§ Mr. C. EDWARDSasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that a large number of ships with many thousands of human lives are at sea without the services of wireless operators, and that many more are sailing with operators who do not possess the necessary qualifications; and will he appoint a Court of Inquiry to consider this matter, seeing that this means additional risks to the many already taken by seafaring men and passengers?
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERI am aware that there are a number of ships that are without the services of wireless operators, and that on others there are operators who do not possess full qualifications. The question of appointing a Court of Inquiry is one for the Ministry of Labour.
§ Mr. HAYDAYasked the President of the Board of Trade, whether he recently gave permission to the steamship "Oropesa" to sail; whether this vessel was bound on a luxury cruise; whether she complied fully with the Merchant Shipping (Wireless Telegraphy) Act, 1919; and, if not, in what respect did she not comply?
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERThe steamship "Oropesa" sailed from Liverpool330W on 7th January with two operators and one wireless watcher. She is required under the Wireless Telegraphy Rules to carry three operators. I understand the vessel is on a pleasure cruise.
§ Mr. MONTAGUEasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he permitted the mail steamer "Lautaro," bound from London to Cristobal, to sail without a wireless operator; whether he is aware that on 6th January that vessel was overdue; whether anything more has been heard of her; and, if not, what steps he will take in the matter?
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERThe steamship "Lautaro" sailed from London on 8th December without a wireless operator. The vessel was reported as overdue on 6th January, but arrived at Colon on. 7th January.
§ Mr. MONTAGUEasked the President of the Board of Trade how many ships, subject to the provisions of the Merchant Shipping (Wireless Telegraphy) Act, 1919, have been reported overdue and/or missing since 26th November, 1925; how many lives were or are involved; how many of the ships were without wireless operators or with only incomplete wireless staffs; and whether he will supply the House with full details?
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERNo ships subject to the provisions of the Merchant Shipping (Wireless Telegraphy) Act, 1919, have been reported missing since 26th November, 1925. A few such ships have been reported overdue, but I have been informed that they have all since been reported as arriving at their destinations.
§ Mr. WINDSORasked the President of the Board of Trade under what authority he is permitting ships to proceed to sea without the full complement of wireless operators as laid down in the Merchant Shipping (Wireless Telegraphy) Act, 1919?
§ Mr. T. KENNEDYasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will indicate the section of the Merchant Shipping (Wireless Telegraphy) Act, 1919, which gives him power to permit ships to proceed to sea without qualified operators as laid down in that Act?
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERI would refer the hon. Members to the answer 331W which I gave on 22nd December to the hon. Member for Camberwell North (Mr. Ammon), a copy of which I am sending to them, and also to the statement made in the House by the Prime Minister on the first day of the Session.
§ Mr. WINDSORasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has contemplated the possibility of employers of ship owners evading the use of wireless altogether by depressing the wages of marine wireless operators to a point no operator could accept; and, if so, whether he proposes to introduce legislation to guard against this?
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERThe answer to both parts of the question is in the negative.
§ Mr. HAYDAYasked the President of the Board of Trade how many lives at sea have been saved since 1912 which may, within reason, be directly attributed to the efficiency and heroism, of wireless operators; how many cases have been reported since that date where succour has been brought to the sick and injured on the high seas through the direct agency of wireless; how much money has been saved to the ship owners by the diverting of sea traffic through the direct agency of wireless; how many disasters to and collisions between ships at sea have been averted since that date through the direct agency of wireless: and, if such statistics are not available, will he take steps to collect data of this nature?
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERI am afraid it is not possible to give the very comprehensive information desired by the hon. Member, and I fear it would be impossible to compile such statistics; but there is no doubt that wireless has been of great value in saving life at sea.
§ Mr. KENNEDYalso asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has taken legal advice as to who will be held responsible in the event of a vessel and human lives being lost consequent upon the waiving of the Regulations under the Merchant Shipping (Wireless Telegraphy) Act, 1919; and, if not, whether he proposes to take such advice?
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERThe action taken by the Government during the present strike is the same as that taken by previous Governments on similar332W occasions. If it were desired to challenge the legality of the Government's action, that should be done in the Courts; and it would be for the Court to give a decision on any legal claim.
§ Mr. J. BAKERasked the President of the Board of Trade what is the nature of the exemptions from the Merchant Shipping (Wireless Telegraphy) Act, 1919, given to shipowners since 26th November, 1925; the precise nature of the exemption given in the case of the steamship "Agulla," which sailed from Liverpool on 5th December, 1925; and whether he is aware that this ship was in distress on 10th December on the Portuguese, coast when the unqualified person working the wireless apparatus could transmit but could not receive replies to his calls for help owing to his inability to work the receiving apparatus?
Sir P. CUNLIFFE LISTERAs I have previously explained to the House, the Board of Trade do not detain ships for not having operators if the only cause of the failure is the refusal of operators to sail owing to the strike. The steamship "Aguila" carried an operator who had not the full qualifications required for a ship coming under the provisions of the Act. The ship went aground on 10th December on the Portuguese coast, and I understand it is the case that the operator was unable to work the receiving apparatus. I may add that the "Aguila" got off without damage.
§ Mr. BAKERalso asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that on 12th January the Italian Steamer "Volga" was on fire at sea; that this vessel sent out a distress call": that the crew was rescued been the steamer "British Rose"; and that the rescue could have been effected much sooner by the steamship "British Admiral" had the latter carried a wireless operator: and, in view of the delay in answering a call for help through the absence of an operator, is he prepared to withdraw his permission for ships to sail without wireless operators?
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERA report has been received from the shipping master at Aden, that the British steamship "British Rose" rescued 25 members of the crew of the Italian steamship "Volga" in the Arabian Sea on 12th January. I am not at present in a position to say 333W whether the rescue could have been effected sooner by the steamship "British Admiral" had the latter carried a wireless operator. It is not proposed to alter the present procedure in consequence of this case.
§ Mr. GROVESasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he gave permission recently for the steamship "Orca" to sail without full compliance with the Merchant Shipping (Wireless Telegraphy) Act, 1919; whether she was bound for New York to embark American citizens on a luxury cruise; what other ships have been so exempted; and whether, in view of the fact that these vessels are not engaged in carrying the people's food, he proposes to continue to exempt ships bound on luxury cruises?
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERThe steamship "Orca' sailed from Southampton on 2nd January for New York, with two operators and two wireless watchers. She should, under the rules, have carried three operators. I understand this steamer was on a pleasure cruise. Other similar ships which have sailed without full compliance with the Wireless Telegraphy Rules are the "Oropesa" and the "Orbita." As stated in my reply to the hon. Member for Bristol East, on 15th December, it would be impracticable for the Board to distinguish between different classes of ships.
§ Mr. HAYDAYasked the Minister of Labour whether, before refusing to establish a court of inquiry into the marine wireless dispute, he had considered the fact that the present demand by the ship owners for a reduction in wages of marine wireless operators is the sixth reduction since 1921 as against only four reductions for other seafarers, and one increase during the same period; and whether, in view of these facts, he will reconsider hi. Decision?
§ Mr. BETTERTONThe facts do not appear to be as stated, and in fact it would appear that reductions in the case of wireless operators have not been as many as in the case of other seafarers. There were reductions in the pay of wire less operators in 1921, 1922, 1923 and an increase 111 1924. In the case of other sea-farers, there was a reduction in 1921, two reductions in 1922, a reduction in 192S, an increase in two instalments in 1924,334W and a reduction in 1925. With regard to the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to-day to the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. T. Kennedy).
§ Mr. WINDSORasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the pay of wireless operators is at present based and fixed upon data collected by the Chamber of Shipping as long ago as 1917; and whether representations on this point have been made to the employers?
§ Mr. BETTERTONRates of pay for seagoing wireless operators were fixed in 1921 by an award of the Industrial Court. There is no reference in that award to data collected by the Chamber of Shipping. Alterations in the rates were made by agreement in 1922, 1923 and 1924. I am not aware that representations on this point have been made to the employers.
§ Mr. WRIGHTasked the Minister of Labour the wages paid to wireless operators previous to 1st December and the wages proposed to be paid after that date, and the rates of pay paid to similar men employed on ships owned by American and Australian firms, and the rates and conditions observed on ships owned by Dominion Governments; and, if he has no information in regard to the latter, will he take steps to secure it?
§ Mr. BETTERTONThe agreement between the London and District Association of the Engineering Employers' Federation, on behalf of the Wireless Companies, and the Association of Wireless and Cable Telegraphists, which was in operation up to the outbreak of the present dispute, provided for rates of wages ranging from £8 17s. 6d. to £20 per calendar month. At the beginning of November, the employers gave notice of a reduction of £1 2s. 6d. per month in these wages. I regret that I have no-information as to the wages paid to the small proportion of wireless operators who are employed direct by ship owners, or as to the rates paid on American, Australian or Dominion ships.
§ Mr. R. RICHARDSONasked the Minister of Labour what is the average wages of marine wireless operators; and what that average would be if the present demands of the employers were enforced?
335W
§ Mr. BETTERTONI regret that I have no information as to the average wages of marine wireless operators. The wage scales are given in my reply to-day to a question asked by the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Wright).
§ Mr. R. MORRISONasked the President of the Board of Trade how many British ships are now at sea without wireless operators; and whether the permission of the Board of Trade to sail without operators is to continue indefinitely?
§ Mr. WESTWOODasked the President of the Board of Trade the number of British merchant vessels now at sea without wireless operators, and the number of vessels with operators who are not fully qualified under the regulations for wireless operators aboard British ships?
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERThe number of ships which have sailed without wireless operators since the beginning of the dispute up to the end of January is 1,187, 85 of which were passenger ships.
§ Mr. RICHARDSONalso asked the President of the Board of Trade the total number of British ships subject to the provisions of the Merchant Shipping (Wireless Telegraphy) Act, 1919; the aggregate number of personnel carried; and whether he can give the total number of ships of the world compulsorily fitted with wireless, and the total personnel carried?
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERThe total number of ships registered in the United Kingdom coming under the Merchant Shipping (Wireless Telegraphy) Act, 1919, at the present time is 3,156; in addition, 168 ships are voluntarily fitted with wireless telegraph apparatus. I have no information as to the number of the ships of the world compulsorily fitted with wireless apparatus, but according to the information contained in the International List of Radiotelegraph Stations, compiled by the International Bureau at Berne, there are in all about 14,700 ships fitted with wireless apparatus. I am unable to state the aggregate number of personnel carried in either case.
§ Mr. WESTWOODasked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the qualifications necessary to work wireless on a British ship are the Postmaster-General's first-class certificate, together 336W with six months' sea experience where there is only one operator aboard; and will he state if W. B. Arnold, of 5, Fairfield Walk, Cheltenham, who was the only operator aboard the "Coronado," had the above qualifications?
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERI am aware of the qualifications required for operators serving on British ships coming under the Merchant Shipping (Wireless Telegraphy) Act, 1919. The operator on board the s.s. "Coronado" had not the full qualifications' required.
§ Mr. W. BAKERasked the President of the Board of Trade if, in the matter of the marine wireless dispute, a special Report will be submitted to the House showing the grounds on which the Board of Trade have acted in each case?
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERI have on several occasions explained to the House the broad grounds on which the Board of Trade action was based and which follows the practice of previous Governments in similar disputes, and I do not think that it would serve any useful purpose to issue a special report on each individual case.