§ 69. Sir BASIL PETOasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the British steamship "Hendrik" (ex-steamship "Purley Downs"), owned by the Euxine Shipping Company, Limited, of London, stranded near Gibraltar on 15th April and has become a total loss; and that in this ship, which was on a voyage from Rotterdam to Mediterranean ports, including Palestine coast ports, the only British subject was the wireless operator, that the captain and both mates were Russians, the chief engineer a Jugo-Slav, the second and third engineers Dutch, the donkeyman a Turk, the cook a Chinaman, and all the remainder of the crew Finns, Letts and Greeks; whether this steamship was exempt from the provisions of Section 5 of the Aliens Restriction Amendment Act, 1919, as being a ship employed habitually in voyages between ports outside the United Kingdom; and whether he will consider amending the Act to exclude from the exemption vessels trading in any port in the British Empire or mandated territory?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANI am informed that this vessel was acquired by her present owners in October last, having previously been laid up for four years. The officers and crew, engaged at Rotterdam on 26th November, 1934, consisted of aliens of various nationalities, with the exception of a British wireless operator. Changes have since taken place, but the composition of the crew at the time of stranding is not exactly known. The vessel had not, so far as I am aware, called at a United Kingdom port since her Articles were opened in November. The other ships of the Euxine Shipping Company are employed habitually in voyages between ports outside the United Kingdom, and I have no reason to believe that the "Hendrik" was not similarly employed.
§ Sir B. PETOWill the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question? Does he consider it satisfactory 550 that a ship which could not operate with a British crew and British officers can be purchased by a foreign company which is registered in London, and then proceed to trade with ports in mandated British territory, Palestine ports, and take trade which would otherwise be done by ships with British crews?
§ Mr. WESTIs not this an example of why 40,000 Britishers are unemployed because of the employment of foreigners at cheaper rates?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANI have no reason to believe that if the crew had been made up otherwise, it would have resulted in the greater employment of British seamen.
§ Sir B. PETOWill the right hon. Gentleman give me an answer to my question? Does he propose to take any steps to amend the Act that I have mentioned, the Act of 1919, to amend the exception to the rule to employ British officers on ships flying the British flag, so as to limit that exception, not only to vessels trading with the United Kingdom, but to vessels trading with any port of the British Empire or any port of mandated territories?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANI think my hon. Friend is probably aware of the Section of the Aliens Restriction Act, 1919, which deals with this subject and which provides that:
No alien shall act as master, chief officer or chief engineer of a British merchant ship registered in the United Kingdom, or as skipper or as second hand of a fishing vessel in the United Kingdom except in the case of a ship or boat engaged in voyages outside the United Kingdom.
§ Sir B. PETODoes the right hon. Gentleman not think it desirable so to amend the Act as to make it applicable to vessels trading not only habitually outside the United Kingdom but outside the British Empire or mandated territories?
§ Mr. RUNCIMANNo, Sir. I do not think that would be a suitable arrangement to make, and I doubt very much whether it would be to the advantage of the British Mercantile Marine.
§ Mr. LOGANIs it not an insult to the British flag and to the British Mercantile Marine that we should have a vessel sailing from this country with a cosmopolitan crew of this description?