TRAVEL CONCESSIONS FOR SEAMEN (Hansard, 25 October 1967)

§ Mr. Hector Hughes (Aberdeen, North)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for travel concessions for seamen, on returning from sea, to visit their families. I do so in the terms of my Motion on the Order Paper, which is: That this House is of opinion that for social, family, economic and other reasons the withdrawal by British Railways of the cheap fare railway vouchers hitherto available to seamen and their families is wrong as it frustrates family reunions, deprives British Railways of fares, diminishes British Railways income and now calls upon Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister of Transport, by legislation or otherwise, to restore to British seamen and their families the relevant facilities which they have hitherto enjoyed. I am supported by the National Union of Seamen, numbering thousands of seamen, and by a petition presented to me yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock), who would be present today but for an unavoidable important engagement elsewhere. The petition, signed by 313 members of the Cunard line steamship "Sylvania," is in the following terms: We, the members of the above ship, wish to add our support to the protest over the withdrawal of the privilege railway voucher system since this has been stopped. We find many cases where this causes hardship to men and separation from families. We offer this protest in the hope that you can have this privilege reinstated or arrange for some similar scheme. It would be an act of common justice to give seamen the cheap fares which I seek. The merchant seamen perform great services to the trade, industry and commerce of this country, services which are essential to Britain's exports and imports, and probably to Britain's stability. For years those services have been recognised by everyone, including 1636 the British Shipping Federation, the National Union of Seamen, the National Maritime Board and British Rail. Until two years ago British Rail recognised them in the appropriate and tangible way of giving seamen reduced fares from their port of landing to their homes. This was because seamen were often discharged at the end of a voyage at a different port from that of their engagement, and had to go home by railway. It was a fair, reasonable and humane facility, which enabled seamen to spend with their families their time ashore, which was often very short between voyages.

Suddenly, about two years ago, that long-enjoyed facility was withdrawn by British Rail, notwithstanding protests by the organisations I have already mentioned, which took the view that the family life of merchant seamen should be maintained and preserved, and not ruthlessly wrecked by continued absences from their families between voyages.

The National Union of Seamen, of which I have the honour of being a member, took the matter up. I asked a number of Parliamentary Questions on the subject, and correspondence ensued. On 4th July a letter from the National Maritime Board to British Railways supported the view that I am putting forward. It said: You will recall that on 23rd April last year your Board withdrew the concession which was granted to members of the Mercantile Marine. The National Maritime Board has, amongst other matters, recently been considering a revision of an agreement under which, in certain circumstances, seafarers are entitled to a rail fare concession from owners when discharged at a port other than the port of engagement. The shipowners have expressed their willingness to extend the concession to seafarers not at present covered by the agreement by granting them a warrant equivalent to 25 per cent. of the cost of a single journey. The purpose of this letter is to ask your Board whether they would be prepared to accept such a warrant and debit the British Shipping Federation Limited with 25 per cent. of the cost of a full single fare. At present you do, in fact, accept from the Federation railway warrants for the full fare. The reply to that letter was negative and, indeed, surprising. It was very short. It was dated 10th July, 1967, and was in the following terms: Referring to your letter of 4th July, the British Shipping Federation have also asked me if it is possible to help them with this problem. I can only repeat what I have told 1637 the B.S.F., that one of the reasons for withdrawing the concession was to remove the paper work and so reduce administration costs. We cannot therefore agree to accept your suggestion, which would increase and complicate the accountancy work. I am sorry that I cannot be more helpful. So am I, and so are all decent-minded people.

I submit that the warrant proposed by the National Maritime Board was fair and reasonable and based on a fair and reasonable suggestion. The rejection of the proposal by the British Railways Board on the grounds of paper work, administration costs and accountancy work was, in my submission, trivial, unworthy and an offence to reason.

In a further letter on 22nd August, 1967, to me, the British Railways Board actually admitted: We appreciate that the British Shipping Federation and the National Maritime Board wish seamen to continue to have this reduction. But the British Railways Board contumaciously persists in refusing to withdraw the ban that it imposed upon the seamen in this respect.