HC Deb 09 March 1938 vol 332 cc2050-75

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £15,200, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1938, for the Salaries and Expenses of certain Services transferred from the Mercantile Marine Fund and other Services connected with the Mercantile Marine, including Services under the British Shipping (Assistance) Act, 1935, the Coastguard, General Register and Record Office of Shipping and Seamen and Merchant Seamen's Fund Pensions.

12.3 a.m.

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

The total sum asked for in this modest Estimate is £15,200, and it can fairly be allocated under four headings. There is first £7,700 for general administration due to the increased activities of the Department; secondly, £1,000 in connection with the relief, repatriation, wages and expenses of British seamen abroad, due directly to the increased shipping activity in the period in question. Then there is £2,500 for the North Atlantic ice patrol, due to the earlier appearance of icebergs in the 1937 season. Finally, there is £4,000 under the Shipping (Carriage of Munitions to Spain) Act to meet the cost of unloading and reloading ships suspected of carrying prohibited war materials to Spain, These are the net sums, under each heading which, after allowing for savings and appropriations-in-aid, bring the total required to £15,200.

12.5 a.m.

Sir S. Cripps

There are two important matters which we wish to raise, in spite of the lateness of the hour. The first comes under Item C.2, dealing with travelling expenses of surveyors, etc., and increased travelling expenses necessitated by continued increased activity in shipping and shipbuilding and the more intensive supervision of shipping. On several occasions we on this side have raised the question whether adequate supervision is being given to the crew's quarters in ships, and promises have been given that steps would be taken to ensure better standards. I understand that these are the travelling expenses of those responsible for supervising all that work on ships under construction or being altered or reconstructed. We are anxious to know what instructions these surveyors have had and how far they have carried them out, to ensure that the highest possible standard is maintained, and we should like a fuller statement from the hon. and gallant Member.

The second subject comes under G.6, dealing with the expenses under the Merchant Shipping (Carriage of Munitions to Spain) Act, 1936, a new subhead which has never previously appeared. That Act was passed to prevent the discharge in or transhipment for Spanish territory of weapons and munitions of war and other articles from British ships. It was one of the measures taken unilaterally by the British Government at a time when ships of other countries were freely taking cargoes of munitions to the rebels in Spain. It was intended to prevent substantially the Spanish Government from getting any munitions. No British ships were being used at that time to take munitions to the rebels; they had ample Italian and German and other shipping; and this was one of those measures which, as mentioned earlier in another Debate, was devised by the Government in order to give assistance to their friends on the rebel side in Spain and to do the maximum damage they could to the cause of the Spanish Government by denying them the right or power to get munitions brought to their assistance while their enemies were freely being supplied by other countries.

We are now asked to provide £4,000 for the working of this Act, and we want to know how many ships have been un- loaded and then loaded again in which there has been discovered anything for which it was worth while unloading the ships. In other words, how far has this money been wasted on suspicions which proved to be unfounded. Next we should like to know the number of ships dealt with under these powers, that is to say, whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman can give us some idea how many ships were arrested under these powers in any way, on their way to Spain. What proportion, if any, of those ships have been found to carry matters which come within the purview of the Act?

There is a suspicion that this has led to delay in the arrival in Spain of perfectly legitimate cargoes because of suggestions made by outside people that those cargoes should be investigated. The suggestions were for the purpose of delaying the cargoes, and for no other reason. We want to know how such communications as to the supposed contents of cargoes have been received, whether they have been acted upon when they have been only mere suggestions from some outside persons, and, generally, how the Act has been administered; upon what sources of information the Government have relied before they have taken any active step either to stop a ship or to unload or search its cargo, when on its way from this or any other country to Spain. It would be wrong to allow this matter to pass without having some account from the responsible Minister of the way in which the Act has been administered. When we have had fuller information on the matter we shall be able to discuss it more fully and with a better basis for discussion.

12.12 a.m.

Mr. Kelly

I would like to raise a point under the heading "Coastguard." How many men have been engaged, and are they on the permanent staff? Are they to be included in the number of coastguards we have as watchers around the coasts? Is it intended to increase still further the number of watchers over what is indicated in this sum of £2,300? If the new men are not on the regular staff, under what conditions are they working? What is their payment, and is it intended to give them an opportunity to enter the permanent service in the coastguard section? I hope we shall hear whether the Minister is satisfied that with these additions there is an adequate number of watchers, and whether the South-East Coast is being particularly watched at this time.

12.14 a.m.

Captain Wallace

I will try to deal as concisely as possible with the very proper questions that have been addressed to me from the other side, and first with that of the hon. and learned Gentleman relating to the increased activities of our staff of surveyors. As he rightly surmises, these are the people whose duty is to assume the responsibility of the Board of Trade for the inspection of British ships when they come into port. It is on their shoulders that ultimately rests the responsibility of reporting defects and making recommendations for alterations. During the past two days we have seen two leading articles in a great newspaper which have given people a certain amount of anxiety, or at any rate, cause to think. While those articles suggest that the worst crews' quarters were observed in British ships they say also that the best ones were too. The Committee must draw a very clear distinction between what is proposed to be done—what is in fact increasingly being done in all new construction—

The Deputy-Chairman

We cannot raise general questions of Boad of Trade policy on this Estimate.

Mr. Garro Jones

The money is to be provided to pay people whose duty it is to inspect conditions on these ships; how can it be out of order for us to raise questions as to the efficiency with which those duties are discharged?

The Deputy-Chairman

The point is that questions of general policy must come up on the main Estimates. That has been laid down by my predecessors over and over again. We are now considering an increased charge, and the only question which arises is, why is the charge increased?

Sir S. Cripps

Is it not in order for us to inquire whether this increase in the number of surveyors has been in respect of the carrying out of the alleged policy of better crews' quarters and to get an account from the Minister whether that is so in fact and what these surveyors are doing?

The Deputy-Chairman

The hon. and learned Gentleman is quite in order in asking that question, and the Minister can answer whether it is or is not so, but he cannot go into general policy.

12.18 a.m.

Captain Wallace

I can certainly say to the hon. and learned Gentleman that one of the reasons for the increase in the activities of these surveyors is undoubtedly to devote increased attention to the burning question of the improvement of conditions in merchant ships. On the other question which he raised, the Carriage of Munitions to Spain Act was passed to apply equally to both sides and was designed to prohibit the discharge in, or transhipment for Spanish territory by British ships of weapons or munitions of war. Whether it has worked out to the advantage of one side or the other has nothing to do with these Estimates. I was asked as to the British ships which were involved; they were the "Sara-stone," the "Springwear," and the "African Mariner." In none of those three cases was any contraband found on board.

The hon. and learned Gentleman has asked me what reasons we had for deciding to search these ships. I am sorry that it is not possible for me to tell him. I think he will realise from his great experience that in carrying out an Act of this kind (or indeed any legislation which deals with a potentially criminal offence) it must be for those who enforce it to act upon information which they receive. I cannot say more to the hon. and learned Gentleman than that His Majesty's Government had reason to think that in these cases the ships were carrying arms. In fact it was found that they were not. The money asked for in the Estimate is to pay for the unloading and reloading of those ships, a charge which it would be very unfair to place upon the owners.

I was asked by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) how many men had joined the coastguard service. I regret that it is not possible for me to give exact figures at this moment. I can only say that we have to run the coastguard service, as is the case of every other public service, on the most practical and economical lines possible. Obviously there must be some places where it is not economical to employ a permanent full-time coastguard, and in such cases it is much better to employ part-time watchers, who are only called out in certain weather conditions. In pursuance of that policy we have appointed a number of these auxiliary people and have been able to effect some saving in the numbers of permanent whole-time coastguards, who in certain places would be wasting their time.

With regard to the question whether there is likely to be an increase or a diminution of the total number of persons employed in these services, that must depend, as time goes on, on what is considered necessary for the safety of shipping. It is conceivable that, as mechanical and scientific aids such as wireless beacons become more widely used, and as more and more ships are fitted with apparatus for taking advantage of these inventions, it may not be necessary to have so many coastguards, but I do not see any possibility of a diminution of their number in the immediate future.

Mr. Benn

With regard to the three ships which the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned, could he tell us what was their destination, what was their cargo found on examination to consist of, and what were the dates of the examinations?

Captain Wallace

The "Springwear," owned by the Springwell Shipping Company, was stopped on 7th March, 1937, by a Nationalist armed trawler while on a voyage to Alicante with a grain cargo. She was sent to Gibraltar, the insurgent authorities having stated that they had definite information that she had machine guns on board. The Gibraltar authorities decided to make a thorough search of the vessel. The result of the search was negative, and the Board of Trade have now paid £482 9s. 6d., the cost of searching the vessel, and have at the moment under consideration the owners' claim for £625 for demurrage and out-of-pocket expenses. The "Sarastone," owned by the Stone and Rolfe Steamship Company, Limited, was lying in St. Jean de Luz on 13th April, waiting an opportunity to enter Bilbao with a cargo consisting mainly of potatoes and other foodstuffs. Information was given to His Majesty's Government that she was carrying arms and ammunition. The vessel was therefore sent to Bordeaux with a British official representative on board, and was searched at Bordeaux under the supervision of the British consul. The result of the search was negative. The Board of Trade paid £1,205 for the cost of searching the vessel, and have now under consideration the owners' claim for compensation for loss and damage. The "African Mariner," owned by the African and Continental Steamship Company, Limited, was, as a result of information to the effect that she was carrying a considerable quantity of arms and ammunition, intercepted in the Mediterranean by a British warship on 17th November, 1937, while on a voyage from Novorossisk to Barcelona with a cargo consisting mainly of chemical fertilisers. The vessel was searched at Malta wath negative results. The expenses of the Malta authorities in making the search amounted to £682, which was paid by the Board of Trade. No claim in respect of loss or damage was received from the owners.

12.24 a.m.

Mr. Benn

We are very much obliged to the Parliamentary Secretary. It is well worth sitting up till half-past twelve to learn what happened in these cases. The Government, acting on the tittle-tattle of General Franco, or anyway on groundless information conveyed to them by him, took three ships, two of which contained cargoes of food and one a cargo of the fertilisers necessary to produce it, and, acting as the willing, or certainly not unwilling friends of the insurgents in Spain, interfered with innocent and proper food supplies for the people of Spain; and all this is concealed in a little item at the end of the Estimate relating to charges in connection with the carriage of munitions by sea. Is it not curious that when large cargoes of munitions are coming from other quarters for the insurgents the Government never have any information that causes them to search any ship, and that every search should be made in respect of food supplies or things of that nature supplied to the lawful Government of Spain? But that is not the whole story. In the Bilbao case, there was an attempted blockade, and the Navy was standing by. We remember the shocking exhibition made, not of course, by the Navy, but by the Admiralty orders to the Navy, and at the same time supplementary aid was being given to the blockade by the Admiralty who were sending out orders to prevent the potato ships entering Bilbao. It throws a shocking light on the policy of the Government which was pretending to be non-interventionist, but are proved to have been willing interventionists on behalf of the insurgents.

12.26 a.m.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence

So far as one of these cases was concerned, it is admitted that the search was undertaken on the information supplied by the insurgent Government. Is there going to be any attempt to get this expense back from the people who gave this false information, owing to which we have been put to this charge?

12.27 a.m.

Captain Wallace

The right hon. Gentleman is completely begging the question. He says that it is admitted that we got the information from certain quarters. That is not admitted for one moment.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence

The right hon. and gallant Gentleman did exactly state—perhaps by accident—with regard to the first of the three vessels that the information was received from the insurgent forces. It may not have been his intention, but that was what he said. I was very careful to say that, "so far as one case was concerned," it was admitted.

Captain Wallace

I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon; he is quite correct in this particular case. But the fact that we got the information from a particular source is surely not relevant. I would like to remind hon. Members, when they talk about our having taken one side or the other in this matter, that this Act of Parliament with which we are concerned is directed entirely to preventing the carriage of prohibited war material in British ships. It does not even apply to Dominion ships. Because it so happened that, in the exercise of the discretion that we were bound to exercise under the Act, the three ships stopped all happened to be destined for one side and not to be carrying contraband, it does not prove that contraband was not being carried to one or both sides.

12.29 a.m.

Sir S. Cripps

We cannot leave this where the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would like to leave it. What this does prove is that this Act was designed to stop ships going to the Spanish Government.

The Deputy-Chairman

The hon. and learned Gentleman cannot criticise the policy of an Act of Parliament.

Sir S. Cripps

I was not criticising it; I was stating what it was. I am coming to deal with the facts which have been disclosed for the first time, to the Committee. This is the first time the Committee has had an opportunity, and it may be the last, of discussing what comes out of these facts. Take the case of the "Sarastone." It was in St. Jean de Luz on 17th April waiting for an urgent cargo of foodstuff to get into Bilbao. Every hour's delay was known to be adverse to those who were trying to defend Bilbao, and apparently on the information of someone—and I think we can guess who it was—an agent of General Franco—who was frying to prevent it getting there, this ship is taken away from St. Jean de Luz to Bordeaux and has its cargo unloaded—an admirable method of delaying this urgently needed cargo of foodstuffs getting to Bilbao. If it had been some reliable information of some sort the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would have read it out as he read out reliable information in regard to the "Springwear." Acting, therefore, on a mere suspicion in circumstances when everybody knew—not only Members of the Government, but the public—that these cargoes were being most urgently waited for in Bilbao to save the people from starvation, the Government willingly lent themselves to what was obviously a device by the rebels to try to delay the landing of this cargo.

Surely in those circumstances we are entitled to say that this action and many other actions of the British Government were designed to help Franco. Take the "Springwear." On 7th March, 1937, she was somewhere in the Mediterranean bound with a cargo of grain to Alicante. She is taken by a Nationalist trawler and conducted, not to a Nationalist port, but into the friendly arms of Gibraltar and there handed over to the British authorities on the instigation of the Nationalist trawler to search—a thing which might have been done if there were a blockade and a ship had been taken into a port and there might have been a proper search. But here, for nothing further than the act of capture and the suggested suspicion of the opponent force, we again lend ourselves to the unloading of a cargo of grain in Gibraltar, and again the inevitable delay and risks which, in those circumstances, are run in getting that cargo to the Spanish Government. What earthly right has the Board of Trade, on the information of the enemy of this vessel, to search it, delaying the arrival of this important cargo in the Spanish Government port? Absolutely nothing but a bias in favour of the Nationalist Government would ever have permitted us to lend ourselves to such an action.

With regard to the "African Mariner." She was bound on 17th November for Barcelona with a cargo of fertilisers. She is taken away to Malta, undoubtedly again a long delay. Who suggested that she had on board anything other than chemical fertilisers? Is it not obviously another attempt from either Nationalist quarters in Spain or one of their informers somewhere else to try to cause delay to this cargo, which was urgently needed at the time of year in Spain in order to produce the foodstuffs which would be grown this spring? I should like to know from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman how many other ships he has had information about, whether this is the totality of the ships going to the Spanish Government or whether there are other cases where no search has been made although he has received information from some quarter or another? If he would give us this information it is possible the picture might not look so black against the British Government. As he has left it at present it must appear certain in everybody's mind that in the administration of this Act the British Government have been working as the willing ally of Franco.

12.37 a.m.

Captain Wallace

These are the only three cases which I have dealt with because they are the only three cases in order under this Supplementary Estimate. They are the only cases in which we are asking for money from the Committee. There has been one other case, that of the steamship "Euphorbia," where the vessel was detained for investigation under the Act. It was intercepted by a British warship and taken to Gibraltar as a result of information that it was carrying war material to Spain. In this case the ship was not searched and no claim was received from the owners in respect of loss. Regarding the "African Mariner," there apparently was not any great sense of grievance on the part of the owners, because they did not put forward any claim in respect of loss or damage.

12.38 a.m.

Mr. Benn

May we take it that there will be a Supplementary Estimate later on to pay these claims, or will the money be paid by the people who laid the false information? Has the right hon. and gallant Gentleman received any other information of alleged breaches of the Act in which he has not acted?

Captain Wallace

It would not be in order to discuss that under this Estimate.

12.39 a.m.

Mr. Garro Jones

The Committee will be sorry to have its attention drawn from the interesting, curious story with which we have been dealing to the question of the administration of the Board of Trade in relation to the examination of British ships. I want to draw the attention of the Committee to certain questions which appeared in two special articles in the "Times" yesterday and the day before. You ruled, Captain Bourne, that questions of policy could not be discussed on Supplementary Estimates, and of course your ruling always carries decisive weight in the Committee, but I would point out that if questions of policy are to be brought down to the smallest administrative acts, and those acts ruled out of order as questions of policy, nothing whatever will be in order on the Supplementary Estimates when they come to be discussed. However, I feel I shall not fall foul of your ruling on this occasion because what I propose to deal with is the manner in which the administrative actions of those persons for whom we are providing the money in this Supplementary Estimate has been carried out.

I want to pay a tribute to the "Times" for the outspoken nature of these contributions. I should not like that tribute, for what it is worth, to be regarded as a general one, because I consider that the "Times," which for a great many years was an example of impartiality in British journalism, has become an extremely mean and biased newspaper, particularly on its centre page—mean and biased because, under the guise of impartiality, it is the most biased report of political proceedings, at any rate on the centre page, of all the newspapers published to-day. It is because of that that I am particularly glad to pay this tribute to them for the candour of these articles, affecting seamen's conditions, which hon. Members in all parts of the House have very much at heart. These articles are entitled "Ships and Men." The right hon. and gallant Member attempted to defend the disquieting disclosures made in these articles by explaining that if the worst conditions are found on British ships there are also the best to be found on them. I would draw his attention to the fact that he has misread the articles, because what they say is that British cargo ships of the future are to be better living places for seamen and firemen. They say that on most British cargo ships to-day the conditions range from poor—

The Deputy-Chairman

The hon. Gentleman really cannot raise that on this Supplementary Estimate. He must raise it on the main Estimate.

Mr. Garro Jones

I have here a further extract from the articles which, perhaps, would come within the Ruling of the Chair. It says: It is the duty of the Board of Trade inspectors to inspect the crews' spaces whenever they have reason to think that the spaces fail in any way to comply with the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act or of the new Regulations. That is a specific statement of the duties of the inspectors of the Board of Trade. We are paying the salaries and expenses of these inspectors, and surely we are to be allowed to state—

The Deputy-Chairman

No, that is exactly what we are not allowed to state.

Mr. Garro Jones

We are paying extra expenses which have been incurred and which have given rise to this Supplementary Estimate for the Board of Trade. It is to be found on page 15, where it says that it is for more intensive supervision of ships. My submission is that the supervision of ships has not been more intensive, and unless we are to be allowed to deal with the specific actions of the neglect of these inspectors for whom we are now—

The Deputy-Chairman

The hon. Member cannot raise that on the Supplementary Estimate. He may ask why more money is wanted and what it is spent on, but these are the only points which arise.

Mr. Garro Jones

In order to elucidate this matter further I invite the Minister to say what the specific action of these Board of Trade inspectors is and what specific ships have been inspected which gives rise to the necessity for this additional money? If he can give chapter and verse for every extra pound, then we shall be in a better position to cross-examine him on the necessity for this, but if he is not able to give specific cases in which the extra money has been spent, then it shows that the administration of this is so inextricably intertwined with policy that we can never discuss a Supplementary Estimate unless we are able to do so on general grounds.

12.44 a.m.

Mr. R. J. Taylor

I should like to raise a point in connection with the surveyors who are referred to on page 14 of the Estimate. When the Minister was speaking he referred to the intensive work that the surveyors have had to do on account of the increase in shipping. I assume that it is the intention of the Department to have the standard of British ships as high as possible. In the articles referred to by a previous speaker it seems to me it was shown that there was a very great need for the surveyors to have their work very much intensified, because it seemed that the quality and the standard of the ships that the surveyors have to survey—

The Deputy-Chairman

I stopped the previous speaker on that point, and the hon. Member cannot go on with it.

Mr. Taylor

I want to point out that from page 14 of the Estimate—with all the boast that the Minister made about the intensified work of the surveyors—it is quite evident that the surveyors have cost much less with all the intensified supervision that we have had and with all the increased building. I know there has been increased activity in the shipyards—

The Deputy-Chairman

The hon. Member cannot go into questions of policy.

Mr. Taylor

I was not going into the policy of shipping, but it seemed to me that the Minister, unintentionally, has misled the Committee in his argument on this Estimate, because whereas he was saying that the increased volume of shipbuilding had intensified the desire that the work of the surveyors should be extended to as many ships as possible on account of the low standard of the majority of our ships, it seemed a remarkable thing that this Estimate should be down to £600 instead of the £1,400 that he talked about. It would seem, judging from the articles we have had in the "Times" that the standard of British shipping—and I am not speaking of the quality or excellence of our shipping from the technical or building point of view, but of the abominable and deplorable conditions of the forecastle in which our sailors have to live—

The Deputy-Chairman

The hon. Member must raise that on some other occasion.

Mr. Taylor

Well, can I have an explanation on this point? Can we be given any approximate idea of the number of visits that the surveyors have made?

The Deputy-Chairman

No, not on this Estimate.

12.49 a.m.

Colonel Nathan

I should like to pursue the explanation of the sum of £1,400 under sub-head C.2. My object is to ascertain from the Minister, if it is possible, how much of that sum is represented by expenditure upon the more intensive supervision of shipping? This £1,400 is allocated to various items. There is increased expenditure for travelling expenses, partly, as I understand from this document, necessitated by the continued increased activity in shipping, partly necessitated by the increased activity in shipbuilding and partly by the more intensive supervision of shipping. Will the Minister be good enough to divide the sum of £1,400 under these three headings so that we may know how much has been expended on each of these specific items, to which the global sum of £1,400 is allocated? We shall then be able to know how much of the £1,400 has been devoted to the more intensive supervision of shipping. I supplement that question by asking if, when giving us the information, he will inform us of the nature of the more intensive supervision? In what respect has it been more intensive so as to involve additional expenditure?

12.40 a.m.

Mr. Davidson

I make no apology for speaking at this late hour, because I consider that the discussion of Supplementary Estimates is really one very effective method of giving ordinary Members the fullest information in regard to points of Order and the customs and Procedure of the House. I might say I shall attempt to keep as much as possible within the ambit of your Rulings upon this particular question even if I am forced to read from the White Paper word for word. In the first item, A 1, I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman—when he dealt with the question of the special work which involves the further Supplementary Estimate of £3,000 he merely brushed away the proposal—if he could give us some more definite information in regard to the special work that involved this sum? I may point out, as I have pointed out on numerous occasions, that at least Members on this side frequently visit their constituencies and speak to their constituents. I desire to associate myself with the very strong opposition against this order that has been made from our Front Bench and to hope sincerely that that opposition will be carried to its logical conclusion.

I will deal with this item of special work. Does this particular item involve expense under the Merchant Shipping (Carriage of Munitions to Spain) Act? The Minister shakes his head. Perhaps he will be able to give the information to the Committee, because I think, in view of the proceedings in various Government Departments recently, when much has been done officially and much has been done unofficially, that Members of this Committee should at least have some idea as to this special work which involved a Supplementary Estimate for £3,000. That in a Supplementary Estimate may not seem much to some, but I can assure the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that to the majority of the people in my constituency £3,000 is a considerable sum of money. It would take them out of the poverty they are in and keep them in very great comfort for practically the duration of their lives.

I would also like to ask about the travelling and incidental expenses in A 2. It states here that increased expenditure on travelling and incidentals was necessitated mainly by increases in activities of the sea transport branch. I am sure we are all very glad indeed to hear that the sea transport branch is becoming more active, but I think we are entitled to ask about this increased activity involving a further sum of £1,000 which is more than many working men could save, supposing they were in employment for 80 years under present day conditions. This £1,000 should be explained or the activities of this sea transport branch should be explained to the Committee. Then we have the question of telegrams and telephones, £1,000, and further on I see under Coastguards, D 5, telegrams and telephones, another £1,000.

Sir Douglas Thomson

Would the hon. Member like the £1,000 to be saved by economising on broadcast warnings regarding gales?

Mr. Davidson

May I point out that I am desirous of obtaining official information? I think this House and the country have been greatly perturbed by the official information that has been so clear and so apparent in other Government circles. On the question of telegrams and telephones it states with regard to the Mercantile Marine that this is a heavier expenditure on radio telegrams disseminating navigational and gale warning messages. With regard to the coastguards, we have exactly the same amount, and it would be very interesting to those of my hon. Friends who are interested in bookkeeping to ascertain just exactly how, to the last halfpenny of £1,000 in each instance this Supplementary Estimate was necessary and was so accurately arrived at. I have my suspicions that it may have been £1,001, and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman may have contributed a pound out of his own pocket to make it an even figure. If so, we are entitled to know because no right hon. Gentleman, whether he be a member of the Cabinet or not, should be allowed to suffer any financial losses with regard to the particularly heavy duties and responsibilities he undertakes when he accepts office.

Therefore, I would like to ask if he would explain how these amounts are arrived at, and the whole question of navigational and gale warnings as apart from expenditure on radio distress messages. I am rather distressed—coming from a rather romantic place—to find that a whole £1,000 has been taken up in radio distress messages. I always understood that even at sea certain events took place, and I thought we might have had something in the way of messages of congratulation or some other kind of message. I would like the Minister, on the question of A4 and D5, to explain to the Committee how exactly these two items are arrived at, and we would be interested to obtain some idea of the accurate bookkeeping methods employed by his particular department. I also share with the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) his fears with regard to this particular point, the expense under the Merchant Shipping (Carriage of Munitions to Spain) Act.

I would remind the Committee, if I may take the liberty as one who has worked in a factory for many years, that it is a very common practice of prominent bookmakers to supply whispers in certain factories and in certain areas of the cities with regard to a certain horse winning a certain race. We usually find that after this horse has been heavily backed the bookmaker is the man who benefits because another horse wins. We may have the British shipowner taking advantage of the generosity of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's Department with regard to this. We may have a shipowner, even in Glasgow, whispering, sending an unofficial message. I do not know how these unofficial messages are delivered or whether the expense of these messages is placed at the door of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's Department, but we may have shipowners sending whispers, or unofficial messages, that a ship is proceeding to a particular port in Spain, that this ship has goods of contraband character, and we may have the right hon. and gallant Gentleman placing into operation the full force of his service, bringing all these men, the intelligence representatives, on to the job, having the ship taken to a far-away port, and then the owner holding up the Board of Trade for a very heavy sum in damages. These are dangers arising out of what I might term a careless expenditure under this head.

Therefore, while we have had an explanation from the right hon. Gentleman, an explanation which was most interesting, I would like to ask if he is assured that none of this money has been spent because of unofficial messages from interested parties. If he gives us that assurance I am sure the committee will be prepared to accept it. I think I have put forward one or two points for the Minister's consideration, and I think those points are worthy of his consideration and reply. I can assure him that in accordance with the answer he gives to me and my hon. Friends, if it be full and adequate, I will take the first opportunity of informing my constituents that affairs at his Department are all right. But if his answer is inadequate, if it does not meet these points and explain very fully indeed to the House the great care and attention his Department are taking to deal with these Supplementary Estimates, I regret I shall have to take every opportunity of informing my constituents and other constituents that the Minister is not looking after the public purse of the nation in an efficient and capable manner.

1.1 a.m.

Captain Wallace

I am afraid that last piece sounds rather like blackmail. I am not certain whether I ought to secure the good opinion of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down at the risk of antagonising the rest of the Committee. At any rate, I will do my best to combine brevity with information and to answer the points put. The hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones) and the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. R. J. Taylor) dealt with a question of general policy. I should be very glad, and I hope the opportunity will occur, to enable my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade or myself to deal with the very interesting articles that have appeared in the "Times." But that cannot be discussed now. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Wandsworth (Colonel Nathan) asked how I divide the £1,400 but—

Mr. Garro Jones

May I point out that we are in Committee now and there is no question of finishing until we are satisfied that our grievances have been remedied? The right hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Wallace) referred to the articles in the "Times" and wished to have time for the Board of Trade to work out the reply—

Captain Wallace

No, I did not say that at all.

Mr. Garro Jones

That shows the advantages which accrue from slurring over important points. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us what he proposes to do about them. If the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to read the articles he will realise that an extremely important issue has arisen.

The Chairman

Will the hon. Gentleman tell me how he gets this into the Supplementary Vote?

Mr. Garro Jones

I do not propose to repeat at great length my case to establish the relevance of these articles to this Vote, as I had given up hope of convincing your predecessor in the Chair of my rectitude in the matter. As I could not, I do not propose to pursue the matter further.

Captain Wallace

I was just saying to the two hon. Members that on the appropriate occasion I would be very glad to do so. The only reason I am not doing so to-night is that I have been ruled out of order myself once. Several hon. Gentlemen have met with the same fate. There is no question of discourtesy to the House or of any attempt to slur over any point that is within the ambit of these Supplementary Estimates. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Wandsworth asked me about the £1,400. I am afraid it is impossible to divide the £1,400 meticulously between work necessitated by increased activity of shipping, that is the increased numbers of ships coming in and out of port, and more intensive supervision. But I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that we are most anxious that the increased activity in shipping should not in any way diminish the intensity of the supervision. Very much the contrary. I am sure he will realise it would not be possible to appropriate the £1,400 exactly between the two sides of the picture.

The hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. J. Davidson) asked me several pertinent questions and I should like to tell him that the sums asked for under A 1 and A 2 have nothing whatever to do with the carriage of arms to Spain. That is dealt with under G 6. Both these items are largely due to the additional demands made on the Sea Transport branch of the Mercantile Marine Department of the Board of Trade by the Defence Departments. They arise more especially out of events which have taken place recently in the Mediterranean and the Far East. They have thrown a heavy burden on the Sea Transport branch because of heavy movements of men and stores. The staff has had to be strengthened to deal with increased work and more telegrams have had to be sent.

With regard to communications, the difference between A 4 and D 5 is that A 4 in general refers to telegrams dispatched from headquarters or shore stations disseminating gale warnings, whereas D 5 refers to the inward messages received in regard to specific cases of distress. That is the very broad distinction between the two subheads. Even at the risk of leaving the hon. Member for Maryhill still dissatisfied, I think I have dealt with the main points and therefore ask the Committee to approve this Estimate.

1.8 a.m.

Colonel Nathan

Before the right hon. and gallant Gentleman sits down I must direct his attention to C 2. The Committee cannot allow his charm of manner and the lateness of the hour to distract attention from the gravity of his statement that the £1,400 is not an estimated sum but is a figure just written down on a piece of paper.

Captain Wallace

The whole thing is an estimate.

Colonel Nathan

I fully understand it is an estimate for expenditure partly incurred and partly still to be incurred for the period ending on 31st March. It must be an expenditure arrived at by reference to some figures. It must be an addition to other figures. So much must that be so that he has taken the trouble to say it does represent more than one single item—partly travelling expenses and partly supervision of shipping. My question is, What proportion of that £1,400 is represented by these various items? He says he cannot tell me; but if he calls in his builder and asks for an estimate for a building yet to be set up it is perfectly true that the figure will not be the figure of expenditure; but he will expect to get prices and detailed figures. I shall expect him to have in his portfolio, though I do not ask for them to-night, detailed figures setting out exactly how the £1,400 figure is reached. It seems to me a very grave matter that an estimate should be placed before this House unless these figures are the result of a precise calculation by way of an estimate.

All I have asked for—and I repeat the request—is an indication in round figures, or in proportion, of how this £1,400 is divided among the various items to which the right hon. Gentleman has alluded. Let me remind him that it is not this Committee which has put in this information. It is the right hon. Gentleman who has put it in. All that the right hon. Gentleman has to do—he will correct me if I am wrong—is to inquire from the Committee and to vote the additional sum for travelling surveyors. But on page 15 he is giving what he himself describes as "details of the foregoing." The details which he gives, and heaven knows they are general enough in all conscience, are "increased expenditure on certain categories of outgoings." I am not asking for pounds, shillings and pence but for the details, roughly speaking, of the proportion in which the £1,400 is allocated between these various items which he himself has chosen to set out in the particulars and for which he is asking the approval of the Committee. I think the Committee is entitled to know, and I want to know, how much of the £1,400 is travelling expenses, how much is due to increased activity in shipbuilding and in shipping, and how much to more intensive supervision for shipping. Unless the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to give that information in broad general terms the Committee is being asked to pass this Vote without being given the information which it is essential it should have in order to form a judgment as to whether these are proper items.

1.12 a.m.

Sir S. Cripps

I am not certain that we are not all barking up the wrong tree about this. The hound which is baying most up the wrong tree is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman will notice that there is a saving on salaries of surveyors of £2,000, and there is an increase of travelling expenses of £1,400. Is not the probable solution that fewer surveyors have travelled more? There are, I presume, fewer surveyors if their salaries are £2,000 less. Obviously, if there is more work to do and there are fewer surveyors, they must have travelled more. Really the £1,400 is an economy of £600, which has been brought about by having fewer surveyors and making them travel further.

1.14 a.m.

Captain Wallace

I must correct the hon. and learned Gentleman. I understand that we are not allowed to give further detailed information on Supplementary Estimates in regard to Appropriations-in-Aid, but the work of these surveyors is, to a large extent, paid for by the owners of the ships. The fact that there has been more activity during the year has resulted in a larger expenditure for the surveyors, but there has been a considerable time lag between the expenditure by the Department in paying the expenses and the recovery of money from the ship-owners. I think, therefore, that the obvious explanation that sprang to the eye first is, in this case, not altogether correct.

1.15 a.m.

Mr. Silverman

The questions I want to ask concern Paragraph E.1 on page 15. It deals with the relief and repatriation of British seamen abroad and says that increased expenditure is anticipated to the extent of £9,000 consequent upon a greater number of seamen coming into charge abroad, due mainly to increased shipping activities. It is said in parentheses that "a proportion will be recovered, see sub-head H.7." Sub-head H.7, on page 16, with special sub-head "Recovery of sums expended under subhead E.1 in the relief and repatriation of British seamen (see Sub-head E.1)." I want to know who it is that makes this payment back.

The Chairman

That is an Appropriation-in-Aid. I have mentioned Appropriation-in-Aid several times as not debateable.

Mr. Silverman

Increased shipping activities do not cause any necessity for repatriation of seamen. It is when the increased shipping has unfortunate results that it becomes necessary for the distressed seamen abroad to be repatriated. I should like to know whether any of these activities involved in this extra charge happened in Spanish waters, whether any of it is due to the attacks on British shipping arising out of affairs in Spain and arising out of the so-called Non-Intervention Agreement, one of the main results of which seems to have been a continued series of attacks on British shipping in circumstances con- cerning which the British Government's efforts are apparently confined to repatriating these distressed seamen after an attack.

I do not know whether any of this extra sum is due to the Government's policy on Spanish affairs. No details are given. We do not know where these seamen were when it became necessary to repatriate them, nor do we know whether their distress was due to the condition of the ship in which they originally sailed. It may be that if more intensive survey, which is referred to in another paragraph, had really been efficient, it might not have been necessary to repatriate so many. It may be that if British ships were better equipped, and the arrangements on British ships were better superintended, if the ships themselves were better ships, if the slums of the sea were subject to some kind of slum clearance analogous to the methods adopted in the slums ashore, if all that had been more effective, then the ships would not have come to disaster and there would not have been this necessity to repatriate them to an extent so greatly in excess of what was budgeted for nearly 12 months ago.

When one bears in mind the accounts which appear from time to time in reputable journals about the conditions in British ships—as to our being content with the second bests and as to the extent to which they lag behind those of our competitors—[Interruption.] I do not know whether hon. Members want to speak; if they do I will willingly give way to them and make the rest of my remarks later on. It is usual, if hon. Members want to make a speech, for them to do it in the English language. Although we are pursuing all kinds of conversations with all kinds of people with all kinds of records in all kinds of conditions, we have not yet reached the stage when we make this Committee conduct its proceedings in anything but the English language.

Mr. Davidson

On a point of Order. May I ask whether it will be in order in future speeches for hon. Members on this side of the House to imitate the voices of other hon. Members?

The Chairman

Perhaps the hon. Member will wait until the occasion arises and then leave the matter in the hands of the Chair.

Mr. Silverman

The point I was making was, why it was necessary for the Government to come to the Committee and ask for a further £9,000 over and above what had been already budgeted for, for the expenses of repatriating British seamen distressed abroad. In these circumstances members of the Government should tell us whether the state of British ships has anything to do with it—whether it was the failure of supervision or the really horrible conditions in which so many of our ships go to sea which have resulted in an unanticipated increase of shipping disasters to British ships in foreign waters and which have cost the country this extra £9,000. I do not know whether the Minister can tell us a great deal about it. I understood from his speech just now that he would be most anxious to deal with the point if only the point were in order, and I am doing my very best to persuade him that he really would not be overstepping the bounds of order if his explanation—

The Chairman

That is a matter not for the right hon. and gallant Gentleman or for the hon. Member, but for me to decide.

Mr. Silverman

I am sorry if I attributed to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman a jurisdiction which is not his. I did not intend that at all. I only meant to ask whether there is anything in this particular item which is relevant to the questions which have been raised as to the conditions of British ships—whether there is anything further which he is determined could be, or ought to have been, done to make the expenditure of this additional £9,000 unnecessary, and whether if the supervision had been effective it would have been necessary to spend this sum. If this does in fact give him an opportunity of dealing with the criticisms raised, I am sure he will welcome that opportunity and that the Committee will listen to his explanation with very great attention and gratitude.

1.27 a.m.

Captain Wallace

I think I can explain the matter quite simply. First of all, I suggest to the hon. Member that he was perhaps not in the House when I first explained this Supplementary Estimate, because I pointed out that I thought it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I divided the net sum required—namely, £15,200—into four separate headings, taking credit in each for such savings or additional Appropriations-in-Aid as properly belonged to them. When I came to the second heading—British seamen abroad—the figure I gave was not £9,000, but £1,000. If the hon. Member had been present at the time he would have realised that most of this item in E 1 is offset by the increased receipts on another page. The provision under this head is to meet the maintenance, medical treatment and conveyance expenses of seamen left abroad through sickness, injury or otherwise—distressed British seamen under Part 4 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1906. Eighty per cent. of the money spent by the Board of Trade under this sub-head is recovered in due course from the owners and other sources. The money is disbursed not by the Board of Trade itself but by persons like Consuls in foreign ports and shipping masters in ports of the Empire. Any increased activity in shipping which has taken place during the last 12 months must inevitably have repercussions in the number of seamen who have to be repatriated, and so the expenses will fall on the fund this year and we may not get repayment until next financial year. The sum of money required under this Vote is in direct proportion to the activity of shipping. There is no reason whatever to suppose that there is any unaccountable increase in the number of seamen left abroad in these circumstances, in view of the very modest additional sum of £1,000 required. I may add that there is no reason to suppose that any of these people were concerned with the carrying of munitions to Spain.

Mr. Silverman

I asked one specific question—whether any part of it had happened in Spanish waters.

Captain Wallace

Not that I know of.

Mr. Silverman

The other question was whether any of it was due to the conditions to which British shipping had been reduced owing to the lack of supervision and the failure of the owners to give proper equipment and properly built ships.

Resolved, That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £15,200, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1938, for the Salaries and Expenses of certain Services transferred from the Mercantile Marine Fund and other Services connected with the Mercantile Marine, including Services under the British Shipping (Assistance) Act, 1935, the Coastguard, General Register and Record Office of Shipping and Seamen and Merchant Seamen's Fund Pensions.