HL Deb 26 July 1911 vol 9 cc679-88

LORD MUSKERRY rose to call the attention of His Majesty's Government to the extraordinary disabilities under which merchant seafarers labour in respect (1) to detention ashore and resulting enforced unemployment for the purpose of giving evidence at Board of Trade inquiries into shipping casualties in which they may in no way be involved; (2) to detention ashore and loss of employment when summoned to serve on juries; and (3) to loss of employment caused by their compulsory detention when subpœnaed to give evidence at Police Court and Assize trials dealing with criminal offences on British merchant vessels; and to ask whether His Majesty's Government will now give serious consideration to these grave hardships with a view to taking the necessary steps for either furnishing special relief to merchant seamen in these several cases or otherwise ensuring that in those cases where this is found impossible some adequate compensation for great loss sustained in the public interest will be payable to those concerned.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I will not detain your Lordships more than a few minutes, because I understand that the answer I am to receive will be to some extent a satisfactory one. But I would like to make perfectly clear to your Lordships the very real grievance of which the captains and officers of the merchant service complain. Nearly all the causes of detention mentioned in my Question mean a loss of employment, and it is a very great hardship where a man has worked his way up to be captain and is in command of a vessel, that, through no fault of his own, he should be deprived of that command and either have to spend a long period in unemployment on shore or else take a position as mate or second mate; and as the commands in the merchant service are to some extent limited, it may be a good number of years before that man could get command of a vessel again. I know that my noble friend Lord Herschell understands these matters as well as I do myself, and that he sympathises with the hardship which captains and officers have to suffer under the present state of the law.

This question is a peculiar one in a way, for it does not deal with one public Department but with two or three. The first part of the question as to detention for Board of Trade inquiries will, of course, be dealt with by the Board of Trade; the second part—detention for serving on juries—I fancy I am right in saying comes under the Lord Chancellor's department; and the third part—detention as a witness in a Police Court and at Assize trials—is dealt with by the Home Office. My suggestion was that this grievance might be met by taking the evidence of captains and officers on depositions or by commission, but I have heard from the Home Office that so far as the part of the question goes with which they are concerned they have no power either to take depositions or to take evidence on commission, and that the best remedy in order to give the relief sought would be to pass some short Act for that purpose. But the case of Board of Trade inquiries is slightly different. Those courts are not courts of law but courts of inquiry, and I have been informed that perhaps in that case depositions could be taken. I will read a short extract from a letter which will serve as an illustration of what happens at present— I joined here on Thursday the 18th instant, and two hours before sailing the Board of Trade man came on board and served a summons on me to appear at a Board of Trade inquiry at Cardiff on Tuesday the 23rd, held to investigate into the misconduct of the second officer on the last voyage. I had to leave my ship and go ashore again, and yesterday—the 26th—the Board of Trade told me that there is going to be no inquiry as the man has gone to sea again. My pay front them has therefore been stopped, and my services are no longer required. They have given me three days' pay and now they say they have finished with me. I do not know whether I have any claim legally, but I am sure you will agree that I have been very badly treated. They took me away from my ship and it may be years before I shall get the chance of serving again as first mate on a ship trading regularly to my home. In the latter part of my Question I have mentioned pecuniary compensation, but that is not the sole thing that captains and officers of the merchant service desire. What they desire is that they should not be kept ashore for any of these causes and thereby lose their berths. Compensation, as I need not point out to your Lordships, would be very hard to assess. Take the case of the writer of the letter I have just read. To obtain a position as officer on a ship trading to a man's home is a privilege that is very highly sought after in the merchant service, and many officers would be content to receive much smaller remuneration in order to be able to enjoy that privilege.

I now come to the next case, that of being detained to serve on juries. I think that case ought not to be at all a difficult one to deal with, for already there are a certain number of seafarers, such as pilots, &c., who are exempt from service on juries. As they are exempted I cannot see any reason why captains and officers of vessels who are in active employment should not also be granted exemption from serving on juries. If His Majesty's Government are good enough to bring forward any measure to grant the relief for which the captains and officers ask, I hope they will be a little more expeditious about it than they have been in regard to the Bill dealing with uncertificated officers in British merchant ships. We were told on March 21 by the noble Lord who then represented the Board of Trade that that Bill had been drafted, but we have not heard a single word about it since. I beg to put the Question that stands in my name.

LORD HERSCHELL

My Lords, the question which the noble Lord has raised is certainly one of interest, and I feel sure that any proposal for mitigating hardships which may fall upon such a body of men as the mercantile community in general must command a measure of sympathy from all of your Lordships. The question, however, is rather a complicated one. I will deal first with the first portion of the noble Lord's Question, which is as to detention ashore for the purpose of giving evidence at Board of Trade inquiries resulting in enforced unemployment. The noble Lord suggested that depositions might be made use of. The existing state of the regulations is as follows. Depositions are used upon formal investigations into shipping casualties under two authorities. Section 691 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, provides that whenever in the course of any legal proceeding instituted in any part of His Majesty's Dominions before any Judge or magistrate or before any person authorised to receive evidence, the testimony of any witness is required in relation to the subject-matter of that proceeding, then upon due proof, if the proceeding is instituted in the United Kingdom that the witness cannot be found in that kingdom, or if in any British possession that he cannot be found in that possession, any deposition that the witness may have previously made on oath in relation to the same subject-matter before any justice or magistrate in His Majesty's Dominions, or any British Consular Officer elsewhere, shall be admissible in evidence, provided that—(a) if the deposition was made in the United Kingdom it shall not be admissible in any proceeding instituted in the United Kingdom; and (b) if the deposition was made in any British possession it shall not be admissible in any proceeding instituted in that British possession; and (c) if the proceeding is criminal it shall not be admissible unless it was made in the presence of the person accused. Under this authority in cases of inquiry into missing vessels we obtain depositions from abroad. They relate to such matters as loading and stowage of cargo, draught of water, manning and general trim and condition of the ship and her equipment at the time she last left port. The matter contained in these depositions does not affect certificates, and most frequently these depositions are taken in the case of missing ships.

The second authority is under the Rules. Rule 8 of the Shipping Casualties and Appeals and Rehearings Rules, 1907, under the heading of "Evidence" provides that affidavits and statutory declarations may, by permission of the Judge and saving all just exceptions, be used as evidence at the hearing. Under this Rule we hand into Court depositions of lighthouse-keepers and that class of witness, and they are generally accepted by persons against whom a charge is made as coming from impartial people, most of the evidence being taken from records. Another class of evidence by depositions would be that of the officers of another ship who last sighted a missing vessel or actually saw a ship go down without being able to speak as to the cause of the casualty. But in the bulk of inquiries witnesses who are detained are essential witnesses whose oral evidence, whether for or against an officer, cannot be dispensed with, because if the evidence is against the officer, that officer's representative in Court would be the first to object to the deposition being read, and the Court would doubtless refuse to allow it to be road on the ground that there was no opportunity of cross-examining the deponent. Even if the deposition was in favour of an officer and we let the deponent go, we cannot compel the. Court to receive the deposition, though as a rule the Court would be inclined to allow it.

LORD MUSKERRY

The noble Lord is dealing now only with Board of Trade inquiries?

LORD HERSCHELL

Yes. The officer's representative might well make a grievance that the Court had not before it in propriâ personâ a witness so favourable to his client, a mere deposition not carrying nearly so much weight as oral testimony. The inevitable result would be that when- ever a witness made a deposition against an officer and he was allowed to go, that deposition would be ruled out on objection taken by the officer's representative, while as a rule depositions in favour of an officer would, if the Court raised no objection, be allowed to go in. Every effort is made to let witnesses go if there is reasonable ground for thinking that their evidence is not absolutely essential—i.e., if others can speak to the same facts—but it is dangerous to relax the general rule that it is better to keep a witness than let him go. In some cases before an inquiry can be ordered many of the witnesses have scattered, and very often those we can detain represent the minimum of those we want.

In wreck inquiries the object is to bring the inquiry on for hearing as soon as possible after a wreck or casualty is reported, and assuming that all the essential evidence available is in the United Kingdom depositions and statements are taken as soon as possible after the casualty, and preparation is made for holding the inquiry as quickly as can be. But to prevent seamen shipping again to sea it is necessary to detain them from the very moment they have made their depositions or given their statements, so as to ensure their presence at the inquiry. There is a scale of allowance to men who are detained, but that, of course, does not affect the question of the subsequent loss of employment which they may suffer after the inquiry. The scale of allowance to which I have referred is paid to them day by day unless they are actually in the employ of and being paid by the owners, which not infrequently happens when they are of use to their employers on shore. But even in the case of wreck inquiries, which, as I have said, are held as soon as possible, no exception is taken to a witness shipping for a short voyage in the coasting or home trade if it is ascertained that it is practically certain that he will be back in time for the inquiry, and in the case of those inquiries which cannot be held for a long time owing to the fact that evidence has to be obtained from abroad—and this not infrequently happens—witnesses are constantly allowed to ship for two or three months voyages on their undertaking to acquaint the Local Receiver of Wreck of their return; and wherever representation is made before an inquiry takes place that detention until the inquiry is held in any particular case may mean serious loss of employment or the loss of permanent employment, every care is taken to examine the man's evidence to see whether it is essential or can be corroborated by someone else with a view to releasing him from attendance.

But in considering this question there are two points which should not be lost sight of. The first is that these wreck inquiries undoubtedly do contribute and have contributed in a marked degree to the interest of the shipping fraternity in general. A great deal of very useful information has been got from these inquiries which has contributed materially to greater safety. Secondly, we must be careful that in our desire to exempt certain officers of the mercantile marine from the hardships of detention as witnesses we do not thereby inflict hardship upon the officers whose conduct is called in question. An officer who gives evidence to-day which is of the greatest importance, even essential, to clear the character of another officer whose conduct is called in question, may himself later on be in the position of the officer whose conduct is called in question. I think, therefore, that as regards the question of depositions it is very difficult to do more than say that if, as soon as the inquiry is ordered, a witness can satisfactorily prove to the Board that hardship will result from his detention, then—while, of course, the Board cannot absolutely promise that they will exempt him from attendance—they will do their utmost to exempt him if by any possibility his evidence can be dispensed with without injustice being done to the interests of the inquiry. I am afraid that on this particular point I have not been able to give very much satisfaction to the noble Lord, but perhaps I may, before leaving this part of the question in reference to Board of Trade inquiries, state that with regard to compensation the scale has been found to work very well—that is, compensation during detention until the end of the inquiry.

But as regards giving compensation after the inquiry has ceased, a general rule has been made that no compensation can be given in those cases. But last year the Board of Trade took steps to ascertain how far the loss which results to officers detained to give evidence at wreck inquiries could be met by insurance, and they discovered that it was possible to insure officers for a premium of £1 6s. 8d. per cent., or for half that sum for £50, or 6s. 8d. for £25, and in each case this would be paid for detention without proof of loss.

LORD MUSKERRY

Am I to understand that the Board of Trade will pay this insurance?

LORD HERSCHELL

I did not say that. The Board of Trade have discovered that it is possible to insure officers at this rate, and they have brought the matter to the notice of the principal associations of officers and it is under their consideration. With regard to the second portion of the noble Lord's Question relating to detention on shore and loss of employment when summoned to serve on juries, this is a matter which concerns the Home Office. It is, however, the fact that they have received very few complaints with regard to the detention of seamen on shore for service on juries, but they fully recognise that seamen are in a different position from people on shore in this matter, as by being detained they may lose, not one or two days' employment, but the opportunity of securing employment for a whole voyage.

The whole question of jury service requires overhauling in view of the many admitted difficulties and inconsistencies of the present system. The Home Secretary has already drawn attention to the matter in the House of Commons and has promised an inquiry. The position of seamen with regard to jury service is a question which could very properly be included in such an inquiry, and when the inquiry is instituted the position of seamen will be carefully considered. As regards the third portion of the Question I am afraid I am not able to give very much satisfaction to the noble Lord, because my remarks as to depositions apply equally in this case as they do in the case of wrecks. Here, again, very few complaints have been received. At the same time the special position of seamen as witnesses in criminal prosecutions has been recognised for many years. For instance, under the regulations made by the Secretary of State under the Criminal Justice Administration Act governing the allowances payable to prosecutors and witnesses special provision is made for seamen, and the amount actually and reasonably incurred for their maintenance during detention on shore may be allowed.

The Home Office are always ready—and this remark applies equally to the Board of Trade—in spite of the hard-and-fast rule which exists as to compensation, to give consideration to any cases of special hardship. I may say that quite recently the attention of the Home Secretary was drawn to the case of the captain of a ship who had lost his position owing to being kept on shore to give evidence at the Assizes, and on representation being made to the Treasury substantial compensation was actually awarded; and compensation has been awarded in similar cases of great hardship by the Board of Trade. I hope the noble Lord will realise that both of these Departments are anxious, wherever it may be possible, to mitigate any hardship which may fall upon the people in whose favour the noble Lord speaks. They are exceedingly anxious to do everything they can in the matter.

LORD ELLENBOROUGH

My Lords, I maintain that jury service is an exceedingly unfair and unjust burden to put on seafaring men. It would not be difficult to draw up a Bill exempting them, in the same manner that pilots are exempted. As a matter of fact, a seafaring man does not really reside in the home which throws upon him the obligation of serving on juries. He provides a home for his wife and family, and if during the intervals when he is home from a voyage he is called upon to serve on a jury he may lose his appointment and suffer great hardship in consequence. The laws of this country are made by people who live on land, and as minorities must suffer those who follow the nomad life of the sea have suffered in consequence; but I think all fair-minded people are of opinion that such suffering on the part of minorities should be reduced as much as possible.

As regards Board of Trade inquiries, it is true, of course, that evidence on deposition which has not withstood proper examination has by no means the strength of evidence that is given in Court. Therefore I think it would be difficult to draw up a Bill to prevent detention of officers and men in these cases that would in any way meet the justice of the situation without jeopardising others at the inquiries which take place. The Board of Trade do not see their way to draw up such a Bill. I would suggest to my noble friend that he should, in conjunction with the Imperial Merchant Service Guild, endeavour to draw up a Bill containing suitable clauses to deal with this matter. Of course they would have to get the advice of experts, and I dare say the Board of Trade might be inclined to assist them.

I hope some alteration will be made in the law as to compensation, making the compensation more liberal. I am speaking not only in the interests of mercantile marine officers, but in the interests also of the men before the mast, who frequently get detained to give evidence in various cases and thereby lose their employment. I hope the Board of Trade will continue to study this question, and that by next year they will be able to do something, and that at any rate they will bring in a Bill to relieve seamen from the obligation of serving on juries.