HL Deb 07 March 1913 vol 13 cc1502-3

Commons Reason for disagreeing to one of the Lords Amendments and Commons Amendments to one other of the Lords Amendments considered (according to Order).

[NOTE.—The references are to Bill (206) as first printed for the Rouse of Lords.]

Lords Amendment.

Clause 7, page 5, line 40, after ("Order") insert ("and (m) provide, if it appears just, for compensation being paid to any pilots for any loss or damage which may be incurred by them in consequence of the Order").

The Commons disagree to this Amendment:

Because they consider that it is unduly general, and should be limited by the qualification now inserted, and because the provision as to compensation may most conveniently be put in the same subsection.

Lords Amendment.

Clause 7, page 5, line 18, after ("compulsory") insert ("or provide that pilotage shall be non-compulsory in any area where it has been compulsory").

The Commons propose to amend this Amendment by inserting after ("provide") the words ("in connection with any re-arrangement of a pilotage district") and after ("compulsory") the words ("subject to provisions being also made for the payment of compensation to the pilots concerned for any loss or damage which may be incurred by them in consequence of such re-arrangement").


When this Bill was first introduced in the other House it contained a provision by which any compulsory pilotage area could be changed into a non-compulsory pilotage area, and vice versa. The question came up twice in the House of Commons and on both occasions the Government were defeated, and the provision by which it was possible to turn a compulsory pilotage area into a non-compulsory pilotage area was deleted from the Bill. During the Committee stage in your Lordships' House the noble Viscount, Lord St. Aldwyn, carried an Amendment putting back this provision into the Bill; and although the Commons do not agree with the actual wording of that Amendment as sent down front your Lordships' House they have substituted an Amendment which has been drafted by the Government and to which, I understand, Lord St. Aklwyn agrees as carrying into effect the provision which he was anxious should be reinserted in the Bill. If your Lordships agree to the Commons Amendment, it mean that a compulsory pilotage area may be changed into a non-compulsory pilotage area, in the same way as a non-compulsory pilotage area can be changed into a compulsory pilotage area. I venture to hope that your Lordships will not insist on your Amendment, but will see your way to agree to the Commons Amendments.

Moved, That the House do not insist upon the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Granard.)


My Lords, I am glad that His Majesty's Government have agreed to the insertion of an Amendment enabling the Board of Trade to reduce compulsory pilotage areas into non-compulsory pilotage areas. The compulsory areas were mostly made at a time when our charts were very defective compared with what they are now. They have been immensely improved, and the sailing directions are much better written. Moreover, there has been an immense increase in the number of light-houses, light-ships, beacons, and buoys, and night navigation has been greatly assisted by illuminated buoys. One has only to compare the present day charts of the Bristol Channel and of the Thames with those of fifty years ago to see the great additional aids that there now are to navigation. Another point is that mercantile marine officers are better educated than in former days, and are better able to grasp the meaning of a chart in a short time. Consequently it is absurd to delay all ships by embarking or disembarking pilots, and I am glad that a clause has been introduced into this Bill which does make it possible for the Board of Trade, where it is considered desirable to do so, to turn a compulsory pilotage area into a non-compulsory pilotage area.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Earl of Granard.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.