§ 26. Mr. HAYESasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the British steamer "British Prince," originally known as the "London Shipper," carrying crews of white seamen on previous voyages, on the 23rd day of April, 1929, engaged a crew of Chinese sailors, firemen and members of the catering department at Dock Street shipping office, London, thus displacing 33 white seamen; that all these Chinese seamen engaged gave their address as 42, Pennyfields, East, which is a Chinese common boarding house; that a number of the Chinese engaged originally sailed in Dutch vessels; whether the language test was strictly applied to the whole of the crew and, if so, by whom; and whether, having regard to the extent of unemployment among British seamen, he will inquire into this case?
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERThe steamship "British Prince" engaged a Chinese crew on 23rd April, for a voyage to Shanghai where the Chinese are to be discharged. The ship had previously been known as the "London Shipper" and had been employed in trade between this country and America carrying a European crew. I am informed that she is now to be employed in the Far Eastern trade for an indefinite period. The address given by the Chinese seamen was as stated in the question. Two of the Chinese stated that their previous employment was in a Dutch ship. The language test was applied to the crew by two Board of Trade Deputy Superintendents. Four of the crew, who had not been previously examined, were strictly tested. 2322 The remainder were in possession of certificates of discharge, bearing endorsements showing that they had previously passed, but were nevertheless re-examined. I am informed that the whole of the Chinese crew possessed a good knowledge of the English language.
§ Mr. HAYESMay I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman, in the course of his inquiries, ascertained whether the keeper of this boarding-house is licensed by the Board of Trade to supply these crews?
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERNo, Sir, I have not that information, but I will certainly make inquiries. I made careful inquiries into the items set out in the question, because I thought this was a matter of some importance. Very careful investigations were made by two superintendents. I will ask about the other matter.
§ Mr. HAYESWill the right hon. Gentleman also bear in mind that another four or five ships belonging to this line are about to come into dock and will probably be treated in the same way, and will he see that the white crews are not replaced?
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERThat is not quite the position. What was happening was this: This ship had been sailing between here and America and, of course, as long as she was doing that she sailed with a white crew. She is now being put into commission to sail entirely in Eastern waters, and she only took this Chinese crew for Shanghai to re-discharge them there. It is fair to say that had she taken out a British crew for that purpose the owners would have been bound under the law to repatriate them, I suppose at considerable cost.
§ Mr. SHINWELLWill the right hon. Gentleman say whether the wages paid to these Chinese seamen will be the same or lower than the wages stipulated by the National Maritime Board?
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERThere is, as I think the hon. Member will remember, a very important Section in the Aliens Act dealing with this point.
§ Mr. B. SMITHIf the right hon. Gentleman discovers that the boarding-house in Pennyfields is an unlicensed place, will 2323 he promise the House that he will put into operation Clause 111 or 112—I am not sure which it is—of the Merchant Shipping Act? It is the anti-crimping Clause.
§ Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTERThe hon. Member may be perfectly certain that my Department will always carry out the provisions of the Act. He would not expect me to make any further statement.