§ Order for Second Reading read.
§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. A. V. Alexander)I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
I do not think it will be necessary to do more than to give s, very brief explanation of what the Clauses in this Bill will do. In the first place, it is necessary to say that this Bill is to ratify three separate Conventions dealing with the conditions of employment in the Mercantile Marine. One was passed in 1920 and the other two in 1921. The details of the Conventions are set out in the Schedule. Clause I of the Bill provides for an Amendment of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, to provide better conditions with regard to seamen who lose their ships. Under the present law a seaman 1910 who loses his ship is not able to claim any wage for the time the ship is lost. Under this Convention provision is made for the payment, not exceeding two months, of wages to the seaman if he loses his ship and has to get back home again. But there is a safeguard, in that provision is made in the Bill that if the seaman become actually employed again within the period of two months, then he is not entitled to draw the indemnity, and vice versa, the Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Bill provides that he cannot draw unemployment insurance during the time that he is eligible to receive the unemployment indemnity.
I need only say one further thing on that Clause and that is that since the Bill, which has passed another place, left that other place, the fishing industry has raised the question with regard to the exclusion under the Clause of share-fishing. That is a matter that is tinder active consideration by the Mercantile Marino Department and it can be dealt with in Committee.
Clause 2 provides for the protection of young persons in regard to employment as firemen and trimmers. No one who 1911 knows anything about the conditions of work in the stoke-hold of a ship will think that this is a condition that should be allowed except under exceptional circumstances. If this Bill be passed it will not be possible to employ as firemen and trimmers young persons under the ago of 18. A point has also been made from the fishing industry with regard to this Clause asking for certain exception in regard to fishing vessels. In this connection an Amendment may be proposed on that point in Committee and can be discussed and dealt with then.
The third Clause provides that in future young persons cannot be employed upon ships unless they have been through a medical examination. That, again, is a point which I am sure will appeal to all those who are familiar with the working of the Mercantile Marine. It is to prevent young persons from going to sea who are incapable of standing the hardships of sea-going life.
The other three Clauses are minor clauses. One provides for penalties in case of default. Clause 5 includes any British fishing-boat entered in the fishing-boat register. Clause 6 gives a definition with regard to Orders in Council and what may not be done by Orders in Council. This is a Bill which is going to mark a definite step forward for British seamen and I ask the House to give us the Bill straightaway.
§ 1.0 A.M.
Lieut.-Colonel LAMBERT WARDI should like to ask how many nations have introduced or are introducing legislation to ratify this Convention? Although those nations are parties to the Convention, a certain number will not pass that legislation, and some more of them that pass the legislation will not take steps to enforce it. That is the experience we have had hitherto with regard to these International Labour Conventions, and it throws upon the nation which does take the trouble to enforce these Conventions a very serious burden. I have had come connection with the shipping trade, and I know, perhaps as well as the hon. Member who introduced this Measure, what the. conditions of life are, and the hardships in the stokehold. At the same time, one must consider that one is faced with increasing competition from foreign countries if those 1912 foreign countries do not ratify a Convention such as this. It is placing the traders of this country in an unfair and a very difficult position. Now with regard to the first Clause—that is with regard to seamen who lose their ships—as the hon. Gentleman is well aware, it falls to the owner to repatriate these men—to bring them back to the port where they signed on. Does the hon. Gentleman mean that they are to be paid for two months from the time of losing their ship, or from the time of their arriving at the port where they originally signed on? It does make a considerable difference, and the hon. Gentleman's speech on the subject was rather ambiguous and indefinite. I have a special appeal to make with regard to the fishing industry, and I do hope that the President of the Board of Trade will be able to see his way to exclude from the provisions of this Bill the fishing industry so far as the employment of persons under 18 is concerned. I have no grounds for claiming that exception. The conditions of service on fishing vessels are at least as onerous, perhaps worse, than on board liners and well-found tramp steamers. While the shipping industry is in a position to be able to make these concessions, the fishing industry, in my opinion, and in the opinion of a great. many people qualified to judge, cannot afford to do so. By insisting upon this provision you are throwing upon the fishing industry a burden the industry cannot stand. Things in the fishing trade are very bad. It is faced with foreign competition in the keenest possible form. We have to face competition from the Danes, the Dutchmen, the Germans, and, perhaps worst of all, from the Icelandic trawlers.
During the past 12 months these foreign trawlers have landed 200,000 tons of fish. That has tended to keep down the prices of fish to all classes of consumers in this country, but, unfortunately, during that time there have been about 100 British trawlers laid up. If these trawlers had been working at their full capacity they would have brought almost exactly the same amount of fish as that which was dumped by foreign trawlers. Hon. Members may say, "Why is it that the British trawler cannot successfully compete with these foreign trawlers, and why do foreign trawlers dump their fish in British ports?" They do it first of all 1913 because many of these foreign trawlers receive subsidies in some form or another. The Danes give a very considerable cash subsidy every year; the Dutchmen have some curious arrangement whereby the vessels which land fish in English ports receive a quid pro quo as regards the increased cost of transit over what it would be if they landed their fish in a Dutch port. The German and Icelandic trawlers have an extraordinary low rate of wages. As far as the Icelandic boats are concerned, they ship their hands from the Faroe Islands. They are splendid seamen, and they ask for a monthly wage which English fishermen and seamen, rightly, would not look at. As far as German competition is concerned, the great advantage has been the extraordinary fluctuation in the exchange. What at present is the actual wage in English money I cannot say, but nine months or a year ago it was approximately equivalent to £1 a month, whereas £8 to £10 per month were being paid by English owners. The foreign boats have also the advantage that they can go and fish in the Moray Firth, and the reason why they can do so is that the Order issued some time ago by the Board of Scottish Fisheries has closed it to all British trawlers, but not to foreign trawlers Foreign trawlers can fish in the Moray Firth and dump their cargoes in Aberdeen, or some other port, and they have a great advantage as compared with the British boats which have to fish in non-territorial waters, and possibly go as far as Iceland to catch fish. By including the fishing industry in this Bill you are throwing on the industry a burden which it cannot bear.
§ Mr. T. JOHNSTONI regard this Bill as a very tardy and half-hearted step towards justice for a class of men denied justice for many long years. With regard to Clause 1, I am amazed that at this time of day an hon. Member should even appear to object. When a man suffers shipwreck he gets no wages now. His contract is terminated. Added to that, he has lost his kit and he has risked his life. He is a British seaman and a British owner casts him off and gives him nothing. That position is defended from the benches opposite. An industry which cannot afford such a man food, shelter and a subsistence allowance is an industry 1914 that requires very rapid overhauling. We know from the profit of some of the large trawling firms that they can afford it. The figures have been repeatedly given in the columns of the Press when these trawler firms are floating themselves as limited liability companies. They have been able to prove that they are making profits when they are soliciting capital. I agree that they are subject to fluctuations.
In the last two years they have been suffering very considerably. The line fishermen have also been suffering and so have land trades. No other industry would throw off its workmen, or attempt to justify throwing them off, when they had lost their all. Shipwrecked seamen get nothing. It is the purpose of Clause I to see that that is stopped. If my hon. Friend is in agreement that it should be stopped, why does he oppose the Bill.
§ Mr. KIRKWOODHe is not opposing the Bill.
§ Mr. JOHNSTONI beg the hon. Member's pardon if I have misapprehended him. If he has been an active and enthusiastic supporter of the Bill, I have misjudged him. Clause 2, which refers to-young persons, is miserably insufficient. This only safeguards young persons of 18 and under, but what about young persons of 19? The hon. Gentleman who moved this Bill has been inquiring into the matter recently. There are ships plying in home waters which are not subject to foreign competition at all. The ships belong to wealthy concerns such as railway companies, the L.N.E.R. for one and the L.M.S. for another. They are passenger ships and employ these people for 90 hours a week not counting their Sunday labour. They do not get overtime.
§ Mr. S. SAMUELNo, no. I am on the. Executive Council of the Shipping Federation and that is why I know.
§ Mr. JOHNSTONIf the passenger steamers on the Clyde are being paid overtime, then there is somebody intercepting it.
§ Mr. S. SAMUELI am on the Maritime. Board also.
§ Mr. JOHNSTONThe hon. Gentleman who represents the Government has been making inquiries into the allegations made by Members—amongst them myself—within the last two months. He will 1915 say what the facts are. I repeat that the L.N.E.R. issued time tables this month which show that one steamer at any rate runs 90 hours and that they employ men working as stokers, etc. What protection does this Bill give to the men? None whatever. I submit to the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill that, if he wants to employ engineers, there are thousands of them idle, skilled men, and he could do something to relieve unemployment. I should be greatly delighted to see now the concern about unemployment which hon. Members opposite showed a fortnight ago, when the vote for the salary of the Minister of Labour was under discussion. Here is their chance. Let them insist upon a 48 hour week for the engineers on board the boats in home waters and they can absorb 15,000 engineers who are at present unemployed. Here is a chance for the hon. Gentleman who sits on the Maritime Board. There is certainly no dividend in that, but the point is that these passenger steamers are owned by corporations, not by poor trawling concerns or a family of net fishermen. They are owned by great railway companies, and I say it is a scandal that men should be working on these boats 90 hours a week. I think the Bill is miserably insufficient if it does not take this matter up. I trust the hon. Gentleman who replies will say whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce a Clause to see that this is remedied. It is a positive danger to the Eves of passengers and the men who are working on these boats. I hope he will observe at the same time that there is a considerable number of skilled engineers who could be given honest and honourable work. By this means he would take away the grievance which was manifested on the opposite benches when the vote for the Labour Minister's salary was before the House.
§ Mr. WARDLAW MILNEI only want to ask the hon. Member two questions. He referred to the period of two months in the Bill, and it would be interesting to us to be told why they have particularly fixed on two months as the period for which wages must be paid. I should have thought the fixed period was the time required for the seaman who lost his ship was between the loss of the ship and the time he returns to land. The 1916 other question is that of the application of this Bill to the fishing industry. The hon. Member told us it would be left to the Committee stage. Am I to understand that the Government have an open mind on the question whether the Bill should be applied to the fishing industry or not?
§ Mr. G. BALFOURI think the hon. Gentleman opposite seriously misunderstood the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North-West. Hull (Lieut.-Colonel L. Ward). He uttered no objection to Clause 1 of this Bill. I do not think any Member on this side of the House is opposed to the Bill. Every hon. Member on this side of the House would say it is a right and proper thing that the seamen should be paid during the time it takes him to reach his home. What my hon. and gallant Friend did say was that it is unfair to have this provision unless we at the same time ensure that the other people who are in direct competition with our fishing fleet should have to bear a like burden with our trawler owners. I think that was a correct interpretation of the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend.
I notice in the Schedule of this Bill one or two words which repeatedly occur. One term is "the fin International Labour Organisation," and the other term is "the International Labour Office." I can discover nowhere, either in the Bill or in the Schedule, any definition of the meaning of these terms. At the same time these words may be open to grave abuse in the future. As far as I know, any organisation may be known as the International Labour Organisation. I may be wrong, but I should like the hon. Gentleman to assure us that these words have a specific meaning. Another word occurs in Clause 6 of the Bill. It says that by Order in Council the Dominion it refers to in the second Schedule of the Bill cannot be brought into the scope of the Order in Council Therefore, I assume any British shipowner, by registering in any Dominion such as Canada, Australia, South Africa, India, New Zealand, can escape the obligation under this Bill I should like to be quite sure that whatever applies to this country will apply to our Dominions. I think, on the whole, it is unwise to extend this class of legislation very far. It should be kept within 1917 limited scope, and we should not give ratification of these Treaties unless we know other countries are doing likewise. I should like to repeat the question put by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North-West Hull who asked how many other countries are holding them-selves bound to ratify these conventions in the way we are doing? If it is discovered that only a minority is ratifying this Convention, some protection should be inserted to the effect that unless a. certain proportion of tile countries ratify the Treaty it should not come into operation.
§ The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. T. Shaw)I have risen to refer to two specific points. The first point of the hon. and gallant Member for North-West Hull (Lieut.-Colonel Ward), was that the fishing industry in particular in this country was handicapped as against other countries. Holland and Germany have been specifically mentioned because of the advantage those countries had in the rate of exchange.
§ Mr. SHAWThe statement was general, but I take that for Germany. As a matter of fact the exchange is a disadvantage to Germany. Everyone who knows anything about International exchange knows that for the last nine months German exchange has been at a premium in comparison to our own.
Lieut.-Colonel WARDI said eight, eight or nine months ago. I was unable to say what effect the present condition had on the German wages, but nine or ten months ago—
§ Mr. SHAWThis Bill is before the House to-night; not nine or ten months ago, and I repeat that German exchange is at a premium, and the disadvantage is with the Germans and not with us. That is point cumber one. Point number two is that we should wait until other countries have ratified, or we should know in advance what countries were going to ratify. That is what is said by every body of employers in every country in Europe. The same game is played the same story is told the same Parliamentary action is taken in every country in Europe, and all the fine talk 1918 when the Treaty of Versailles was signed, all the fine promises made in the Labour Charter, all the statements made from platforms that got tremendous majorities for the Coalition Government to which the hon. Gentleman belonged.
Lieut.-Colonel WARDI did not belong to the Coalition Government. I fought a Coalition candidate and beat him.
§ Mr. SHAWI still repeat that when the Treaty of Versailles was signed the hon. and gallant Gentleman's party belonged to the Coalition Government and were responsible more than any other party for the Treaty and for the Labour Charter therein contained. Now that Labour Charter to which our signature is affixed, to which we are more solemnly bound than any other nation in Europe—[An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] Because we were principally responsible for its inclusion in the Treaty of Versailles. That is why, and we have been the country which has certainly not shown an example to others. Take this question of shipping. We are the first country in the world in shipping and yet we have to wait before we keep our word to know whether Holland or Germany will keep its word. In Holland and in Germany the shipowners are telling the people exactly the same story, and so long as the working people can be bluffed by that story then there will never be a Convention ratified. But the instant a nation is big, strong and generous enough to keep its word then we can expect other people to keep their word. It is our duty to do so because we are the most highly developed industrial nation and we, above all other nations, ought to be the first to keep to our bond and to show an example to others. As a matter of fact we have done exactly the opposite. This is not the only Treaty. I am not going to refer to others, but I shall have the opportunity before very long to deal with another Convention to which we solemnly affixed our signature. I cannot refer to that now. I want to say quite definitely that the, two points the hon. and gallant. Gentleman made about the exchange and the necessity for getting to know what other countries were doing both fall to the ground in face of the facts. There is no advantage to Germany from the point of view of the exchange. We have a solemn duty to show an example to other nations by ratifying the Conventions solemnly 1919 entered into under part of the Treaty of Versailles for which we were principally responsible.
§ Mr. PRINGLEIt is quite true that this is a Bill for ratifying the International Labour Conventions. Everybody agrees with the provisions which are inserted in this Bill. They were admirable provisions on their merits, apart altogether from the question whether the other countries adopt them or not. I should have been inclined to support them, whether there had been a Convention or not. But as this Bill is put forward as a Bill for giving effect to an International Labour Convention surely the House is entitled to know what other countries are doing. It is a matter of information.
§ Mr. PRINGLEThe Minister of Labour has made a very eloquent speech. He is a master of declamation but is economical in facts and on this occasion he followed his usual practice. We are always delighted to listen to him and he certainly helped to raise the temperature at this hour of the morning. When we were asked to deal with a Bill of this kind, which refers to the Conventions in the Preamble and which is set out in the Schedule we are entitled to know whether this is what it purports to be, an international affair or not, or whether the whole of this International Labour Office is turning out to be largely a fraud and a sham. [Interruption.]
I know what I am going to say as soon as the hon. Gentlemen stop talking. An hon. Member addressing this House is entitled to be relieved from constant running conversation which is highly irrelevant.
§ Mr. SPEAKER rose to put the Question.
§ Mr. PRINGLEI had not finished.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member was not proceeding.
§ Mr. PRINGLEI understood an hon. Member was at least entitled to address the House without being constantly inter- 1920 rupted. I had endeavoured to speak two consecutive sentences and for the space of three minutes I was not allowed to do so without interruption. I think that that is at least carrying the practice somewhat further than the Chair is accustomed to allow. I return to the question I was putting and which I hope the President of the Board of Trade—whom we are told is soon to leave us—will answer. The President of the Board of Trade is, after all, at the head of the Department responsible for this Bill and while the Under-Secretary has spoken, and the Minister of Labour has spoken, I have no doubt the President of the Board of Trade will be able to tell us the facts without declamation. There is a point in regard to the Schedule which illustrates some of the difficulties. It is the reference to the International Labour Organisation and certain other organisations and Conventions which are referred to in the Treaty of Versailles only. As I understand it, these Conventions have no operative effect at all. I hope the President of the Board of Trade will correct me if I am wrong. Is it the case that the Schedules are simply costly printing which will be of no use? I hope the President of the Board of Trade will damn to give us his counsel on the matter.
§ The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Webb)I will endeavour to avoid declamation and be brief. May I begin with the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Balfour)? The Dominions he referred to are separately represented in the International Labour Office. They ratified separately, and they pass their own legislation on the subject, and, therefore, and for that. reason, it is specially provided that they shall not, be added to an Order in Council in this country. As a matter of fact, the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle) was perfectly right. Conventions which are included in the first Schedule are not part of our legislation. In the second line of the Preamble a definition of the phrase is given, and this is part of the Act—
Whereas at Genoa the General Conference of the International Labour Organisation of the League of Nations".It is that International Labour Organisation to which reference is made in the Schedule. I think the hon. Member for Hampstead need not be apprehensive of any other International Labour Organisa- 1921 tion. It is the International Labour Organisation of the League of Nations, of which this country is one of the constituent members.
§ Mr. PRINGLEDoes the right hon Gentleman say that affects the Bill in any way?
§ Mr. WEBBI am not prepared to say what affects the Bill. The hon. and gallant Member for North-West Hull (Lieut.-Colonel L. Ward) has raised a substantial point with regard to fishing vessels. The application of this new legislation to fishing vessels is now being considered by the Advisory Committee, and it may be dealt with in Committee. I would like to point out that this Bill has been through all its stages in another place, and not until the Bill came down here was any question raised by the fishing industry, so that they are rather late. Their case is being very seriously considered. The Government have an entirely open mind. I think it is the desire that if these fishing vessels go down the men employed on them shall not get their wage, if they do come forward with such a request—
§ Mr. WEBBIt is not, therefore, Clause 1 on which there is going to be any question in Committee. I make it quite clear that there can be no exception to Clause 1. I understand no owner of a fishing vessel would ask for exception.
§ Mr. WEBBThe question is whether any protection is required for persons under 18 serving as firemen or trimmers. Whether the stokeholds on fishing vessels are as deleterious as on large ships will be a matter for inquiry.
Lieut.-Colonel WARDI said I had no grounds for asking for exclusion. I said the conditions in the stokeholds were as bad, if not worse, than on liners. The only reason I gave was that the industry could not afford the additional burden.
§ Mr. WEBBIf the conditions are so bad as to call for legislation in the ordinary way, and the conditions of the industry are such that it would not wish that legislation to be applied, that means that these young people are to be subjected to these conditions which are so bad for them simply because—I will not say because the employers should make more profits, but that they should make less loss than they otherwise would. On which leg does the hon. Member stand? If the employment is deleterious, I do not think anyone will want to keep it on. I do not think the owners of trawlers would wish to subject their own people to deleterious conditions and I do not think they will. These Clauses have received the support and consent of the industry generally, and it was only the other day that we were informed there was any objection taken. As a matter of fact, this question is being looked into by the Government, and the Government have an open mind on the subject. If the fishing industry can show That it has a claim not to have the Clause applied, the Government will have an Amendment to that effect put down. But it does not seem as if that were the case. How ever, if they can show a claim, it shall be done.
With regard to the hours of labour, hon. Members on this side of the House urge that the Bill should apply to that matter. It cannot. The Bill is to ratify an international agreement. That is the purpose of the agreement. There is nothing about the hours of labour in the Bill, and therefore we cannot deal with that question in the Bill. I do not say it ought not to be dealt with at some time, but it cannot he done in this Bill. Hon. Members asked why a man who is shipwrecked should have two months' wages. It is not quite correct to say he is to receive two months' wages. He receives two months' wages if he is so long unemployed and it dates from the time his former wages stop. The sufficient answer for the two months' period is that we must fix some maximum period, and this is the maximum to which all the countries in the world have agreed.
One or two Members have asked how many countries have ratified the Convention and passed legislation. Frankly, I do not know. I have not that information here at hand. My information is, 1923 first of all, that these Clauses were accepted by the Governments represented, as well as by the shipowners and labour representatives of all the countries who were represented at Genoa and Geneva. We understand that the Conventions are in course of ratification. They have been ratified by some countries, and in some other countries they are in process of ratification, but I have not an idea in which countries. Still less do I know which country has passed legislation. As a matter of fact, some countries do not need specific legislation, and ratification is sufficient. It is said that in some countries, even if thsy do legislate, they do not always carry out their legislation. I absolutely disbelieve that statement. This country is not by any means universally at the head in such matters. There are countries ahead of us in factory legislation, and there are other points which we are ahead, but we cannot lay unction to ourselves that we are the superior people. Then there is this point: This is a matter in which we have given our word—not merely this present Government, but the last Government and the Government before that, who sent representatives deliberately to vote for this provision. The shipowners also sent representatives to vote for this provision, and surely we must keep our word. We are bound to pass legislation, and therefore I ask the House to give us the Second Reading now and defer the other questions.
§ Mr. BECKERThe hon. Member for West Stirling (Mr. T. Johnston) said he passed correspondence with one of the Ministers with regard to the conditions on board trawlers. [HON MEMBERS: "No"] I am sorry if I am wrong. He said he had sent a lot of information to the Ministry on the subject of men working long hours. It occurs to me that if he sent information on that subject about the London and North Eastern Railway ships he might, have had other communications, because he said 18 years was too young all age, and that we ought to consider men in the stokehold of the age of 19. Are the Government in Committee going to increase the age beyond 18? It is quite likely they may take it to 21 or even 30. I think that would be extremely unfair. At 18 years of age one is not too 1924 young to go to the stokehold. I have been in the stokehold at less than 18. I think 18 is quite the right age, though 17 is too young. I want the assurance of the President of the Board of Trade that the Government are not going to increase the age to 19 or 20. It seems an inspired suggestion, and I wish information to be given to us.
§ Mr. STURROCKI very much have to regret detaining the House, even for a short time, to place certain matters before it. I do plead with the Government to allow us to go home without advancing this Bill. Seriously, it does appear to be an outrage, no matter how you may look at this Measure, to have the House of Commons considering various matters which affect profoundly the interests not only of shipowners but every man who goes to sea, on a Bill which has been sent down from another place and which appears to me to be the only recommendation the Bill has in the eyes of the Mover. I do sincerely hope it does go to another place. If one looks at the Clauses of the Bill we are considering on Second Reading, I agree that many points can be raised in Committee. But I look back to the bench occupied by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle), and I greatly regret his absence, and also the absence of he who was the senior Member for the City of London (Lord Banhury). because I am sure they could have talked until six in the morning on this Measure and kept within your ruling, Mr. Speaker. The Bill deals with points raised in the Labour Charter, which was mainly carried through by an hon. Member of this House who earned the respect of every party in the House. I am sure that when Mr. George Barnes was passing through this great Labour Charter he never conceived the proposals which were then put forward and agreed to, and to be ratified by all the Powers, would be presented to us at this hour of the morning by a Government which professes to act in the interests of those who go down to the sea in ships and do their business in the mighty waters. If any Member of this House has seriously considered the various Clauses which go to make up this Bill, if any Member of this House has attempted to try to define the various legal technicalities which are involved in every Clause and in every Sub-section of 1925 every Clause, when he comes to page three and reads:
There shall be included in every agreement with the crew a list of the young persons who are members of the crew, together with particulars of the dates of their birth"—I ask the House to consider the state of mind of any member of the crew who is called upon to provide all these details. Yet we are asked to allow the Second Reading of this Measure to-night before we have had time ourselves to consider it. To be asked to swallow the Bill wholesale after midnight.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member has already said that three times.
§ Mr. STURROCKI respectfully beg your pardon. It may have been one of my best points. Clause I says:
A seaman shall not be entitled to receive wages under this Section if the owner shows that the unemployment was, not due to the wreck or lose of the ship. … if the owner shows that the seaman was able to obtain suitable employment on that day.What does it mean? It means nothing whatsoever. Anyone knowing the conditions of a seaman's life knows very well that it would be impossible for the seaman to contest the point with the shipowner who had all the advantages of wealth and legal help and all the opportunities which go to strengthen his position. I am amazed that this Government of all Governments should bring forward a Measure containing a point of that kind which would embarrass any Court of Law because of the obvious conflict of evidence. Take the case that happened not so many months ago, the case of the wreck of the "Trevessa." What a conflict of evidence you would have had. Where was the evidence to come from? You only had the two parties in the case, the shipowners and the crew of the vessel. I give this as an example of the sort of thing that would happen. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade tells me that this Bill has been carefully considered in another place, that there is no need to talk about it new. I ask him who in the other place represents those who mainly compose the crews of the vessels who put out to sea throughout the year? Another extraordinary provi- 1926 sion is in Clause 2, and I would like to have some light upon it. It is this:Where in any port a trimmer or stoker is required for any ship and no person over the age of eighteen years is available to fill the place, a young person over the age of sixteen years may be employed as a trimmer or stoker, but in any such case two young persons over the age of sixteen years shall be employed to do the work which would otherwise have been performed by one person over the age of eighteen years.This Clause is proposed by a Government that professes to speak in the name of labour—
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member is repeating himself so much that I must ask him to resume his seat.
§ Mr. STURROCKIf I may, with respect, say that I feel very strongly on this matter—
§ Mr. SPEAKERI have ordered the hon. Member to resume his seat.
§ 2.0 A.M.
§ Mr. T. DICKSONIn listening to the objections which have been submitted against this Bill I find it is simply the old objection that one gets to every form of industrial legislation submitted to this House. It is the old cry that no matter what advantages are deemed to be necessary for the welfare of the workers in any particular industry, those advantages must be deferred until some time in the sweet by and by because we shall thereby be hindering our industry or handicapping our industrialists, manu- facturers or shipowners in their competition abroad. That argument was equally legitimate and was used in precisely the same way with regard to every item of industrial and factory legislation which has ever come before this House. Under certain conditions industry has to bear the charges of legislation in this country. In consequence of such a Bill as this certain charges put upon the shipping of this country may not be put upon shipping of other countries, but that is equally true of other things. If one may mention the War Loan charges of this country, they have to be borne by the industry of this country, and we do not appear to have any vehement claim for their reduction or repeal. The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle) suggested that this Bill ought to be considered upon its merits. Then he proceeded to argue that some other country 1927 might accept or refuse it. I agree that we should consider this Bill upon its merits, but if we are deemed to be the leading nation in industry we should not wait upon some other nation in the world. We should boldly take our own step and pass this charter for the seafaring men of this country.