§ *LORD HENEAGE rose to call attention to the new Naval Reserve scheme (Trawling Section), and to ask His Majesty's Government what steps have been taken by the Admiralty to enrol fishermen in the new Naval Reserve at the Humber ports, and whether it is true that their efforts have failed to obtain a sufficient number of men either at Grimsby or Hull.
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, I put this Question on the Paper about a fortnight ago in consequence of a reply given 996 by the First Lord of the Admiralty to Lord Charles Beresford in another place which those of us connected with the fishing industry considered rather misleading and somewhat unfair to the fishermen of Grimsby, as it seemed to imply that they were wanting in loyalty and patriotism although it was no fault of their own that they had not come forward to join this new trawling section of the Naval Reserve. Mr. McKenna, in his reply, said that recruiting had only taken place for a short time and that there were other ports than Grimsby at which they could get fishermen. A fortnight has now intervened since I put the Question on the Paper, and in that time I have been sent a good deal of information from various parts of England. I find that in November last a circular which I hold in my hand was issued by the Board of Admiralty, or rather by the Board of Trade on behalf of the Board of Admiralty, containing the conditions of service for those who desired to enrol in the trawling section of the Royal Naval Reserve, and the pay and advantages. I also have here a letter which was issued early in the present year by the Superintendent of the Board of Trade at Grimsby, and which takes the character of what I suppose the Home Secretary would call a little "ginger." He wrote to ask the owners to put pressure on the men to join this Reserve, but, notwithstanding this, up to the beginning of May only eleven men had enrolled at Grimsby and none at Hull or any other of the English ports. I make an exception with regard to Aberdeen, because a good many have joined at Aberdeen, but the circumstances of trawling there are very different from what they are where men go into the North Sea for six weeks at a time. During the last fortnight six trawlers whose crews were to be the men the Admiralty are looking for have been at Grimsby, and during that time they have got some fifteen or sixteen more men and have been able to send two boats, the "Seamew" and the "Sea-flower," to sea, but with regard to the rest they were there without any crews at all up to the end of last week.
§ I ask, Whose fault is this? I am quite certain, after thirty years' experience of the fishermen of this country, that they are as loyal and patriotic as any other body of men, and that if their services are wanted and the conditions are fair they will come forward and enrol. Therefore I say it is 997 not the fault of the fishermen. If the Board of Admiralty had, instead of working through a sub-department of the Board of Trade, obtained the assistance of the Sea Fisheries Department and the associations in connection with it, I am quite certain that the whole thing would have gone smoothly and the right men would have been forthcoming. But they did not consult any one connected with the trade. They tried first of all to work it themselves through the Board of Trade and then through the masters. I should like to remind the representative of the Admiralty in this House that the people they call the masters are simply the directors of the various fishery companies at the different ports. At Grimsby there are only two private owners. The whole of the ships belong to companies, and the men who manage them are mere directors and have as little influence over the seamen as the directors of any large industrial company have over the men in their employ. I hope His Majesty's Government will not think that I am trying to run down this scheme. I am as anxious as anybody to help it forward, but I want the Admiralty to get the right men and the best men.
§ The right men to get are the skippers, who have all the power over the men and to whom they look for advice. Now it is a condition of this scheme that no skipper shall be enrolled who is over thirty-five years of age. All the best skippers, the men who go to the North Sea, to the Faroe Islands, and who went to the White Sea before it was closed, are over thirty-five years of age, and not being able to enrol themselves they discourage the second hands and the men who serve with them from enrolling either. You may say, Why don't the men act as they like? It is a very serious matter for the men to go against their skippers. The boats go out for six weeks at a time to fish, and if men remained at home in order to do eight days' training they would find at the end of the training that their places had been filled up, that they had annoyed their skippers and would not be taken on again by them. The result is you wilt not get the best men unless you first of all enrol the skippers. I am glad to see my noble friend Lord Nunburnholme in his place, because I am sure he will agree with me on this matter and will be able to speak with greater influence with the Government than I can. The Admiralty have twenty- 998 seven men at Grimsby, but they had eleven enrolled before May I. The rest have been enrolled during the last week, but they are the men who were left behind when all the fleets went out to the North Sea, and therefore they are not the best men.
§ There is another complaint. In the conditions of enrolment for recruits for the trawler section it is laid down by the Admiralty that when called out by Royal Proclamation for service they should not only be liable to serve on trawlers for which they enrolled, but be under obligation to serve also on such service as the Admiralty may direct. That is to say, because a man has patriotically enrolled to serve on board a trawler for the particular service for which he is to be trained, that on being called up by Royal Proclamation he is to be liable to be called upon to serve on a submarine, a torpedo boat, a merchant vessel, or anywhere else. These men say they are quite ready to enrol for the service for which they are asked to serve, but that they are not ready to enrol to be at the disposal of the Admiralty for any service upon which they choose to send them. Then I ant informed that the men of the Naval Reserve, of whom we have some 200 at Grimsby, will not volunteer for the trawler section because, if they do, they will be deprived of their right to a pension. I must say I do not quite understand that, but this information is sent to me as a definite condition which prevents them from joining. So far as I am concerned, my object is to give the Admiralty every assistance I can as one who has been for a long time connected with fishermen. I am certain that they will not get the best men unless they alter the conditions in some respect—they may get casuals or unemployed men, but they cannot get the best men. I beg to ask the Question standing in my name.
§ THE EARL OF GRANARDMy Lords, the criticisms which the noble Lord has made are, I think, entirely justifiable, but I would point out that the scheme under consideration only started at the beginning of the year and it is early days to criticise it adversely. It is hard to explain why this scheme has been such a success at Aberdeen, but according to the latest figures we have there already trained 116 men, and we have another forty ready 999 for training. The noble Lord is perfectly right in what he said as regards Grimsby and the Humber ports. Our scheme there has not been so successful as we desired it to be, and a few days ago we sent to Grimsby Captain Greatrex, who has undertaken the management of this particular scheme. He has sent a report which is before me now on the whole matter. He states that he has consulted with all the interests at Grimsby, and as far as he is able to ascertain they are, with one exception, all in favour of the scheme. He saw the secretaries of several of the skippers' associations, the enginemen's union, the deckhands' and trimmers' union, as well as several owners. The noble Lord seems to think that the great difficulty in getting these men is that we refuse to take skippers of an age about thirty-five. The period of service which we desire these men to serve is twenty years, and the view of the Admiralty was that after the age of fifty-five the services which these trawler skippers would be called upon to do would be of too arduous a nature. They thought that, if the age limit was raised to forty-five, by the time the man finished his service, which would be at the age of sixty-five, he would not be of very much value to the Admiralty. The noble Lord also touched on the question of long cruises. He said that at Grimsby the conditions were somewhat different from those at Aberdeen, and that at Grimsby the trawlers went out for six weeks or over, which is not the case at Aberdeen. I questioned Captain Greatrex on that point, and he tells me that the men who go on voyages of three, four, and six weeks are a very small proportion indeed, and that that fact would hardly affect the success of the scheme in any way. Another criticism raised by my noble friend was as to liability to serve in the Fleet in the case of the Naval Reserve being called up. We are perfectly willing to modify that liability, and we propose to delete the words "on such service as the Admiralty may direct." The paragraph would then read—
All ranks and ratings will be liable to serve in steam-trawlers when the Naval Reserve are called out by Royal Proclamation.That limits trawler skippers and trawler men to serve in trawlers and not in any other ships.
§ LORD HENEAGEUnless they choose to volunteer?
§ THE EARL OF GRANARDYes. There are, I think, something like 160 available skippers between the ages of twenty-five and thirty-five at Grimsby. I can assure my noble friend that there is no suggestion of questioning in any way the loyalty of Grimsby. That was the last thing Mr. McKenna wished to convey in the answer he gave in the other House. The Admiralty are very anxious that this scheme should be a success, and are willing in every way to consider the views of persons interested in the trawling industry. At the same time the scheme is so much in its infancy that they are not desirous of changing the age limit at the moment, and I think my noble friend will agree that the scheme should be given a few months longer trial before any definite decision is come to with regard to further modifications in the regulations.
LORD ELLENBOROUGHMy Lords, the noble Earl stated, in his reply, that this scheme only started at the beginning of the year, but I hold in my hand Admiralty regulations regarding skippers, second hands, and enginemen dated October 10, so that the scheme has been for some time in operation, and I am very glad to hear that the Admiralty intend to go on with this scheme and are prepared to make considerable alterations in the regulations. Skippers are entered for a period of five years, and if suitable they may re-engage for another period of five years and so on until they have served for twenty years. This puts the limit of age at fifty-five for men entering at thirty-five. After twenty years' service a skipper is to receive a discharge gratuity of £60. The Admiralty might consider whether a skipper should not be allowed to enter at forty and do fifteen years' service, or at forty-five and do ten years' service, and then be given a proportionate gratuity on attaining the age of fifty-five. Skippers entering at twenty-five might be allowed to make six re-engagements for five years and to serve for thirty years instead of only twenty. Why should not fifty-five years remain the limit of age in all cases? A discharge gratuity of £50 is to be given to all second hands on completion of twenty years' service, but the men who enter at the age of twenty-six and are discharged on attaining the age of forty-five after completing nineteen years service will apparently get nothing at all. Surely the discharge gratuity ought to be made more 1001 proportionate to the number of years served. The Admiralty, too, might consider whether there should be hard-and-fast regulations for all ports or whether local circumstances should not be taken into consideration and different regulations be issued for different ports; also whether the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve could not assist in the work.
It would be a great misfortune if the attempts of the Admiralty to have the mine-sweeping round our coasts in war time carried out by trawlers manned by Reserve fishermen should end in failure. If this work is undertaken by local men it will set free for other service large numbers of seamen who would be more usefully employed on board our seagoing fleets. I may add that I do not think it necessary that the whole of the crews of the trawlers should be fishermen. I believe that the dangers of mine-sweeping in small vessels have been greatly exaggerated, especially when compared with the dangers incurred by large ships. Their midship section is much smaller, and besides at high water they will in many cases be able to go over mines without touching them. The rise and fall of tide during neap tides at the mouth of our harbours on our North Sea coasts is about ten feet, and generally more. Now if a mine is laid with a length of cable which will cause it to float ten feet below the waterline at high water, that mine would be visible at low water, and easily destroyed. At high water any trawler drawing less than ten feet would pass over it in safety, whereas a mine so placed might destroy a Dreadnought drawing thirty-one feet. Spring tides are, of course, higher, and the trawler would get the advantage of them. Then as mine-sweeping is carried out by means of a specially prepared hawser between two vessels, there is always a second vessel ready to pick up the crew of the damaged trawler. In my opinion fishermen would run more risk when going through the unwept entrances of their harbours for the purpose of fishing than in actual mine-sweeping. Besides, if an enemy is raiding the North Sea a good many fishermen will remain unemployed.
It appears that both skippers and second hands are afraid of losing their employment if they take intermittent service under the Admiralty. I can easily understand that owners of vessels object to having their crews broken up at intervals for training in 1002 mine-sweeping. But I have a suggestion to make with regard to that. All vessels engaged in trawling must lay up for repairs from time to time. Why should not the Admiralty regulations be so altered as to enable the skipper and the whole of his crew to take up their eight days' or their four days' training simultaneously at the time their vessel is undergoing repair? I think that with a little give and take on the part of the Admiralty and the owners an arrangement satisfactory to both parties might be arrived at. I would suggest that a conference should be arranged between the Admiralty representatives, the owners, and the skippers. I have made these remarks in the hope that the Admiralty will not be discouraged, but that they will continue their efforts to have all mine-sweeping done locally by Reserve men.
§ LORD NUNBURNHOLMEMy Lords, I would appeal to the Admiralty that they should raise the age in the case of skippers from thirty-five to forty or forty-five, which would enable them to get the best men. I can assure the noble Earl that he is mistaken in saying that the majority of the trawlers at Grimsby and the Humber ports go out only for three weeks. They generally go out for six weeks. The men at the Humber ports go out to Newfoundland and to the northern coast of Africa, and what they do not know about the depth of waters is not worth knowing. Many of the best skippers of these modern trawlers are forty years of age and upwards, and to make the scheme a success I think it would be worth while for the Admiralty to raise the age at any rate to forty. Another complaint is that the men are very badly paid while serving under the Admiralty as compared with what they earn whilst fishing. A good skipper can earn at the rate of £500 a year while fishing, and those are the men who would be most useful to enrol in the new trawling section of the Naval Reserve. Not only should they be given better rates of pay by the Admiralty, but also compensation for accidents whilst serving in the Navy to the same extent as they would be entitled to if serving on their own fishing vessels.
§ THE EARL OF GRANARDThe noble Lord will readily understand that I cannot myself give any undertaking that the limit of age will be raised. As at present advised the Board of Admiralty are not 1003 anxious to change the age limit from thirty-five, but I feel sure that the First Lord of the Admiralty will give careful consideration to the arguments of the noble Lords who speak with such authority in these matters. Lord Nunburnholme expressed the opinion that if the age was raised to forty the Admiralty would tap the best skippers in his district. Well, the question of five years, I should say, is not very material, and although I cannot make any definite promise I am sure my right hon. friend will give the matter his immediate consideration. The noble Lord behind me also raised the question of pay. I am in no way cognisant of what these men earn when they are at their work, but a skipper gets when doing eight days' training £9 and a gratuity, at the satisfactory conclusion of his training, of £3, which makes in all £12 for his eight days' training, and which I think on the whole is quite generous from the Admiralty point of view. The question of gratuities and compensation for accidents has also been touched upon. As far as I understand, in the event of the Naval Reserve being called out these men come under the Navy Warrant and get pensions and gratuities the same as men belonging to the Royal Navy, but while under training I am not quite certain on the matter but I will make inquiries with regard to it.