§ Order for Third Reading read.
§ 7.5 p.m.
§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Dr. Burgin)I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
As the House is aware, this Bill has for its object the continuation of the possibility of payment of £2,000,000 as subsidy to the tramp section of British shipping for a further period of 12 months. Conditions subject to which this subsidy is payable are substantially the same as have been adopted in two previous years. The present freight index figure is so high that were it to continue the subsidy would in fact not become payable. It is because freight conditions have so much improved that the proposal is made that the subsidy should not as on previous years, become payable at the end of three months, but that the entire 12 months should run in order to make sure that the average of the freight rates prevailing during the 12 months is such as to justify the payment of the subsidy. 97 The only reason I am making any observations on the Third reading of a Bill which commands substantial approval, is to answer this question which hon. Members may ask—why, if freight rates are so high, do you move the Bill at all? It does not seem to me possible, after years and years of depression, during which all forms of reserve funds for depreciation and rebuilding have been exhausted, and in which profits have not been made so that those reserve funds could be built up, that after a few months or perhaps a year of better times the tramp shipping industry should be restored to the level at which we would like to see it. There is a long leeway to make up. Let us rejoice that conditions are better, but do not let us make the mistake of thinking that a single swallow makes a nautical summer. It does nothing of the kind.
There is one other reason that I would ask the House to take into account. Under the stimulus of the subsidy it has been found possible to introduce order into the freight markets, and a large number of markets have been so controlled that freight rates have been maintained at satisfactory levels. The whole of that measure of co-operation has been built up under the influence of and with the sanction of the subsidy. Various voluntary committees of the shipping industry have found it possible to secure a measure of agreement by the simple expedient of saying that "Only those who agree can qualify for subsidy." I ask the House, as business men, to realise that that measure of co-operation has been invaluable, and that it would be the height of folly to allow it to disintegrate because the tide has turned. The only way we can see of keeping that co-operation in being is to renew the subsidy, hoping that freight rates may be so high that it will not be necessary to pay it, but having the power to pay it should occasion so require.
§ 7.9 p.m.
§ Mr. ShortI do not think we can quarrel with the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary. He has not spread himself as I should have desired, and has not provided me with any peg on which I might reasonably hang my oratorical cap. During the Second Reading Debate an hon. Member opposite made reference to "Big Ben of Rotherhithe." I am not "Big Ben." His 98 knowledge of the sea has made his contributions interesting to the House. Having helped to build ships, and having sailed in some of them, perhaps I may tell the same story in a different manner. We are on common ground in desiring a fine mercantile marine. We would like to see British ships built by British labour and manned by British labour, and we would like to see the conditions of that labour put beyond dispute. In so far as the subsidy has made any contribution to the improvement of those conditions—and I believe it has—we welcome it. But conditions are by no means as satisfactory as they might be, and as this subsidy might well terminate at the end of the year, and as conditions of labour are attached to the payment of the subsidy, we shall expect some substantial efforts to be made by the hon. Member and his chief to ensure that still further improvement is made in the conditions governing the labour and employment of seamen in this section of the industry. On the Second Reading the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Rear-Admiral Beamish), who speaks with knowledge and authority, said:
I know something of those conditions. They are better now than they were formerly, but they are still in many ways disgraceful. Indeed, it is not possible to use strong enough language to describe the conditions almost of squalor under which the merchant seaman gallantly pursues his employment."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th February, 1937; col. 1907, Vol. 319.]I am entitled to criticise the further provision of £2,000,000 of public money for the purpose of assisting tramp shipping when the conditions of labour are spoken of so badly by so distinguished a Member of this House. Up to now the subsidy, whatever its virtues may have been, has not remedied or redressed these wrongs completely, nor indeed has it led to the effective and thorough organisation of the industry. Up to now we have provided some £4,000,000, and the subsidy is being continued for another 12 months, though, as the Parliamentary Secretary has pointed out, if existing freight rates prevail the subsidy will not be paid. He said the subsidy had led to some organisation in the industry, to some lessening of the internal competition; but when it terminates I suppose the Government will have no power or authority over the industry, will be unable to initiate schemes to assist the industry or force reforms on 99 it, and I wonder what will happen if the industry becomes once again subject to world conditions such as led to the depression.Another point I wish to make is that the Opposition have been placed in some difficulty in debating this Bill, not having been supplied with particulars to show how the subsidy was spent during 1936, and to whom the money was paid. Without the names of the recipients we cannot make contrasts or comparisons. The Parliamentary Secretary, at a moment when his temper was frayed, accused one of my hon. Friends of talking "old stuff." I shall not indulge in old stuff by quoting from the Command Paper particulars of the payments made during 1935, but I do not think sufficient reasons have been given to explain the failure to produce the particulars for 1936. We are now in March, and I should have thought that two months allowed ample time to gather together the necessary data for the information of Members. I do not think any Government, much less this one, is entitled to ask for the continuance of the subsidy unless it puts all the cards on the Table, because the payment of this subsidy is conditioned by the readiness of the shipowners to apply Maritime Board conditions.
In the course of our Debate a good deal of evidence has been adduced that Maritime Board conditions have not always been adopted but that in spite of it shipping firms have received the subsidy. Case after case, ship after ship, and owner after owner were cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherhithe on 19th March, 1936—cases of firms who had received the subsidy but had not complied with Maritime Board conditions. The Parliamentary Secretary shakes his head, but he can look up that speech in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I have given him the date, and he will find it in column 752. As we have not the information for 1936 we are unable to see whether the firms who were previously the subject of complaint have since adopted Maritime Board rates, and I say that the Opposition have not been treated fairly. We could have thrown the floodlight of publicity on some matters.
We know that much of this subsidy has gone to the fairly wealthy, prosperous and successful shipping companies, has gone 100 to swell their profits, and I must make the inevitable protest from these benches that there has been no means test. We have not treated shipowners, and we are not going to treat them up to the end of 1937, as we treat the unemployed who are out of work through no fault of their own and have to seek public assistance. This discrimination in the dispersal of public funds must excite hostility and ill-will not only on these benches but in the country. The Parliamentary Secretary waxed eloquent in trying to prove the futility of a means test for shipowners, and I wish he would use the same arguments to the Minister of Labour and the Cabinet in the matter of the impoverished members of the working class. If there is a slight improvement in the income of those subject to the means test, there is an immediate reduction in the money they receive from public funds. We cannot view this subsidy in the same light as the Parliamentary Secretary. Personally, I wish that we could remove from our Debates this distressing question of the means test, this discrimination as between one class of citizens and another.
I wish to refer, also, to the organisation of the industry. I understand that the Government attach great importance to it, and when the announcement of the termination of the subsidy was sent to the appropriate authority representing the shipowners, the President of the Board of Trade indicated his hope that the measure of co-operation among them which had so far been achieved would not be dissipated. That applies only as, I understand it, to internal competition in the matter of freights; it does not apply to the effective organisation of the industry in matters other than freights, its organisation to meet world competition. The Government have left that matter entirely alone, though we have already provided £4,000,000 and another £2,000,000 is in the offing. Should this subsidy terminate at the end of 1937 the shipowners in this particular branch of the industry will be left, high and dry, to please themselves and to do as they like so far as their future and the future of the industry are concerned.
The whole criticism from this side of the House is that if it was necessary to revive the industry, to keep it alive, the Government ought to have sought and obtained a larger measure of control, the 101 right to interfere and ensure that conditions are applied which will enable the industry to reach a stage of perfection which will make it equal to any other section of foreign shipping. I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary will say that it is the subsidy which has led to the improvement of which he has spoken, but I think the improvement is due to world recovery rather than to the subsidy. I hope he will be able to tell us that during the next 12 months the industry will address itself to the problem of its effective organisation, and when I say that I am not referring solely to cooperation in the matter of freight rates but am speaking of the bigger issues. I think we are entitled to ask those responsible to do something more than they have done so far, having regard to the needs of the community and to the possibilities and probabilities of the future.
I do not like to talk of war, I hope it will never arise, but an efficient mercantile marine is essential. After the contribution the State has made the House will expect something more material than has been forthcoming up to the present. Let me quote the opinion of another Member of the House on this point. Speaking on 1st February, the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Maclay) said:
At the moment there are conflicting opinions in the industry. Some say, 'If the subsidy finishes, let us go on with organisation voluntarily.' Others say. 'Let us have no schemes at all'; and there are those, a pretty strong section, who say, 'Let us have an enabling Bill passed through the House of Commons, without any subsidy, which will force co-operation.' That is the present position among owners—a complete confusion of thought as to what is best for the future." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st February, 1937; col. 1364, Vol. 319.]That is a disquieting situation for the House to contemplate after the State has provided £4,000,000 of public money. On the other hand, we had the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Ropner) saying that the £4,000,000 which tramp shipping had received had been of the utmost value to that section of the industry, but that no permanent result had been achieved. These are not amateurs who are speaking but the men who are responsible for running our merchant fleet. He went on to speak of the brave words of the President of the Board of Trade:The brave words of the President of the Board of Trade have been translated into a 102 defeatist policy. Conditions [have been imposed] which in fact have helped the foreign owners as much as they have helped British owners."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th February, 1937; col. 1917, Vol. 319.]He ought to know something about it because he has revelled in the dispersal of public money. I-1 e has accepted some of it and I do not blame him. I make no criticism. He is entitled to it under the terms and conditions of the subsidy, but those are his opinions regarding the position of the industry on 4th February.finless there is effective reorganisation of the industry between now and the end of the year, the £4,000,000 that is already spent, together with what may be contemplated for 1937, will have been ill-spent. I have indulged in no bitter or hostile criticism of the industry because I am as anxious as any Member of the House to see it put upon its feet and be successful and flourishing in its own interests. Those who are responsible for the industry have some eight months to run, and they should make sure of the support of the Government and the encouragement of this House. When the Parliamentary Secretary comes to this House again, for some reason connected with the continuance of the shipping subsidy, I hope that he will be able to give us a satisfactory account of the reorganisation and the progress of the industry, and that many of his hon. Friends on the benches behind him will be able to speak more favourably of the situation.
§ 7.34 p.m.
§ Sir H. SeelyThe one redeeming feature of the situation in regard to this subsidy is that perhaps we shall not be called upon to find the money, and that is something. Everybody must feel that this is not the best way to dole out public money to an industry. The industry is certainly in trouble and is suffering from strong foreign competition, but when this system of help was started, public money was given without anything being got in return by this House as regards better conditions for the people who work in the tramp ships. Since then, some of the shipping companies have, I admit, agreed to organisation. I am not proposing to go into the question of where the money has actually gone. One cannot but feel that it is wrong that public money should go to people who do not actually need it, when there are so many large disbursements to make to people 103 who need the money at the present time. Hon. Members who listened to the speech made by the hon. Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. Benjamin Smith) will have realised the sincerity with which such speeches are made. They have had an effect, and reorganisation will undoubtedly go on in the industry and better conditions be brought about for some of the people who work in it. I oppose the Bill as a bad method of giving public money. The only merit is that we may not have to pay the money.
§ 7.36 p.m.
Mr. David AdamsThe continuance of this subsidy is, I suppose, a case of agreement on the third year of asking, and it is in my judgment, a model form of subsidy. If various industries are to be assisted, the form of subsidy based upon certain standards of trade or price, without which the subsidy cannot be claimed, is almost ideal in dealing with those industries. Hon. Members must bear in mind that freight rates are based upon a normal year, and that to-day's rates have so far not exceeded those of 1929. If the subsidy is not paid, the shipping industry will still have very heavy financial arrears to make up. I know from personal knowledge that there is not the money in the industry, generally speaking, to enable fresh vessels to be built. The temptation to dispose of ships, now that the market is rising, is pretty considerable. From the national point of view, it is unfortunate that there has been a depreciation in British-owned tonnage since the War of no less than 2,000,000 gross tons. It is the business of the Government to attempt to arrest that depreciation, which is still going on.
I regret that the subsidy may come to an end at the end of the year. Aided by good trade, the industry could have been brought more up-to-date, and more in line with certain qualities of foreign tonnage. As to reorganisation in the industry, there certainly is co-operation among British owners generally, and an agreement has been prevalent at all times. The difficulty is that we are confronted with a vast amount of tonnage
§ owned by foreign owners and competing with British tonnage throughout the world. That is where the prime difficulty exists. The question of which companies obtain a share of the subsidy is worthy of careful examination. Since I have been in this House this last time, many subsidies have been granted, but I have seen no discrimination made, with regard to the rich concerns or the poorer concerns, as to the share which they ought to obtain. There ought certainly to be an examination of that position. The subsidy was granted in order to aid vessels being sent to sea. When shipowners put forward vessels and received a proportion of the subsidy, that was a temptation to send their boats to sea. Thus we had more seagoing vessels than would, without the subsidy, have been engaged.
§ It has been mentioned here that the conditions of labour in the industry are in a grossly neglected state. That is a misunderstanding. There has been a general agreement—it is right to state the facts of the case—on the National Maritime Board between seafarers and owners, and very substantial advantages have been granted. The position is therefore satisfactory from the national point of view, and relatively so from the point of view of the shipowners. The House must not be under the delusion that the money which has been granted so far will enable the industry to be put upon a sound financial basis, because such is not the case. If hon. Members were to examine the balance sheets of most of the tramp owning companies, they would see that there are heavy depreciation and indebtedness to the bank, and a state of relative insolvency. It will take many years of good trade, such as is prevailing at the present moment, before the industry is in a position of safety from the national point of view and able to play its part in warlike preparations, owing to the necessity of relying upon the Mercantile Marine in the defence of the State.
§ Question put, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 180; Noes, 97.
107| Division No. 95.] | AYES. | [7.43 p.m. |
| Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J. | Aske, Sir R. W. | Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet) |
| Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G. | Assheton, R. | Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M. |
| Albery, Sir Irving | Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley | Baxter, A. Beverley |
| Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd) | Balfour, G. (Hampstead) | Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. |
| Beauchamp, Sir B. C. | Hanbury, Sir C. | Perkins, W. R. D. |
| Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury) | Hannah, I. C. | Pickthorn, K. W. M. |
| Beit, Sir A. L. | Hannon, Sir P. J. H. | Pilkington, R. |
| Bennett, Sir E. N. | Harbord, A. | Porritt, R. W. |
| Blair, Sir R. | Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton) | Proctor, Major H. A. |
| Blindell, Sir J. | Heilgers, Captain F. F. A. | Radford, E. A. |
| Boothby, R. J. G. | Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.) | Raikes, H. V. A. M. |
| Boulton, W. W. | Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth) | Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin) |
| Briscoe, Capt. R. G. | Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon) | Rawson, Sir Cooper |
| Brooklebank, C. E. R. | Holmes, J. S. | Rayner, Major R. H. |
| Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith) | Hopkinson, A. | Remer, J. R. |
| Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury) | Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L. | Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool) |
| Bull, B. B. | Horsbrugh, Florence | Ropner, Colonel L. |
| Burgin, Dr. E. L. | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.) | Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry) |
| Campbell, Sir E. T. | Hunter, T. | Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge) |
| Carver, Major W. H. | Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H. | Rowlands, G. |
| Gary, R. A. | Jarvis, Sir J. J. | Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury) |
| Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.) | Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n) | Salmon, Sir I. |
| Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead) | Keeling, E. H. | Salt, E. W. |
| Clarry, Sir Reginald | Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose) | Samuel, M. R. A. |
| Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J. | Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.) | Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree) |
| Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs) | Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F. | Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A. |
| Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W). | Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.) | Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen) |
| Crooke, J. S. | Leighton, Major B. E. P. | Somervell. Sir O. B. (Crewe) |
| Crowder, J. F. E. | Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L. | Southby, Commander A. R. J. |
| Culverwell, C. T. | Levy, T. | |
| Davidson, Rt. Hon. Sir J. C. C. | Lewis, O. | Spens. W. P. |
| Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil) | Liddall, W. S. | Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde) |
| Dawson, Sir P. | Lindsay, K. M. | Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd) |
| Denman, Hon. R. D. | Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J. | Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.) |
| Denville, Alfred | Lloyd, G. W. | Strauss, H. G. (Norwich) |
| Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F. | MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G. | Strickland, Captain W. F. |
| Donner, P. W. | MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Scot. U.) | Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h) |
| Dorman-Smith, Major R. H. | MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross) | Sutcliffe, H. |
| Dower, Capt. A. V. G. | MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness) | Tate, Mavis C. |
| Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side) | McEwen, Capt. J. H. F. | Thomson, Sir J. D. W. |
| Dugdale, Major T. L. | McKie, J. H. | Touche, G. C. |
| Duncan, J. A. L. | Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J. | Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C. |
| Ellis, Sir G. | Macquisten, F. A. | Wakefield, W. W. |
| Emrys-Evans, P. V. | Manningham-Buller, Sir M. | Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull) |
| Entwistle, Sir C. F. | Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. | Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend) |
| Errington, E. | Markham, S. F. | Waterhouse, Captain C. |
| Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.) | Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M. | Watt, G. S. H. |
| Everard, W. L. | Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J. | Wedderburn, H. J. S. |
| Findlay, Sir E. | Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth) | Wells, S. R. |
| Fleming, E. L. | Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.) | Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R. |
| Fox, Sir G. W. G. | Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) | Williams, C. (Torquay) |
| Furness, S. N. | Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick) | Wise, A. R. |
| Fyfe, D. P. M. | Morris-Jones, Sir Henry | Withers, Sir J. J. |
| Ganzoni, Sir J. | Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J. | Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount |
| Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J. | Munro, P. | Womersley, Sir W. J. |
| Gluckstein, L. H. | Nevan-Spence, Major B. H. H. | Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley |
| Gower, Sir R. V. | O'Connor, Sir Terence J. | Wragg, H. |
| Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral) | O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh | Young, A. S. L. (Partick) |
| Granville, E. L. | Orr-Ewing, I. L. | |
| Gridley, Sir A. B. | Palmer, G. E. H. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Grimston, R. V. | Penny, Sir G. | Captain Arthur Hope and Mr. Cross. |
| Gritten, W. G. Howard | Percy, Rt. Hon. Lord E. | |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke | Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty) | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) |
| Adamson, W. M. | Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H. | Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T, |
| Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.) | Frankel, D. | Kirby, B. V. |
| Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R. | Gardner, B. W. | Lathan, G. |
| Banfield, J. W. | Garro Jones, G. M. | Leach, W. |
| Barr, J. | George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) | Lee, F. |
| Benson, G. | George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey) | Leonard, W. |
| Bevan, A. | Gibbins, J. | Logan, D. G. |
| Broad, F. A. | Gibson, R. (Greenock) | McEntee, V. La T. |
| Bromfield, W. | Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. | McGhee, H. G. |
| Brooke, W. | Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.) | MacLaren, A. |
| Burke, W. A. | Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth) | Maclean, N. |
| Cape, T. | Hall, G. H. (Aberdare) | Mainwaring, W. H. |
| Charleton, H. C. | Hardie, G. D. | Milner, Major J. |
| Cluse, W. S. | Harris, Sir P. A. | Montague, F. |
| Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R. | Hayday, A. | Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.) |
| Cove, W. G. | Henderson, J. (Ardwick) | Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) |
| Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford | Henderson, T. (Tradeston) | Mull, G. |
| Dalton, H. | Hollins, A. | Oliver, G. H. |
| Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill) | Jagger, J. | Paling, W. |
| Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) | Jenkins, A. (Pontypool) | Parker, J. |
| Dobbie, W. | Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath) | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. |
| Dunn, E. (Rother Valley) | Johnston, Rt. Hon. T. | Potts, J. |
| Ede, J. C. | Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) | Ridley, G. |
| Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.) | Smith, E. (Stoke) | Walker, J. |
| Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens) | Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng) | Watson, W. McL. |
| Salter, Dr. A. | Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.) | Westwood, J. |
| Sanders, W. S. | Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth) | Williams, E. J. (Ogmore) |
| Seely, Sir H. M. | Thorne, W. | Williams, T. (Don Valley) |
| Short, A. | Thurtle, E. | Windsor, W. (Hull, C.) |
| Silkin, L. | Tinker, J. J. | Young, Sir R. (Newton) |
| Silverman, S. S. | Viant, S. P. | |
| Simpson, F. B. | Walkden, A. G. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Mr. Mathers and Mr. Groves. |
Question put, and agreed to.
§ Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.