§ Moved, "That the House do go into Committee on the Bill."—(Lord Wolver-ton.)
§ THE EARL OF WEMYSSMy Lords, before the House goes into Committee on this Bill, I ask permission to say a few words as I have several Amendments standing in my name on the Paper. When my attention was first called to this Bill, the object of which is to prescribe for certain classes of vessels certificated cooks, it appeared to me in the light of grandmotherly legislation, and my intention was to oppose the Bill rather than to attempt to amend it, because we may be certain that in due course we shall have the Government legislating to provide certificated cooks for hotels on land. But, be that as it may, my attention was called to the matter by the Shipowners' Parliamentary Committee. They told me there would be no difficuly whatever in testing the qualifications of cooks, and that there were some means already of doing so. I at first thought that dinners at my noble friend's hospitable house in St. James' Place at the ratepayers' or public expense would have to be arranged in order to test their skill, but that seems to be unnecessary. Sailors, like landsmen, are fond of a good dinner, and do not care to go on vessels where there is not an efficientc cook. I have placed several Amendments—they are the Amendments of the Shipowners' Parliamentary Committee, not my own—on the Paper; but there were, besides these, three Amendments handed to me which I did not put down, because I knew the Board of Trade would be certain to oppose them. One of the three Amendments required inspection of the food within twenty-four hours, and that if the food was not inspected within 946 that time the ship should not be detained; the second was that if the decision of the; inspector should be thought doubtful, there should be an appeal to the public medical officer; and the third was that if the inspection went against the Board of Trade, the medical officer deciding that the food was good, then the Board of Trade were to pay the expenses of the appeal. Knowing that the Board of Trade would be certain to oppose these Amendments I did not put them down, but it will, of course, be open to any other noble Lord to move them at a later stage. I hope, however, that the Amendments which are on the Paper standing in my name will meet with favour from my noble friend Lord Wolverton and the Board of Trade, for they are by no means hostile to the Bill.
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.
§ House in Committee (according to order).
§ Clause 1.
LORD ELLENBOROUGHsaid the effect of the Amendment standing in his name to this clause was to bring the Act into operation a year sooner, so far as cooks were concerned. The Committee on whose Report the Bill was based was called into existence in 1902. Yet it was not until 1908 that anything was to happen which would affect the comfort of the merchant seaman. Six years was a large proportion of the seagoing life of a man before the mast. He looked upon this delay as unnecessary, as existing cooks would, he thought, be sufficiently taken care of if, in addition to the time they had already served, they were given two years and a half in which to complete their two years qualifying service. Besides this, they could always protect themselves by passing the Board of Trade examination if they were competent to do so. He did not suppose that the necessary course of tuition would take more than three months. In an existing class for nautical cookery, twenty-four lessons had hitherto been considered sufficient. There ought to be no unnecessary delay in establishing the schools and in drawing up a curriculum. If, at the end of 1906, there were not a sufficient number of 947 certificated cooks, paragraph 5 of Clause 1 of this Bill enabled the Board of Trade to dispense with the requirements of this section whenever they might think it desirable, so that the Board would have power to deal with any cases of hardship that might arise. He begged to move the Amendment to Clause 1 that stood in his name.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 1, lines 5 and 6, to leave out the words 'nineteen hundred and seven,' and to insert the words 'nineteen hundred and six.'"—(Lord Ellenborough.)
LORD WOLVERTONHis Majesty's Government is unable to accept the Amendment moved by the noble Lord. I am assured by the Board of Trade that there will be a great many details to be settled, and that they will be unable to prepare and arrange matters before the date mentioned. I hope, therefore, the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.
LORD ELLENBOROUGHsaid that the noble Lord had not by any means convinced him. He thought two and a half years would be ample time in which to make these arrangements. However after the wish which the noble Lord had expressed he withdrew the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
§ THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid that the first sub-section of Clause 1 provided that—
After the 31st day of December, 1907, every British foreign-going ship of 1,000 tons and upwards gross registered tonnage, when going to sea from any place in the United Kingdom, shall be provided with a duly certificated cook.
§ He moved to leave out from this subsection all words from "1907" and to insert the words in his Amendment. He had reason to believe that the Government would oppose this Amendment, but if they did he hoped they would accept the next one which substituted the word "net" for the word "gross."
§
Amendment moved—
In page 1, line 6, to leave out from the word 'seven,' to the end of the sub-section, and to insert the words 'the Board of Trade
948
may, by regulations made under this Act, prescribe that a duly certificated cook shall be provided to such British foreign-going ships of 1,000 tons and upwards net registered tonnage, and upon such voyages from any place in the United Kingdom, as the Board of Trade may determine, and after 31st day of December, one thousand nine hundred and seven, a duly certificated cook shall be provided accordingly.'"—(The Earl of Wemyss.)
LORD WOLVERTONI do not think the noble Earl can attach very much importance to this Amendment and I am afraid I cannot accept it. We think it best to adhere to the recommendation of the Departmental Committee with regard to ships of 1,000 tons gross. I may tell the noble Earl that with regard to the other Amendments standing in his name he will find me in a more favourable frame of mind.
§ Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
§ THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid that having withdrawn the last Amendment he hoped his noble friend as a happy exchange, would assent to the next one, to substitute the word "net" for the word "gross" in the first sub-section of Clause 1, which he had already read to the House. In many vessels sailors provided their own food and cooked it. If the Amendment was adopted, there would be less Government interference, and it would be much better.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 1, line 7, to leave out the word 'gross' and to insert the word 'net.'"—(The Earl of Wemyss.)
LORD WOLVERTONI am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment. It would make it apply to very much larger ships, which is not quite the view of the Board of Trade.
§ Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
§ THE EARL OF WEMYSSexplained that Sub-section 3 of Clause 1 provided that—
The cook shall be a seafaring man and shall be rated in the ship's articles as ship's cook.
§ He moved to delete the words "shall be a seafaring man, and."
949
§
Amendment moved—
In page 1, line 17, to leave out the words 'shall be a seafaring man and.'"—(The Earl of Wemyss.)
LORD MUSKERRYcalled attention to the fact that if the words "shall be a seafaring man" were left in the Bill, they would have the very extraordinary position of the cook being the only one on board ship who was required to be a seafaring man. Under the Merchant Shipping Act, persons who signed articles on board a ship—the stewardess, the assistant stewardess, the cook's boy, in fact everybody—were all sailors in the eyes of the law save and except the captain and any apprentices who might be on board. It would be very hard to define exactly what a seafaring man was, and it might hereafter be made a weapon by agitators.
LORD WOLVERTONI think it is most reasonable that this question should be raised, and if pressed in any way I shall be prepared to accept the Amendment, in which case perhaps I might get the consent of my two noble friends to a clause in these terms, that, instead of the words "seafaring man," these words should be inserted, "shall be able to prove six months service at sea in any capacity." If that will meet the views of my noble friends, I am prepared to accept the Amendment.
LORD MUSKERRYfeared that would not meet the case. There were only a limited number of cooks, and cooks' duties were not concerned with any part of the vessel. It was his culinary skill which the cook was required to prove, and if the words which the noble Lord who represented the Board of Trade had read out were inserted they would prevent shipowners in any emergency shipping qualified cooks on shore who had not been six months at sea. He reminded their Lordships that there were a good many men, sailors, who on joining their ships after some time ashore got sick on going to sea, and that there were a large number of people who did not know one end of the vessel from the other, who never got seasick.
§ LORD AVEBURYhoped his noble friend who represented the Board of 950 Trade would accept the Amendment. In the first place, he had not stated what constituted a seafaring man. These words might give rise to very awkward questions. The alternative which the noble Lord had suggested was also open to serious objection, because such a provision would prevent anyone from being employed as a cook who had not been six months at sea.
§ LORD HENEAGEinquired if the words "seafaring man" appeared in any Act of Parliament. He thought it was an entirely new phrase, and, therefore, he objected to it altogether. The suggested alternative could be discussed on its own merits.
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of LANSDOWNE)My noble friend beside me (Lord Wolverton) has, as I understand, given up the words "seafaring man," and has proposed an alternative formula which would prevent this extremely important office on board ship from being handed to a person who was so unfamiliar with the sea that during the earlier period of the cruise he probably would not be able to administer much to the comfort of the people on board.
§ LORD HENEAGEsaid he understood that the noble Lord had consented to leave out the words "seafaring man" if his alternative suggestion was accepted. He thought that was part of the bargain.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD WOLVERTONI beg to give notice that I shall move to include, at a subsequent stage, the words that I read to the House, viz., "shall be able to prove six months service at sea in any capacity."
§ THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid his next Amendment was to the same sub-section, and was to add after the word "cook" the words "or cook and steward."
§
Amendment moved—
In page 1, line 18, after the word 'cook,' to insert the words 'or cook and steward.'"—(The Earl of Wemyss.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MUSKERRYsaid that, as the Bill stood at present, though a certificate was granted to the cook the Board of Trade possessed no power of taking that certificate away if the cook proved incompetent or misbehaved himself. He thought it was desirable, if the Bill was to work successfully, that this provision should be inserted.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 1, line 21, after '1894,' to insert as new sub-sections:
'(4) Should a charge of negligence, misconduct, or incompetency against a ship's cook be made in writing by the master of the ship to a superintendent of a mercantile marine office, this charge shall forthwith be inquired into by the superintendent.
'(5) Should the superintendent, after referring to the official log of the ship and hearing the evidence of competent witnesses from amongst the ship's crew, consider the charge substantiated, he shall submit the matter to the Board of Trade, who are thereupon empowered to cancel or suspend the certificate of the said cook for so long a period as may be deemed requisite.'"—(Lord Musketry.)
LORD WOLVERTONI have failed to persuade the Board of Trade that there is any necessity for the two sub-sections which my noble friend has moved. There is no difficulty whatever, because at the present moment the master of a ship has complete power over the crew, and would, I presume, have equal power over the cook. Again, there is no necessity for revising the existing law, which the Board of Trade maintain is sufficient. The master at the present moment has very large powers.
LORD MUSKERRYsaid the shipmaster ought to have very large powers, and if he was properly supported by the Board of Trade he would have them, but, as a matter of fact, he was not supported and was consequently not able to exercise them.
§ Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
952§ THE EARL OF WEMYSSmoved, in the sub-section providing a fine for offenders, that after the words "if the requirements of this section are not complied with in the case of any ship, the master or owner of the ship shall, if those requirements have not been dispensed with under this section," there should be inserted the words, "and there is no sufficient reason for the failure to comply with the requirements." The Amendment was so reasonable that he had no doubt it would be agreed to. It was a security to the shipowner.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 1, line 28, after the word 'section,' to insert the words 'and there is no sufficient reason for the failure to comply with the requirements.'"—(The Earl of Wemyss.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 2.
§ THE EARL OF WEMYSSexplained that this clause provided that rules made by the Board of Trade under Section 206 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, which related to the inspection of provisions and water, in the case of certain ships might extend the application of all or any of the provisions of that section to any foreign-going British ships the duration of whose voyage, in the opinion of the Board of Trade, was likely to exceed twenty-one days. He begged to move the substitution of "thirty days" for "twenty-one days." The shipping interest would greatly prefer that, and it would take in a great many more men who found their own food and cooked it.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 2, line 7, to leave out the word 'twenty-one,' and to insert the word 'thirty.'"—(The Earl of Wemyss.)
LORD WOLVERTONI am prepared to accept this Amendment and also the Amendment to Clause 4 standing in the name of the noble Earl.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
953LORD ELLENBOROUGHsaid the wording of his next Amendment was chiefly based on that of Clauses 298 and 299 of the Merchant Shipping Act of 1894, which referred to the provisioning of emigrants. Hitherto a scale of provisions, wrongly called the Board of Trade scale, had generally been inserted in the articles signed by the seamen. This scale was sometimes called the "pound and pint" scale. He looked upon it as a barbarous and mediaeval scale, more suited to the 16th than to the 20th century. He called it barbarous because he thought that a ration which contained no substitutes for vegetables deserved that name, and was quite out of date. The scale was also deficient in water. He had himself often been on a gallon a day, and had found it too little when in the tropics. Much of it was deducted for cooking and did not directly reach the seaman. Under the so-called, or false, Board of Trade scale the seaman only received three-quarters of a gallon. With the exception of tea, coffee, and half a pound of rice, which was issued once a week, this old scale looked as if it might have been drawn up in the time of Henry VIII. It appeared, however, to have reached its present form in 1844. Their Lordships were well aware of the improvements that had been made in packing and preserving provisions during the last sixty years, yet the merchant seaman, who wanted them most, derived no benefit from them when on this scale. In most vessels, however, he was glad to say that a much better ration was actually issued. The scale he referred to was chiefly used as a punishment, and was seldom given except when men complained of the provisions they received. Now it was not a crime for a seaman to complain of the food that was served out to him. In the Royal Navy there were regulations as to the proper manner of making such complaints. When substantiated they were, as far as possible, remedied. He did not think that a captain should have the power of reducing a man to three-quarters of a gallon of water and of issuing a ration unsuited to health as a punishment. He wished to prevent a captain or an owner from issuing anything worse than the real Board of Trade scale to a crew on a long voyage. There was also a third scale called the "Shipping 954 Federation" scale, which was meeting with some support from shipowners. One of his reasons for recommending the Board of Trade scale in preference to the Shipping Federation scale was that the strong Committee, on whose Report this Bill was based, had the Shipping Federation scale and several other scales before them when they decided on the Board of Trade scale. There was more variety in it, which was an advantage on a long voyage, when the feeding became very monotonous. He was aware that the Board of Trade had a very difficult part to play. A perpetual triangular duel was always going on between the shipowners, as represented by the Shipping Federation, the officers as represented by the Merchant Service Guild, and the seamen who were in a great measure represented by the Seamen's and Firemen's Union. These three bodies were in agreement on one point. They all attacked the Board of Trade for not taking their side. He had drawn up these Amendments without consulting any of the rival associations referred to. Since doing so, however, he had received letters from the Seamen's and Firemen's Unions of London and Cardiff supporting this Amendment. As the Cardiff letter was a short one, he would read it to their Lordships—
I am instructed by the committee to forward the following resolution, unanimously adopted at a mass meeting last night:—'That this meeting of seafaring men of the port of Cardiff tender to Lord Ellenborough their thanks for his kind interest and influence on behalf of seafarers, and trust that he will press his Amendment to the Merchant Shipping Bill to make the food scale compulsory.' We believe the shipowners generally will not adopt the recommendations of the Committee who inquired into the matter, voluntarilyHe hoped that the support this union was giving to his Amendment would not lead to a corresponding display of hostility from the two other bodies he had mentioned. He had purposely made the exemption clauses as wide as possible, so as not to collide with the real interests of shipowners. In many eases the interests of the captains differed from those of the men, because the owners, in order to save themselves trouble, frequently made arrangements for the captain to supply the men with provisions at so much a head. This in many cases led to the men getting just about enougn to 955 keep themselves alive. The difference in cost between a good ration and a bad ration was infinitesimal in comparison with the difference in wages given to seamen at various times and in different ports. He thought the Board of Trade were too timid. One of the most useful and popular things ever done was to make a ration of lime juice and sugar compulsory when on long voyages. There was certainly no demand for a repeal of the Lime Juice Act. Let the Board of Trade take courage and insist on the sham Board of Trade scale being abolished and the real scale substituted for it. No one would ever wish to go back to the "pound and pint" scale.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 2, line 8, to insert the following subsections:—
LORD WOLVERTONThe noble Lord has raised a very important question and one which has the serious attention of the Board of Trade. I would point 956 out that shipowners already complain of the way they are handicapped by having to comply with many regulations which are not imposed on their foreign competitors. The attitude of the Board of Trade is at present towards persuasion rather than compulsion. The question is obviously of such great importance that it will be most carefully watched by the Board of Trade, and if future experience shows that any considerable proportion of shipowners persist in adhering to the old scale the matter must be reconsidered by the Board of Trade. I hope my noble friend will be satisfied with that assurance and not insist on his Amendment.
LORD MUSKERRYsaid the Shipping Federation scale was a most excellent scale and better than the Board of Trade scale.
LORD ELLENBOROUGHsaid he would much rather have the Shipping Federation scale made compulsory than that the "pound and pint" scale should be made compulsory. In many cases shipowners, to save trouble, contracted with the captains of vessels to supply the men at so much a head, and, therefore, for that reason, the interests of the captains were very often different from those of the seamen. As, however, there was no chance of his securing a majority in favour of his Amendment, he would withdraw it, but he hoped to see it made law in some form or other before many years had passed.
§ Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
§ Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 3.
LORD ELLENBOROUGHexplained that the next Amendment standing in his name, if agreed to, would have the effect of bringing into play that part of the Bill which dealt with foreigners unable to understand English, two years sooner than was contemplated by the Bill. Foreigners who did not understand enough English to be able to go to sea without endangering their shipmates, had no 957 vested rights on board our merchant vessels, no established interests that need be taken into consideration. They should be eliminated as soon as possible. Surely eighteen months notice of this alteration in the law was sufficient for British shipowners and ship agents. He could see no reason why the whole of this Bill should come into operation on the same day. Its clauses were quite independent of one another. Unnecessary delay meant sacrificing the interests of seamen to an unnecessary symmetry.
§
Amendment moved—
In page 2, line 9, to leave out the words 'nineteen hundred and seven,' and to insert the words 'nineteen hundred and five.'"—(Lord Ellenborouyh.)
LORD WOLVERTONI am afraid I am unable to accept this Amendment. In the opinion of the Board of Trade, the period is not long enough, and the Amendment is on all fours with one which has already been before the House.
LORD ELLENBOROUGHcould not follow the reason given by the noble Lord for declining to accept the Amendment. He thought eighteen months ample notice to give that foreigners who could not understand English should not be shipped. At the same time he did not think it was any use pressing the Amendment, and he withdrew it.
LORD MUSKERRYpointed out that the Liverpool Shipowners' Association, in their report on this Bill, had stated that it would be useful to have foreign-speaking seamen. For instance, a Russian-speaking seaman could, they said, communicate with a Russian dockmaster and a Russian pilot. Then they asked why should he also know English? But how was a foreigner to communicate with the officers of the ship if he did not know English? He (Lord Muskerry) contended that it was absolutely necessary for the proper protection of life at sea that every man on board an English vessel should speak the English language. He was very sorry the noble Lord did not press his Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
§ Clause 3 agreed to.
958§ Clause 4.
§ The EARL OF WEMYSSmoved, in the section providing for the suspension of discharge in case of the seamen wilfully refusing to join, that the words "or through misconduct" should be inserted after the word "wilfully."
§
Amendment moved—
In page 2, line 19, after the word 'wilfully' to insert the words 'or through misconduct.'"—(The Earl of Wemyss.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
§ Remaining clause agreed to, and Bill reported with Amendments to the House.
§ Bill re-committed to the Standing Committee, and to be printed, as amended. (No. 116.)