LORD MUSKERRYMy Lords, I rise to call attention to the existing competition between foreign and British ships, and to ask whether His Majesty's 5 Government will furnish a Return showing the legal obligations of the owners of merchant vessels trading under the flags of Germany, France, Norway, Sweden, Japan, Italy, Russia, Denmark, Spain, Austro-Hungary, Netherlands, Greece, and Belgium towards their captains, officers, and seamen with regard to the following:—old age pensions, pensions to widows and orphans, accident compensation, Sunday labour, daily hours of labour at sea and in port, payment for work performed in excess of fixed hours of labour, medical treatment, accommodation, and passages of distressed seamen; also including in such a Return the regulations of these different countries for the preservation of discipline on board their merchant ships.
My chief reason for asking for a Return of this kind is that it would prove a very valuable document to anybody interested in what is not only our greatest industry, but also our first and most important auxiliary force in the time of war—I mean the merchant service. Without it, our Army is useless for any operations outside these islands, and on it the Navy has to depend for coal and other supplies. I am sure we should all be anxious to encourage and support our mercantile marine and also to have a due regard for the welfare of those who man the ships of that marine. It has always been my most earnest desire that we should attach importance to the three aspects of the service—first, its national importance; second, its importance to the shipowner; and, third, its importance to our captains, officers, engineers and seamen, who are debarred from exercising the Parliamentary franchise although paying rates and taxes, and so have little opportunity of bringing their requirements before Parliament.
We are all very well aware—in fact it is now a cry of "wolf"—that immediately anything is introduced to enhance the safety of the seafarer or to improve his conditions, there is a great outcry on the part of the shipowners against what they term further restrictions and burdens being placed upon them. The bogey of "foreign competition" is freely trotted out, and if the State proposes to legislate in favour of our sailors the shipowners predict ruination to our merchant shipping, just as if other trades and industries in this 6 country were free from legal obligations towards their employees.
To take the debate on the Workmen's Compensation Bill in another place, I see that one shipowner stated that an additional burden of the kind would drive sailing ships out of existence, and if the measure was passed British owners would be better off if they transferred their vessels to foreign flags. Another owner said that if the burden of the Act was entirely thrown on British shipping the effect would be that competing foreign ships would be benefited to the extent to which British shipping would be handicapped. In the shipowners' deputation which waited on the Home Secretary, similar complaints of the kind were given vent to very freely.
I am afraid that many of us are disposed to accept without question the pessimistic utterances of the shipowners of this country, without understanding in the slightest the conditions under which the shipowners of other maritime Powers carry on their business. It seems to be generally assumed that they have an absolutely free hand, but a greater mistake than this was never made. For instance, several of them are already required by the laws of their countries to grant compensation to injured seamen; and, furthermore, they are required to contribute to pension funds for their seaman as well as to adhere strictly to regulations as to Sunday labour and the number of hours during which their seamen are supposed to work. I think, therefore, that a Return such as I suggest would give us most useful information as to whether foreign shipowners are unduly favoured to the detriment of British shipowners.
I do not think that at the present time British shipowners have very much to grumble about. According to the estimate of the marine insurance correspondents of The Times the carrying capacity of the mercantile marine has been increased to the extent of from 2 per cent, to 3 per cent, by the revision of the load-line regulations. Under the Merchant Shipping Bill the "safety" regulations are to be imposed upon foreign ships in British waters, and furthermore, under the self-same Bill it is proposed that the permissible deck-loads carried in the winter-time shall be increased. I see that one shipping 7 company says that under the new regulations as to the load-line the fact of their ships being able to load deeper will mean an increase in their freight returns of about 5 per cent.
To show that things are not as black as they are painted by British shipowners I would like to quote a few remarks from one who occupies a foremost position amongst them. I refer to Mr. W. Runciman, father of an esteemed member of His Majesty's Government, who, in addressing his shareholders, said:—
So far as shipping was concerned, he thought the indications were that we would have a fairly good year. He did not commit himself to saying that we were going to have any better results than the last, but he thought it would be no worse. To show his confidence in that view he was investing largely in shipping. He did not know anything that paid better than a shipping investment, taking it all round.Touching upon the subject of discipline, I may say that one of the greatest evils in the merchant service is the deplorable amount of insubordination which exists. Both the shipowners, as represented by the Shipping Federation, and the Merchant Service Guild, as representing captains and officers, are cordially in agreement with me in this. It is stated to be due to the fact that our shore authorities show most mistaken leniency in dealing with delinquents, and that there are no really effective powers for preserving discipline. For instance, if a seaman signs an agreement to serve in a vessel and fails to join her, all that can be done with him is that his discharge book is marked "voyage not completed." If a seaman in the merchant service uses insulting or mutinous language towards his superior officer he is liable to a fine of 5s. If he committed a similar offence in the Royal Navy it might very easily mean a couple of years' imprisonment. Seamen and firemen desert in a wholesale manner in ports abroad, and the prosperity of the shipping industry is very seriously injured by the deplorable amount of insubordination existing.We hear very little of lack of discipline on board foreign ships, and I am very much inclined to believe that it is because other countries take great care that the vitally important factor of discipline at sea is given special attention. Therefore, if we can get some reliable information as to the regulations of foreign maritime 8 countries in this respect, it might give us the means of elucidating what is a very serious problem in connection with our own merchant service. Altogether a Return of the kind I ask for would be most enlightening and of great use, simply because we, and I do not except British shipowners, are very much in the dark as to the exact obligations of foreign shipowners to their seamen.
I have found a useful precedent for what I desire in the Commercial Return, No. 4, 1895, in which is given the educational standard required for candidates for positions as masters, mates and engineers in certain foreign navies. The necessary information was supplied by Her late Majesty's representatives at Paris, Berlin, St. Petersburgh, Brussels, the Hague, Stockholm and Washington, so I hope that His Majesty's Government will enter no objections to obtaining the information in a similar way and giving the Return which I have asked for.
Moved, "That there be laid before the House a Return showing the legal obligations of the owners of merchant vessels trading under the flags of Germany, France, Norway, Sweden, Japan, Italy, Russia, Denmark, Spain, Austro-Hungary, Netherlands, Greece, and; Belgium towards their captains, officers, and seamen with regard to the following:—Old age pensions, pensions to widows and orphans, accident compensation, Sunday labour, daily hours of labour at sea and in port, payment for work performed in excess of fixed hours of labour, medical treatment, accommodation, and passages of distressed seamen; also including in such a Return the regulations of these different countries for the preservation of discipline on board their merchant ships.—(Lord Muskerry.)
§ THE EARL OF GRANARDMy Lords, in reply to my noble friend I have to say that His Majesty's Government have no objection to granting the major part of the Return moved for. I would ask my noble friend to leave out Spain and Japan. There are several reasons why these Returns are hard to obtain; and I should also be glad if the noble Lord would omit the last few lines with reference to the regulations of the different countries for the preservation of discipline on board their merchant ships. If these lines were 9 omitted the Return would be able to be presented much sooner than would otherwise be the case. However, I do not press my noble friend on that point, and if he wishes them to remain on the Paper I have no objection to the granting of the Return in that form.
§ On Question, Motion, as amended, agreed to, and ordered accordingly.