HC Deb 02 December 1937 vol 329 cc2403-6

Order for Second Reading read.

11.22 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Captain Euan Wallace)

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

This Bill, like so many that are brought in by the Board of Trade, is entirely noncontroversial. Its sole purpose is to remove a legal obstacle to the introduction of a national scheme of pensions for officers of the Mercantile Marine. Section 163 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, provides that an assignment of wages made in advance by a seaman—a term which includes any officer other than a master—should not be binding upon the person who made it. That Section was enacted in the bad old days, and was meant to deal with the case of seamen who were shanghai'ed on board ship after having signed documents which in other conditions and on calmer reflection 'they certainly would not have signed. The Section was a very wise and proper provision for allowing these unfortunate seamen to be relieved from such assignments. But the Government have been advised that any agreement in advance to allow a deduction from wages for a contribution to a pension scheme is an assignment of wages within the meaning of that Act—

Mr. Benjamin Smith

Would the right hon. and gallant Gentleman tell us what he means by "shanghai'ed on board ship?"

Captain Wallace

I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows. It would enable an officer who came into the scheme subsequently to repudiate with perfect legality an assignment of wages for pension contributions. It would be rather like any hon. Member pleading the Gaming Act if he had had an unfortunate bet. The Officers' Panel of the National Maritime Board, which is an organisation fully representative of all sides of the shipping industry, are very anxious to start a national pension scheme for officers on 1st January, 1938, a scheme that is to apply to all officers who are not already covered by existing schemes promoted by shipping companies. There are about 32,000 masters and deck and engineer officers employed in British ships which engage crews in the United Kingdom, and, of these 32,000, about 20 per cent. are at this moment covered, for pensions or other benefits on retirement, under schemes promoted by various shipping companies. The proposed national pension scheme, which will cover the remaining four-fifths of the officers, is to be on a contributory basis, at the rate of 7½ per cent. of current salaries. It is proposed that half of the premium shall be paid by the officer and the other half by the company. It has been agreed that the National Maritime Board rates of pay will, on 1st January, be raised by an amount sufficient to cover the contributions of the officers.

The House will realise that, to ensure the success of a scheme of this kind, everybody has to come in. It is also necessary that the schemes already in existence, covering about 20 per cent. of the officers, should run side by side with the national scheme. Therefore, it is very desirable to provide that assignments of wages under the current schemes should not be capable of being invalidated any more than assignments under the national scheme. To prevent such invalidation is the sole purpose of the Bill. The Bill has been drawn in general terms and would cover assignments by seamen as well as by officers, if at some future time it was found possible for the industry to adopt such a scheme. I hope the House will agree to the Second Reading of a Measure which, I am sure, will be acceptable to all sides.

11.27 p.m.

Mr. Greenwood

I rise only to say that I am glad the scheme is to be given full effect in this Bill. All of us agree that the merchant service is deserving of praise for this scheme, and my one hope is that, before long, the same kind of scheme will be applied to seamen as to merchant officers. I think merchant officers will agree with my sentiments.

11.28 p.m.

Mr. Benjamin Smith

I agree that the Bill, as introduced, will find a welcome in so far as it is an all-embracing scheme for officers of the Mercantile Marine. I noticed that the shipping companies will raise the wages, if I understood the hon. and gallant Gentleman correctly, to enable the officers to pay their quota towards the scheme. If so, shall I be wrong in saying that the companies will pay the whole of the cost? Why, if officers, as a class, can be brought into a pensions scheme, should not the seamen also be brought in? Their lives are far more arduous and their employment more insecure; and surely, if it is possible to bring the officers in, it is possible to bring the seamen in, too.

11.29 p.m.

Mr. J. J. Davidson

I intervene only to follow up the point made by my hon. Friend. While most of us will agree that it is desirable that at least a step should be made in the proper direction: I would like to know why it was possible to bring forward such a Bill for one section, and not incorporate the whole Mercantile Marine. We have had an explanation with regard to 20 per cent. of the officers who are in different schemes, and I would like to know whether they are going to run alongside this scheme, as the hon. Member suggested, or whether any attempt is to be made to bring them into the whole general scheme? Can some indication be given to-night while we are dealing with this subject as to any moves being made to bring the seamen as well as officers within the provisions of a Bill such as this as far as superannuation is concerned?

11.31 p.m.

Captain Wallace

I can speak again only by the leave of the House. I very much welcome the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. Benjamin Smith), who is an expert on shanghai-ing. I do not think, with regard to what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Maryhill (Mr. Davidson) has said, that there is any particular point in forcing those officers who are already in schemes promoted by the companies to come into the national scheme. As understand the scheme, it will work in this way. Take the case of an officer who had been employed for 10 years by a company with a private scheme. He would have acquired the right to a certain pension. If he then proceeded to leave that company and take service with another shipping company which did not have an officers' scheme and serve the rest of his time with it under the national scheme, his pension under the national scheme would be so much less because of the 10 years he had spent with the first company, but he would have a certain pension as a result of that 10 years' service which he would add to the national scheme pension. I think the hon. Member will see that this particular scheme allows the maximum of elasticity.

With regard to the question of the introduction of a scheme of seamen's pensions, we have drawn this Bill sufficiently wide for it to be unnecessary to come to the House again if and when—I sincerely hope that the time will not be far distant—the National Maritime Board may be able to produce a similar scheme for ratings. I would like to make it perfectly clear that this is a scheme which has been produced by the National Maritime Board to be contributed to by the officers and the companies, and His Majesty's Government, curiously enough, are in the position of contributing nothing. We shall be very glad if some day it should prove possible for the industry to extend the scheme in the manner which has been suggested, and in a manner which, I think, hon. Members on every side of the House would welcome.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House for Monday next. —[Captain Ilargesson.]