§ THE EARL OF DUDLEYMy Lords, in asking the House to read this Bill a second time, I shall not detain your Lordships longer than I can possibly help, as I know that your Lordships are anxious to pass on to the consideration of more interesting matter. But as this Bill is of some importance, it is necessary for me to say a word or two in explanation of it. Its provisions are based upon the recommendation of a Committee presided over by Mr. L. Courtney, the honourable Member for Bodmin, and are, roughly speaking, to effect a financial rearrangement with respect to certain services hitherto maintained out of a fund called the Mercantile Marine Fund. That fund, my Lords, which was established in 1854, is at present, as your Lordships may know, of a very composite character; its chief revenue is derived from the light dues, but its income is also supplemented by moneys payable from various other services, such as, for instance, the fees payable for the examination of officers, the fees for survey, and so forth. The expenditure of the fund is also equally heterogeneous, for not only is it charged with the lighthouse service, but with many other expenses in connection with various matters, like the local marine boards, the mercantile marine offices, the survey of ships, and various other services of that kind. It is, however, my Lords, to be noticed that of all these services the lighthouse service is the only one which is self-supporting. The light dues, indeed, not merely maintain that service, but afford, generally speaking, a considerable surplus, and under the present system a great portion of that surplus has been put aside to defray the deficiency in the other services. Such, then, my Lords, is, shortly, the present character of the Mercantile Marine Fund and the present system by which its finances are administered. It is obvious, however, that a system of this nature, under which receipts of various kinds are mingled together to meet mixed payments, must entail considerable disadvantages, and there is, I think, little doubt that of those disadvantages one of the chief ones is that it allows of no adequate guarantee for economic administration, nor does it allow for any 19 real or separate Parliamentary control, either over the various sources of income which together make up the fund or upon the different items of expenditure "which it is made responsible for. Although a return is now made to Parliament of the general condition of the Mercantile Marine Fund, it would, I think, under the present system, be extremely difficult for any Member to raise anything like an effective discussion upon any particular item contained in the general statement, and consequently equally difficult to obtain any alteration in the extent or mode of expenditure. My Lords, in order, therefore, to meet this defect, the Committee recommended, and the Bill provides, that the Mercantile Marine Fund should be broken up into its component parts, and that each branch of expenditure should be brought before Parliament in the ordinary course each year. We propose, therefore, to establish a general Lighthouse Fund, which will be maintained solely out of the light dues and charged merely with the expenses of the lighthouse service. All the other expenses hitherto charged to the Mercantile Marine Fund will be transferred to the Treasury, and will be met by moneys provided by Parliament, in so far, of course, as they are not already met by the fees payable in connection with these services. This transfer will naturally entail a considerable additional charge upon the Votes, but that charge will, to a certain extent, be met by the establishment, provided for in the Bill, of a small fee for the registration, transfer, and mortgage of ships, and also by providing that in future shipowners shall bear the cost of repatriating their own shipwrecked seamen, which hitherto has fallen upon the Mercantile Marine Fund. These two easements, if I may use that term, will reduce the additional charge upon the Exchequer to about £35,000 or £40,000 a year. Well, my Lords, so much for the first disadvantage of the present system and the remedy by which we propose to meet it. There are two other disadvantages on which I should like to say one word—disadvantages which are principally apparent when the point of view of those interested in shipping is considered. As the House probably knows, the present method of levying light dues is exceedingly cumbrous and 20 complex. Every merchant ship, foreign or British, loading or discharging cargo or part of cargo in any port in the United Kingdom, pays dues in respect of every lighthouse from which it is assumed to have derived advantage, or to be about to derive advantage, on the voyage, and these dues are very complicated by the fact that variations are introduced according to the nature of the voyage which the vessel undertakes. My Lords, the obvious result of that is that the shipowners complain that they cannot verify the charges that are made, and that they are sometimes called upon to pay dues in respect of a lighthouse 150 miles from the course which their vessel has taken. Moreover, my Lords, it is asserted, and I believe there is good ground for the assertion, that the uncertainty connected with the expenses to which shipowners may be put in the payment of light dues often has the effect of deterring them from undertaking small enterprises where the profit is uncertain, and consequently, therefore, trade and employment are checked. In order to remove this complaint, my Lords, we propose in future that light dues shall be levied at a fixed rate per voyage in accordance with the tonnage of the vessel. The rates that have been decided upon are contained in the Second Schedule of this Bill, and the calculations on which they have been based have been made with the twofold object, firstly, of obtaining a sufficient sum to maintain the lighthouse service and, if possible, to allow of a small annual surplus, and, secondly, with the object of disturbing as little as possible the existing ratios between the dues at present payable by the different classes of vessels. I do not wish to quote unnecessary figures, but I may, perhaps, be allowed to say that the yield of light dues under this new system is estimated at about £450,000 a year, which will be a reduction upon the present amount of about one-fifth, and will be quite sufficient to maintain the lighthouse service. We propose also that there should be a maximum payment for every vessel, and that certain vessels, such, for instance, as fishing vessels, should be exempted altogether from the payment of light dues. But these, my Lords, are matters on which I do not think I need enter 21 to-night. I now come to the second objection which is urged against the present system, an objection which is fully met by the provisions of this Bill. In the early part of my remarks I reminded the House that not one of the services charged on the Mercantile Marine Fund, with the exception of the lighthouse service, was self-supporting, and consequently large sums had been taken from, the amounts collected as light dues to meet the deficiency; but those who pay the light dues do not appreciate the excellence of this arrangement, which, of course, necessitates much larger payments by shipowners than would be the case if the light dues merely went to maintain the lighthouse service. Both Mr. Courtney's Committee and the Board of Trade have had numerous representations from official bodies to the effect that it is not fair that services which are maintained for the good of the general, community should be paid for almost entirely by dues levied from one special class and one particular industry. Whether that contention is sound or not, the point is fully met by the provisions of this Bill, for, by the breaking up of the Mercantile Marine Fund and the establishment of a general Lighthouse Fund, light dues will in future be merely devoted to the maintenance of the lighthouse service, and all the other services wall be transferred to the Treasury. Thai is all I need say with regard to the Bill; so far as it deals with subjects inquired into by Mr. Courtney's Committee, but there is a further clause which has recently been added to it, in which an attempt is made by the Government—an attempt which, I think, will receive the sympathy of the House—to check a considerable and a growing evil. I mean the decrease in the number of British sailors carried in British merchant ships. Tour Lordships may not be aware how great that decrease is; but, in order to give the House some idea, of its extent, I may say that of the total number of seamen carried in British ships on March 25th, 1896, in the rating of petty officers and seamen, nearly 30 per cent, were foreigners. A similar census was taken in 1891, and it appears that between those two dates the number of British boys and sailors carried on English ships had decreased by 6,750. More- 22 over, my Lords, it is to be noticed that the decrease occurs principally among sailors under 25 years of age, whose numbers were less in 1896 by nearly 4,000 than in 1891. This falling off is, of course, a very serious matter—serious not only from the point of view of the mercantile marine, but also from the point of view of national defence. The importance of our naval reserve is, I think, generally appreciated, and it would obviously be a serious disadvantage to us if the area from which that force is selected became considerably curtailed, because such a curtailment would not only imply that there might be a difficulty in obtaining sufficient men for the naval reserve, but it also implies that in time of war the mercantile marine, deprived of its men, might have to be manned to a large extent, and perhaps even to a preponderating extent, by foreign seamen. It has therefore been felt by the Government that if any reasonable means could be found for stimulating the employment of young men and boys upon English ships the opportunity should not he lost. We are assured that the real difficulty in this matter lies rather upon the side of the employers than on the side of the men. There is no apparent lack of boys who are ready to adopt a sea-faring life, but shipowners are increasingly reluctant to take them, for the very simple reason that for the first year a boy is practically useless, and is a source rather of expense than of profit. We therefore propose, my Lords, to try and meet the difficulty by granting an allowance equal to one-fifth of the light dues to any British ship that will carry boys according to a certain scale, and under certain regulations, to be laid down by the Board of Trade; and I may add that one of these conditions is that the boys should have been enrolled in the naval reserve and should bind themselves to come up for service when called upon to do so. My Lords, it may seem at first sight that the allowance which we propose to grant is an inadequate and trivial one, but it must be remembered that it holds good for three years. It is hoped, therefore, that it will have some effect in the direction desired, for, although a boy may be of little use during the first year of his apprenticeship, that 23 is not so during the second or the third year. Of course, my Lords, the proposal is only a tentative one, but I hope the House will agree that it is a step in the right direction. If it is supported by the shipowners, as we hope it will be supported, I for one trust sincerely it may help to check the great and growing evil that I have referred to. I ask your Lordships to give this Bill a Second Reading.
§ Question put.
§ Bill read a second time.