§ 1. Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHYasked the President of the Board of Trade if he can make any statement on the strike of wireless operators; how many ships are now at sea without wireless operators; how many are now at sea without the regulation number of wireless operators; and whether he will consider taking some action with a view to ending the dispute?
§ 3. Lord APSLEYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will recommend that an inquiry be held with a view to reaching a settlement of the shipowners' and wireless operators' dispute?
§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton)I have been asked to reply. I understand from my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade that he is unable to say how many ships are at present actually at sea without wireless operators or without the full number required by the rules. Since 26th November last, 1,258 British ships have sailed from the United Kingdom ports without wireless operators. Figures as to the number of ships whose wireless complement is incomplete are not at present available. As regards the last part of this question and the question of my Noble Friend the Member for Southampton (Lord Apsley) I cannot add anything to the reply which I gave yesterday to the hon. Members for Islington (Mr. Montague) and Edgehill (Mr. Hayes).
§ Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHYThis question was really put in the hope that there would be something to report 806 of progress made. Can the hon. Gentleman say anything about the negotiations that are pending, and if the parties have yet been called together, as was mentioned yesterday in the answer?
§ Mr. BETTERTONAs the hon. and gallant Gentleman will remember, I said yesterday that a communication was addressed yesterday to the employers which contained a copy of certain alternative proposals made by the Federation. We have not yet got a reply, but we are expecting one at a very early date, possibly either to-night or to-morrow, and after that we hope to arrange a joint conference. I am afraid I cannot carry the matter any further at this moment.
§ Lord APSLEYShould the Government decide to grant an inquiry in this matter, will they take into consideration the rather important question of requiring weather reports from all ships sailing under the British flag?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat does not arise out of these questions.
5. Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the wireless operators' trade dispute is interfering with the proper observance of the rules and regulations laid down under the Merchant Shipping (Wireless Telegraphy) Act, 1919; and, if so, what steps does he propose taking to bring the dispute to an end?
§ Mr. BETTERTONI have been asked to reply. The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As to the second part, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave yesterday to the hon. Members for Islington (Mr. Montagu) and Moss Side (Mr. Hurst).
§ 6. Mr. AMMONasked the President of the Board of Trade the number of calls for help picked up by British and foreign ships, respectively, during the period of stormy weather in the month of January last?
§ The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister)I regret that the information desired by the hon. Member is not available.
§ 7. Mr. AMMONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the 807 British schooner "Spencer Lake" was reported abandoned during last month; and whether the vessel was equipped with wireless apparatus and competent operators on board?
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERThe British schooner "Spencer Lake," 148 tons register, was registered in Newfoundland, and did not come within the operation of the Merchant Shipping (Wireless Telegraphy) Act, 1919. I am not aware whether she carried wireless apparatus and operators.
§ 8. Mr. AMMONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the steamships "Antinoe" and "Laristan," reported in distress with loss of life about the 26th and 27th January last, were equipped with wireless apparatus; and whether competent operators were on board?
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERThe steamships "Antinoe" and "Laristan" were equipped with wireless telegraphy apparatus, and carried fully-qualified operators.
§ 13. Mr. GRIFFITHSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, failing a speedy settlement of the marine wireless dispute, he proposes to waive the Regulations under the Merchant Shipping (Wireless Telegraphy) Act, 1919, indefinitely, or whether he will fix a time limit in order that the Act shall not be rendered abortive?
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERI cannot undertake to answer the hypothetical question which the hon. Member puts to me, and I sincerely hope that a settlement will be reached.
§ 16. Mr. SNELLasked the President of the Board of Trade how many special permits or clearances have been given to ships enabling them to proceed to sea without fully complying with the Merchant Shipping (Wireless Telegraphy) Act, 1919, since 26th November last; how many of these were passenger ships; and the total number of lives, passengers and crews involved?
§ 20. Mr. BRIANTasked the President of the Board of Trade how many special permits or clearances have been given to ships enabling them to proceed to sea 808 without fully complying with the Merchant Shipping (Wireless Telegraphy) Act, 1919, since 25th November last; how many of these were passenger ships; and the total number of lives, passengers and crews, involved?
§ 12. Sir ROBERT HAMILTONasked the President of the Board of Trade how many British ships have sailed from British ports during the last three months without complying with the Act of 1919 as regards the carrying of certificated wireless operators; and if it is intended to introduce legislation to indemnify the owners and masters from the consequences of their action?
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERThe number of British ships which have sailed from United Kingdom ports without wireless operators from the 26th November to the 6th February is 1,258, of which 87 are passenger ships. I am unable to give the total number passengers and crews on board these ships. It is not proposed to introduce legislation to indemnify the owners and masters of the ships in question.
§ Sir R. HAMILTONIs it not a fact that the Act of Parliament imposes penalties on master and owner if a ship sails without having complied with the Act?
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERI do not think I am called upon to express a legal opinion on the construction of the Act.
§ Mr. T. KENNEDYWill the right hon. Gentleman state under what. Section of the Act the Regulations are now being waived?
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERIf the legal action of the Government is to be challenged, that must be done in the courts of law, which alone can pronounce an authoritative decision on the question of law.
§ Mr. MORRISHas the right hon. Gentleman now power to dispense with the requirement that ships should sail with wireless operators on board?
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERThat is asking the same question in another form.
§ 17. Mr. CONNOLLYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any shipowners, or their representatives, were informed prior to 26th November, 809 1925, that in the event of a dispute with wireless operators arising proceedings would not be taken against the shipowners for non-compliance with the Merchant Shipping (Wireless Telegraphy) Act, 1019?
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERNo, Sir.
§ Mr. CONNOLLYWill the right hon. Gentleman say whether he was approached by the shipowners to give such information?
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERNo, certainly not. I have received no representation from the shipowners prior to this dispute, and I should certainly not give them that information.
§ 18. Mr. HAYESasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the circumstances in connection with the sinking of the s.s. "Laristan" in mid-Atlantic; how many lives were involved and how many lost; whether the "Laristan" carried a full complement of wireless operators; whether any British ships were in the vicinity, and what was the distance from the "Laristan" of each ship; whether each ship carried wireless operators, and how many picked up the "Laristan's" distress call; whether any failed to pick up the distress call and, if so, what was the reason; and whether he will take immediate steps to institute a public inquiry into the loss of the "Laristan"?
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERMy attention has been drawn to the circumstances of the sinking of the steamship "Laristan" in the Atlantic. Six members of the crew of 30 were saved. The ship carried one certificated wireless operator as required by the Wireless Telegraphy Rules. Particulars of the British ships in the neighbourhood at the time cannot at present be given. A formal inquiry into the loss of the vessel is being ordered, at which all relevant circumstances will be investigated.
§ 23. Mr. T. KENNEDYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that passengers leaving Southampton for Guernsey on 23rd December by the cross-Channel service were not warned that the vessel did not carry a wireless operator; and whether he will take disciplinary action?
§ 30. Mr. GRIFFITHSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that a passenger leaving Guernsey for Southampton on 27th January by the cross-Channel service was not warned that the vessel did not carry a, wireless operator; and whether he will take disciplinary action?
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERInquiry has been made into this matter. The Board have impressed upon owners the necessity of warning passengers when no wireless operator is carried, and every effort is made by the Southern Railway to do this. It is, however, very difficult to ensure in the case of these cross-Channel trips that every passenger is warned, as the steamer is at sea within half-an-hour of the arrival of the train alongside.
§ 24. Mr. KENNEDYalso asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the Press reports on 1st February regarding the sinking of the Dutch vessel "Alkaid" off Newfoundland; will he make inquiries whether any British ships were in the vicinity; whether they picked up her distress call; and, if not, why not?
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERMy attention has been called to the reports concerning the sinking of the Dutch steamship "Alkaid" off Newfoundland on 1st February. The crew were rescued by the German steamship "Westphalia." Information is not available as to the British ships in the neighbourhood at the time, and I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by instituting special inquiries now.
§ 27. Mr. MACKINDERasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the distress in mid-Atlantic of the British steamer "Errington Court"; if not, will he make inquiries; whether the "Errington Court" fully complied with the Merchant Shipping (Wireless Telegraphy) Act, 1919; if not, in what respect did she not; whether the Board of Trade granted an exemption; what was the nature of the exemption; whether any British ships were in the vicinity of the "Errington Court"; what distance each ship was from her; whether any British ship picked up her distress call; if not, will he explain why; and what was the distance 811 between the "Errington Court" and the Norwegian steamer "Hada," at the time?
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERThe steamship "Errington Court" sailed without a wireless operator. My attention has been called to the message sent on her behalf by the Norwegian steamship "Hada" on 28th January, to the effect that the steering gear was out of order and was being temporarily repaired. No further information has been received. It is not known whether any other British ships were in the vicinity of the "Errington Court," nor is any information available as to the distance between the "Erring-ton Court" and the Norwegian ship "Hada" at the time when messages were exchanged between the two ships. As, however, the message was presumably sent by flags or morse lamp signals the vessels must have been fairly close. The message in question cannot be properly described as a distress call, as had the "Errington Court" been in need of assistance, she would, presumably, have asked the other vessel to stand by or send help.
§ Mr. MACKINDERIs it not worth while making inquiries as to whether British ships were in the vicinity when distress calls were sent out?
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERI really do not see what value that would he, nor do I see how the inquiry could be conducted. A wireless call may be received by a very large number of ships. It would be quite impossible to plot out on a chart, by deductive evidence, where particular ships were at any particular time.
§ Mr. MORRISWill the right hon. Gentleman answer that part of the question which asks whether the Board of Trade granted an exemption?
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERI think I have answered that. There is no dispute about this. As announced last Session, the Government decided, following the precedent of previous Governments, that where a vessel could not comply with the Regulations owing to a strike, the vessel would not be detained.
§ Mr. MORRISWhat authority has the President to grant exemption? Would not that be a gross violation of the Statute of 1919?
§ Miss WILKINSONDoes the right hon. Gentleman realise the widespread anxiety there is among the public as to the lack of wireless operators; and does he not think that the Government should safeguard the lives of the people?
§ 28. Mr. HAYESasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the British steamer "Petworth" was recently disabled in the Bay of Biscay; whether the Board of Trade permitted her to leave Liverpool for Tenerife without a wireless operator; whether he is aware that her wireless installation had to be worked by an incompetent deck officer; whether this officer was able to make the proper signals; what was the nature of the exemption given with respect to wireless; and under what Statute was that exemption given?
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERReports have been received that the British steamer "Petworth" was disabled with engine trouble on the 29th January. Distress messages were sent out, and on the morning of 30th January the steamship "Ariosto" was standing by. Later the services of a tug were obtained, and the "Petworth" was towed into Falmouth, where she arrived on 3rd February. The vessel had sailed from Liverpool on the 24th January without a certificated operator. From information which I have received from the General Post Office, it would appear that the ship's transmission was not good, and she could not receive messages or answer inquiries. Assistance, however, was, in fact, obtained in response to her Wrieless calls. No formal certificate of exemption is given in these cases, but when the sole cause of a vessel being without an operator is the refusal of operators to sail owing to the strike, the vessel is not detained.
§ Mr. AMMONWill the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question, namely what was the nature of the exemption, and under what Statute was the exemption given?
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERI have answered that question.
§ 29. Mr. GRIFFITHSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he 813 has received any reports regarding the distress of the Norwegian steamer "Johanne Dybwad," in latitude 45 50 N., longitude 37 20 W.; if not, will he make inquiries; whether any British ships were in the vicinity; whether any of them picked up her distress call; and, if not, will he explain why?
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERMy attention has been called to the case of the loss of the Norwegian steamship "Johanne Dybwad," on 2nd February. The crew were rescued by the Belgian steamship "Arminco." The British steamship "Gloxinia" appears to have received messages in connection with this case, but I have no information as to whether any other British ships were in the vicinity.
§ 34. Mr. R. MORRISONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the permission of the Board of Trade for ships to sail without wireless operators is to continue indefinitely?
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERNo one can desire the indefinite continuance of the present position, but it would be better not to attempt to make any statements as to future action while negotiations are proceeding.