was only to-day that notice was given of the intention to omit these words, and it has not been found possible to consider what words would serve to add the mile or two extra ambit within which these vessels can go. I mention it now in the hope that the matter may be considered between now and the time when the Amendment will have to be considered in another place, in order that the matter may be dealt with there.

§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER
I hope the House will agree to the Amendment which my hon. Friend has moved. There has been a good deal of difficulty over this, not because there is great disagreement as to what all parties want to do, but because it is extraordinarily difficult to frame, in legal language, what will exactly give effect to the intention of the Convention and of all parties in this House. The position really is this: The Convention speaks about "maritime navigation," a term of art entirely unknown, I believe, to British mercantile law. As I understand it, that means a vessel going to sea upon a sea voyage. What you are called upon to deal with is not the character of the vessel, but what it is doing, and it seems to me the Convention intended to cover any vessel engaged in maritime navigation, whatever that may be. It is quite true that this Bill, as originally introduced, gave no such exemption, and if it had been left like that, it would not have been necessary to define what navigation meant. These words were put in in another place. It is also quite true, as my hon. and learned Friend said, that a previous Government had accepted words of a somewhat similar kind. Then when the Bill came to a Committee of this House, the point was raised. After a great deal of discussion, we came to the conclusion that the most reasonable words we could devise would be to take the harbour area, within which the vessels naturally carry on their avocation, and to omit the words "or pilotage," which, admittedly, are too wide. It has been the subject of a great deal of discussion between everyone concerned, and while no drafting is perfect, 899 I think the Amendment I propose is the most suitable.

§ Mr. WEBB
I am glad to find myself in complete agreement with the right hon. Gentleman on this point, not that I consider the Amendment he is proposing does everything I should like to see done, but I really think it does make the Bill, so far as terms will allow, conform to the Convention. I want to say a word in reference to something which fell from the hon. and learned Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Sir L. Scott) with regard to the ownership of these vessels. If it were sought by the dock and harbour authorities of this country to exempt all the vessels they own for harbour purposes, it would have been an absolute departure from the Convention. I say that any proposal to exempt vessels from the Convention because they are owned by dock and harbour authorities for dock and harbour purposes would be contrary to the Convention.

§ Sir L. SCOTT
I made no suggestion on those lines.

§ Mr. WEBB
I only say that if there were any desire on the part of these authorities to exempt vessels merely because of the purpose for which they are normally used, it would be a breach of the Convention. The mere fact that they are used purely for the harbour authorities would not warrant exemption, because they might be occasionally employed in what is strictly maritime navigation. If any attempt be made at a subsequent stage to give exemption to vessels in this respect, it will be a breach of the Convention. The whole success, as my hon. and learned Friend has often pointed out, of these international conventions, depends upon their being strictly observed and ratified by each country concerned, and we in this country take a very strict view of our obligations. We have insisted upon making the law strictly conform to the terms of the Convention, and it is extremely important that we should not give any encouragement to any nation, which might be less strict or conscientious in the matter, to make greater departures from the Convention. That being so, if we were to exempt from this Statute any vessels whatever, in so far as they are engaged in maritime navigation, we should be 900 setting a dangerous example to other nations. The First Schedule says: For the purpose of this Convention the term 'vessel' includes all ships and boats, of any nature whatsoever, engaged in maritime navigation, whether publicly or privately owner; it excludes ships of war. You cannot have wider terms, and you cannot exempt tugs which are normally employed within the limits of the port, but which occasionally go beyond those limits. Any attempt to widen the exemption would have the worst possible effect on the ratification of subsequent international conventions, and I do hope there will be no misunderstanding on the point.