THE LIGHT LOAD-LINE. (Hansard, 2 May 1904)

LORD MUSKERRY
My Lords, I rise to call attention to the fact that the recommendations contained in Clause 6 of the Select Committee on the Light Load-line have not been acted upon by the Board of Trade in the spirit in which they were intended, and to the fact that the warning issued by the Board to ship-owners and shipmasters as based on the recommendation contained in the second paragraph of this clause is directly opposed to the expressed opinions of the Select Committee; and to move "That, in the opinion of this House, His Majesty's Government should at once take the necessary steps in enforcing the recommendations of the Committee in a proper and effective manner."
It will be within the recollection of your Lordships that after a lengthy 77 debate on a Bill introduced by myself, it was agreed by this House that a Select Committee should be appointed to inquire into the evils of the insufficient and improper ballasting of merchant ships. I myself have strongly advocated the compulsory adoption of a light load-line, and I do so still; but the Committee went against me on this point. They say that there is no loss of life sufficient to justify legislation of this character. I am, therefore, in the unpleasant position of awaiting the loss of further life and the attendant misery to wives and children it involves before at least the members of the Select Commitee are likely to change their views. Since their Report was promulgated further disasters have occurred through insufficient ballasting, but thanks to a merciful Providence no further lives have yet been sacrificed.
But I do not wish to dwell upon the light load-line. It is to the unanimous recommendations of the Committee that I wish to draw attention, and with your Lordships' permission I will read Clause 6 of the Select Committee's Report to which I intend to confine my further remarks, viz.— Several witnesses have pointed out that many accidents are caused by the improper ballasting of ships. They have called attention to the dangers caused, first, by not securing loose ballast in the hold, and secondly, by a practice that prevails of throwing overboard loose ballast which is taken on board to make up for insufficient under-deck ballast, and is kept on deck. Such loose ballast is often thrown overboard before the ship arrives in port. The object of this practice is to prevent any unnecessary delay in the taking in of cargo. The Committee, in view of the evidence which they have received with regard to the danger caused by the shifting of under-deck ballast, recommend that regulations as to securing ballast should be drawn up and enforced by the Board of Trade. They also deprecate most strongly the practice of throwing over ballast before a vessel arrives at her destination, and would advise the Board of Trade to issue a warning, not only to shipmasters, but also to shipowners who give orders to this effect. There can be no uncertainty or misunderstanding about these recommendations. As a matter of fact, not one single witness before the Committee gave evidence against the necessity of securing loose ballast, or upheld in any way the pernicious practice of throwing ballast overboard at sea.
78 The Committee, as I have pointed out, recommended that regulations as to securing ballast should be drawn up and enforced by the Board of Trade. I lay particular stress upon the words "drawn up and enforced," because, as a matter of fact, the Marine Department of the Board of Trade have done neither. True it is that the Marine Department have issued instructions to their principal officers and surveyors calling attention to the instructions previously issued on the subject; and, to use their own words, "in the absence of any statutory authority to draw up and enforce precise regulations on the subject of ballasting," they emphasise the necessity of active supervision over vessels on the point of sailing in ballast, and over vessels taking in ballast which is particularly liable to shift. To anyone versed in shipping matters such supervision without definite regulations is of no value. In any event it is useless in cases such as the capsizing of the "Moel Tryvan," with a loss of ten lives, through the shifting of her ballast. As this ship left a Continental port, it is obvious that she was outside the supervision of the Board of Trade surveyors. Such disasters would be averted by definite regulations as recommended by the Select Committee, for they would apply to vessels bound for this country in the same way as the regulations for the proper securing of grain cargoes.
The Marine Department of the Board Trade state that they have "no statutory authority to draw up and enforce precise regulations" as recommended by the Select Committee of this House; but the concluding clause of the Committee's Report amply covers this. It is as follows— The Committee therefore confidently rely upon the Board of Trade to use the powers already conferred upon them by Parliament to prevent the improper or insufficient ballasting of ships. It will be the duty of the Board to apply at once to Parliament if at any future date they consider any extension of their powers necessary in the public interest. Therefore I voice the views of the Committee in contending that if, as the Marine Department say, they have no statutory powers to carry out the Committee's recommendations, it is their 79 duty to at once apply to Parliament for them.
The second recommendation of the Committee is that they deprecate most strongly the practice of throwing over ballast before a vessel arrives at her destination; and consequently they advise the issue of a warning, not only to shipmasters, but to shipowners who give orders to this effect. The warning has solemnly gone forth, but it is diametrically opposed to the opinions of the Committee. Instead of condemning a dangerous practice once and for all, as the Committee had a right to expect, it is now officially authorised by the Marine Department, who say it should never be resorted to unless the ship is within easy distance of the port of destination, and in such circumstances of weather as to ensure that the vessel's seaworthiness will not be thereby affected, and that the conditions are likely to remain favourable until her arrival in port. Your Lordships will therefore perceive that the Board of Trade have sanctioned the practice of throwing ballast overboard instead of absolutely condemning it, as recommended by your Select Committee. The Marine Department of the Board in their warning have shown that, as usual, they are deplorably ignorant of the practices of ships and shipping. They expect captains of ships to be weather prophets, and they permit ballast being thrown overboard just when a vessel is in the most dangerous position, in ballast, should bad weather suddenly come on— that is, nearing the land.
I cannot do better than quote the opinions forwarded to the Board of Trade by the Merchant Service Guild, which, as representing over 10,000 captains and officers of merchant ships, should have some practical knowledge of the subject— As to the warning to shipowners and shipmasters of the dangers of throwing overboard ballast when at sea, the Guild can only regard this as a distinct official recognition of a mischievous practice which seems to be entirely opposed to the recommendation of the Select Committee of the House of Lords. It is palpable that shipmasters would not voluntarily throw overboard their ballast at sea, and tile 'warning,' in the terms in which it is couched, simply makes them the victims should an accident happen. The Board of Trade state that the practice should never be 80 resorted to unless the ship is within 'easy distance' of the port of destination, but it has evidently not been borne in mind that the deck hands of most of our steamers number five or six, divided into two watches. One man must be at the wheel; the officer is supposed to keep the bridge, and the rest of the watch are throwing the ballast overboard, Those conversant with the practice know that should, for instance, a steamer be leaving Cardiff for an American port in light trim, the throwing of the ballast overboard commences shortly after the time of her sailing, and it would, therefore, be difficult to judge whether 'the circumstances of weather were such as to ensure that the vessel's seaworthiness will not be thereby affected when the conditions are likely to remain favourable until her arrival in port.' The 'warning' is gravely unjust to shipmasters, who had hoped that the Board of Trade would have supported them in their difficulty by emphatically condemning the practice. I expect to be told by my noble friend representing the Board of Trade in this House that this is another move inimical to the interests of shipowners. On occasion I have been a warm advocate of the interests of shipowners, but I cannot subordinate the safety of life to such interests.
The shipowners received the Report of the Select Committee with acclamation, simply because their interests received so much consideration. I think, therefore, that in justice to your Select Committee your Lordships should require that the two recommendations of the Committee should be carried out. The noble Lords appointed by this House to consider the matter recommended that regulations for securing loose ballast should be drawn up and enforced. This has not been carried out. The Committee have condemned the practice of throwing ballast overboard at sea. The Marine Department of the Board of Trade have now sanctioned the practice. Therefore I earnestly trust that your Lordships will not allow a Select Committee of this House to waste its labours in, after exhaustive inquiry, making important recommendations only to find them set at naught.

LORD WOLVERTON
My Lords, in asking your Lordships to reject the Motion which has just been moved I think I shall be able to prove to the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition, who so ably presided over the Select Committee on the Light Load-line, and to the House, that the Board of Trade have been particularly active in giving instructions in regard to this matter and have earnestly wished to carry out not only in the letter, but in the spirit, the recommendations made to them by the Select Committee. I fear that in addition to reading the Select Committee's sixth recommendation, it will be my duty also to quote Paragraph No. 10, which, of course, the Board of Trade had to read in conjunction with No. 6, for it is impossible to arrive at the true spirit of a Report without taking the whole of it into consideration. Recommendation No. 6 is as follows— Several witnesses have pointed out that many accidents are caused by the improper ballasting of ships. They have called attention to the dangers caused; first, by not securing loose ballast in the hold, and secondly, by a practice that prevails of throwing overboard loose ballast which is taken on board to make up for insufficient under-deck ballast, and is kept on deck. Such loose ballast is often thrown overboard before the ship arrives in port. The object of this practice is to prevent any unnecessary delay in the taking in of cargo. The Committee, in view of the evidence which they have received with regard to the danger caused by the shifting of under-deck ballast, recommend that, regulations as to securing ballast should be drawn Up and enforced by the Board of Trade. They also deprecate most strongly the practice of throwing over ballast before a vessel arrives at her destination, and would advise the Board of Trade to issue a warning, not only to shipmasters, but also to shipowners who give orders to this effect. The other paragraph to which I have referred reads— The Committee feel that it would be unwise to put any further legislative restrictions upon British ships which could not equally be applied to foreign vessels, unless it could be proved that such restrictions were absolutely necessary for the safeguarding of human life. In the course of their inquiry the Committee were made painfully aware that British shipping is subjected to considerable competition from foreign rivals using our ports. The regulations of the Board of Trade do not apply to foreign vessels entering British ports, and it was pointed out before the Committee that it was not 82 advisable, therefore, to place more restrictions on British shipping than could possibly be helped. In those circumstances the Board of Trade were asked to issue a warning, and this they have done. The document which the Board issued is sign ed by Sir Francis J.S. Hopwood and Mr. Walter J. Howell, and after setting out recommendation No. 6, which I have already read to the House, it proceeds— In view of these recommendations, the Board of Trade desire to call the particular attention of principal and detaining officers and surveyors to the instructions already issued respecting the improper ballasting of ships, and (in the absence of any statutory authority to draw up and enforce precise regulations on the subject of ballasting), the Department wish to strongly emphasise the necessity for the survey staff exercising an active supervision, not only over vessels on the point of sailing in ballast, but also over vessels taking in ballast of such a nature as may require exceptionally careful stowage, and may be liable to the danger of shifting when the vessel is at sea. There are several other clauses in the warning, the last of which is to the effect that— Any case in which doubt or difficulty arises should be immediately referred to the Board of Trade for special instruction. In regard to the question of the throwing over of cargo when a ship arrives near her destination, it is necessary to allow captains of vessels a certain amount of discretion, and the Board of Trade do not desire to hamper them in carrying out their duties.

§ EARL SPENCER
My Lords, the Select Committee which took this matter into consideration, of which I had the honour to be the Chairman, knew that considerable interests were involved. Many of us at first sympathised with the view of the noble Lord that a light load-line should be established; but we were afterwards convinced that there was not sufficient evidence of the loss of life in ships in ballast as compared with other ships to justify such a course being taken. But we certainly did think that probably more could be done by the officers of the Board of Trade than had been done. No doubt the Board of Trade have not overlooked this matter, but have they gone far enough? I regret that they consider that they have no statutory power to make regulations with regard to the ballasting of ships, and that 83 they have not made stronger representations to the shipowners on the question of throwing over ballast when nearing port. I hardly think that the clause referred to by Lord Wolverton can be pressed against the contention raised. Of course the Committee at the end stated that further statutory powers should be sought should the Board of Trade consider that the powers they possessed were insufficient, but probably the time has not arrived for that. The latter part of the Resolution is certainly rather strong, and I cannot advise its being pressed. With a hope that the Board of Trade will act more vigorously in the spirit of the recommendations of the Committee, I do not think the Resolution should be pressed to a division.

§ * THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE)
My Lords, I venture to express the hope that after the discussion which has taken place, and particularly after what has been said by the noble Earl opposite, the noble Lord will be content not to press his Motion to a division. The Motion is, as the noble Earl observed, a very strong one, and the speech with which the noble Lord prefaced it was even stronger than the Motion. It seems to me that both the speech and the Motion were stronger than the facts of the case required, for it has been made quite clear by the noble Lord who represents the Board of Trade that the Board have certainly not put on one side or pigeonholed the recommendations made by the Select Committee. It is quite true that the action they have taken upon it does not go quite so far as the noble Lord desired, but I think he rather strained the case when he represented the warning which the Board have issued as being diametrically opposed to the recommendations of the Committee. I gather from my noble friend beside me that the kind of regulations which the noble mover desires could not be issued without legislation, and that is, of course, as we all know, a somewhat formidable obstacle. Besides that, my noble friend mentioned one very important consideration, of which we ought not to lose sight—namely, that regulations of this kind, hampering as they must do to some extent the freedom of persons engaged in mercantile 84 business, tend to increase the disadvantages with which British shipowners have to contend in their competition with foreign rivals—a consideration that has been brought home to us at many points in recent years. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord, having called attention to the subject and having elicited from the Board of Trade a distinct statement that the matter is one of which they are not losing sight, will be content with this discussion and not press his Motion to a division.

* LORD MUSKERRY
My Lords, I fully expected that my Motion would meet with opposition. I do not remember ever having brought forward a Motion dealing with shipping which was not opposed. I may say that I know at whose hands the opposition comes; "the voice is the voice of Jacob, but the hands are the hands of Esau." I desire to protect the shipmasters from themselves. They are left no discretion and by the pressure of owners are compelled, in order to save time and expense, to throw over ballast at the risk of loss of life. Not a single witness who gave evidence before the Committee upheld the practice of throwing over ballast at sea, and it is well known that it is a very dangerous practice. Why is it done? Just to save the shipowner the few shillings that the discharge of the ballast would cost when the vessel is safe in port. I am afraid that, unless they are made to do it, the Marine Department of the Board of Trade will not carry out the recommendations of the Committee; but, acting on the advice of the noble Marquess and the noble Earl opposite, I will not press my Motion.

* LORD ELLENBOROUGH
My Lords, I should like to say one word as to the hardship of always fining the merchant captain. Why are the shipowners never fined? When there is a railway accident the shareholders are fined through the substantial compensation which is granted; and I trust that is the near future, legislation will be passed under which shipowners may be fined instead of the shipmasters.