§ 40. Mr. LANSBURYasked the President of the Board of Trade the wages paid to wireless operators previous to 1st December; the wages proposed to be paid after that date; and the hours of duty the men are expected to work each week; and will he inform the House of the hours and rates of pay paid to similar men employed on ships owned by American and Australian firms and the 22 rates and conditions observed on ships owned by Dominion Governments?
§ The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland)I have been asked to reply. The rates of salary of wireless telegraphists, as agreed upon between the London and District Association of Engineering Employers (on behalf of The Marconi International and Marine Communication Company, Limited, and Siemens Brothers and Company, Limited) and the Association of Wireless and Cable Telegraphists prior to 1st December were £8 17s. 6d. per month in the first year of service, rising by annual increments to £20 in the ninth year. The reduction as from 1st December, of which notice was given, is 22s. 6d. per month. The agreement contains no reference to the actual hours of duty, but provides that the telegraphist shall give his whole time and attention to the discharge of his duties. As regards the second part of the question, I regret to say that I have no information.
Mr. KENNEDYIs it the case that the present dispute arises on account of the refusal of the employers to negotiate in the matter of wages?
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLANDI would like any question regarding this dispute to be put down which does not arise directly out of a question on the Paper.
§ 41. Mr. LANSBURYasked the President of the Board of Trade how many ships have left British ports since 1st December without wireless operators; how many of these were passenger ships, and the number of passengers carried on the present trips; and will he inform the House what reduction in the number of lives lost through accidents or other causes at sea has taken place since the compulsory introduction of wireless on board ships?
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERComplete figures are not yet available, but returns from the principal ports show that up to Friday evening 25 passenger ships and 124 cargo ships had left without wireless operators. The number of passengers on these ships cannot at the moment be given. I am sending the hon. Member the last published return of deaths from accidents and other causes at sea, and he will notice that it contains figures for periods prior to, and subsequent to, the 23 coming into force of the Merchant Shipping (Wireless Telegraphy) Act, 1919. It is very difficult to base any deduction as to any particular safety appliance on general figures of this kind, but there is, of course, no doubt that wireless is a most valuable addition to the safety equipment of ships
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERYes, Sir; I think the standing rule is that all passengers should be warned.
§ Mr. LANSBURYWho will be responsible in the event of a vessel being lost through not being equipped with wireless? Who will be hanged for it?
§ Mr. SPEAKERLegal questions are not answered in this House.
§ 42. Mr. T. KENNEDYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Board of Trade officials at Manchester and Newcastle have approached the principal of the wireless training school at each of these places suggesting that students holding restricted wireless certificates should communicate with the local Board of Trade office as positions are available; whether he will state what positions are available; and whether it is a function of the Board of Trade to supply labour, efficient or otherwise to shipowners or wireless companies during a trade dispute?
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERIn response to inquiries which I made, I have ascertained the following facts:— The superintendents of the Mercantile Marine offices at Newcastle and Manchester asked the local wireless schools whether there were any qualified wireless operators at the schools. They did not ask about students with restricted certificates, nor did they suggest that such students should communicate with the Board of Trade offices. Their inquiries related only to fully qualified operators, and the only object in making the inquiries was to enable the superintendents to satisfy themselves, before permitting ships to clear, that there were no qualified operators available. It is not the function of the Board of Trade to supply 24 operators, nor is there any idea of undertaking that function. There is no reason to think that there has been any departure from the well understood rule that superintendents must act with the strictest impartiality, but in order to remove any possible misapprehension I have instructed all superintendents that they are not during the present dispute to make any inquiries of the wireless schools.