IRISH LIGHTS TENDERS. (Hansard, 11 May 1903)

LORD MUSKERRY

My Lords, I rise to call attention to the new steam tender to be built for the Irish Lights Commissioners, and to the fact that the Shipowners' Lighthouse Advisory Board have been prevented from discussing the details regarding the expenditure and other matters connected with this vessel; and to move for a return specifying the movements of the Irish Lights tenders during the year 1902, and also for a specification of the new steam tender which is now being built. I may state that my Motion refers principally to the new tender being built, or ordered to be built, for the Irish Lights Commissioners to replace the "Princess Alexandra." The request for this new tender appeared for the first time in the Estimates for the year 1901, and it was immediately objected to by Mr. F. L. Heyn, a ship-owner of Belfast, who stated that he had frequently had the opportunity of admiring the "Princess Alexandra," and that she was a very nice boat indeed. From the report made by Captain Vereker to the Board of Trade on this subject, it appears that the ship herself was then in good condition, but that her boilers were defective, and that she would not be worth new boilers. It is also noticeable that the Board of Trade's principal surveyor in Ireland stated that the report upon which the Irish Lights official based his estimate "does not agree with the condition in which the vessel was found." The Irish Lights Commissioners appear to have been singularly ill-informed on this subject, as Sir William Watson, who was one of the Commissioners, I believe, stated that the vessel was constantly at sea, also that he would consider the boilers in very bad order if the pressure had to be reduced. As a matter of fact, 273 she is seldom at sea, and Captain Vereker reported that the pressure of her boilers had been twice reduced previously. The Irish Lights Board suggested that her boilers were not safe, and after a long discussion it was agreed that a report from Lloyd's surveyors as to the state of her boilers should be obtained. The vessel was thereupon brought over to Liverpool, arriving there about the 9th of December, 1900. The report of Lloyd's surveyors—Mr. J. T. Milton and Mr. McGregor—was made on the 4th of January in the following year. I have the complete report in my hand, and would call your Lordships' attention to the last paragraph of it, which runs as follows— The repairs necessary to the boilers not being of great extent, we have made no estimates as to their probable cost. That does not look as if the boilers were in too bad a condition. The Irish Lights Board, instead of having the ship promptly repaired, in accordance with Lloyd's report, repeated in the spring of the same year their demands for a new vessel, and, in the meantime, kept the vessel lying in Liverpool untouched. They chartered the steamer "Cragside" at the cost of £265 per month, plus £150, the cost of fitting up holds for the crew, and she is supposed to have done the work which the "Princess Alexandra" would have done. She was afterwards kept lying in harbour unemployed, it is understood, for several months, and the freight still running on. The shipowners, through the medium of their Advisory Board, opposed the provision of a substitute, and, after a lengthy discussion, the Board of Trade disallowed it. The repairs to the ship, the "Princess Alexandra," were completed about the beginning of last year, during which year she did a certain amount of work.

In the Estimates for 1902–1903 a new tender was again proposed; this time the cost had been reduced to £26,500. The Shipowners' Advisory Board were prepared to once again emphatically protest against this expenditure, when the President of the Board of Trade ruled them out of order on the ground that the provision of this substitute was maintenance and not new works. I am extremely surprised that the Board of Trade should have taken such a high-handed action, in not only deterring the shipowners from 274 giving their views and the benefit of their personal knowledge in such an affair, but in not allowing them to make suggestions on the matter. They (the shipowners) provide the money, and have an absolute claim to see that it is expended without the needless waste which I am informed goes on. In the Estimates for 1903–1904 it now appears that the new tender has been sanctioned, part of the money has been spent, and it is proposed to spend the remainder during the coming financial year. The shipowners were opposed to the expenditure because there was nothing to show that the "Princess Alexandra" had not carried out her duties well for thirty-seven years, or was unable to carry them out for some years longer. They were also unable to understand why this boat was required at all, and although they repeatedly pressed for an official time-table, detailing her employment during any given year, their request was refused. I believe that, including the "Princess Alexandra," the Irish Lights Commissioners have now no less than four steam tenders. The "Tearaght" and the "Moyra" were built in 1893, and the latest addition is the "Ierne." I understand that the time these steamers spend at sea is as follows—the "Princess Alexandra," 90 days; "Tearaght," 210 days; "Moyra," 60 days; and the "Ierne," 210 days. This latter vessel attends exclusively to the rebuilding of the Fastnet Lighthouse, being constructed specially for the purpose. As this lighthouse is almost built it would appear that she could have been utilised to replace the "Princess Alexandra."

In the general lighthouse accounts for the year 1902 the cost of maintaining steam vessels belonging to the Irish Lights Board is given at £18,949 13s. 7d.—a yearly average of £4,737 each. This appears a somewhat extravagant expenditure for the amount of work carried on. The shipowners hold strongly that the work could, with proper system, be performed with a smaller number of steamers and less expenditure. Of course, I know that even shipowners are sometimes disposed to carry their economical views a little too far, but, all the same, their acute personal knowledge should not be discarded in the rough and ready way 275 affected by the Board of Trade. In order to give the shipowners some voice in the expenditure of the money they contribute, the late President of the Board of Trade constituted the Shipowners' Lighthouse Advisory Board, and amongst the matters which were referred to them were— All questions of new works, new lights, where they ought to be placed, and how much ought to be expended on them. If the building of a new steam tender is not a new work I should like to know what the Board of Trade think does constitute a new work? It seems to me perfectly obvious that the shipowners are entitled to express their opinions and to have them considered, for in the accounts of the general lighthouse fund new tenders have invariably been placed under the heading of "new works," and have always been considered as such in the four Estimates submitted to the Lighthouse Advisory Board. Before Mr. Courtney's Committee it was admitted that a record was kept of the employment of these tenders, and with a body like the Irish Lights Commissioners everything should be quite above board. I accordingly move that a Return shall be made specifying the movements of the Irish Lights tenders during the year 1902, and also a specification of the new tender which is now being built, and of which those who ought to know are completely in the dark.

LORD WOLVERTON

In reply to the first part of the Question, which deals with the Shipowners' Lighthouse Advisory Board, I would point out to my noble friend that he is under a slight misapprehension. In receiving a deputation on April 28th, 1899, Mr. Ritchie, who was then President of the Board of Trade, stated that— He was prepared to say that if the Chambers of Commerce and the Chambers of Shipping would submit the names of a Committee that would adequately represent the views of the shipowners with regard to all 276 questions of new works, new lights, where they ought to be and how they ought to be placed, and what the expenditure ought to be, he would undertake that they should be called together annually at the Board of Trade before any proposal submitted, etc. That Advisory Board was formed, but it had no statutory powers of any description. With regard to lighthouses and ships, and the position in which they should be put, that Advisory Board has been of extreme use to the Board of Trade, but I would remind my noble friend that the Advisory Board is only called into operation by the President of the Board of Trade. In this case the President has not asked for their advice, although, as I have said, on many other occasions he has been eery much indebted for the advice they had given. With regard to the Motion for a Return specifying the movements of the Irish Lights tenders during the year 1902, I would inform my noble friend that the Board of Trade have no authority over the Lights Commissioners except with regard to expenditure. The latter body, however, have courteously communicated to the Board of Trade, by telegraph, the following information. They state that the "Princess Alexandra" arrived in Liverpool on December 13th, 1900, and returned to Kingstown on March 17th, 1902, since which time she has been, and is still, continuously employed in buoy shipping, delivering stores, and in general coast work. They also state that the other Irish Lights vessel, the "Tearaght," was throughout the whole of 1902 actively engaged in assisting lighthouses and in buoy shipping and salvage operations at the Albatross lightship. This is all the information the Board of Trade have on the subject. In reply to the third point, the Board of Trade do not think it is for the public good that a specification of the new steam tender should be laid before your Lordships. My right hon. friend the President of the Board of Trade authorised me to state the figures which my noble friend has given, and beyond that the matter is more or less out of his control. The President of the Board of Trade sanctioned the expenditure of £26,500 on this new vessel, having previously satisfied himself, upon the advice of his nautical advisers, that this would be the best course to adopt.