Lords Sitting of 19 February 1935

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, the LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
STOKE-ON-TRENT CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a (according to Order).
GELLIGAER URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a (according to Order).
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (LEICESTER AND WARWICK) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order).
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (CUMBERLAND AND LANCASTER) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order).
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (GLOUCESTER AND WARWICK) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order).
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (HOLLAND AND KESTEVEN) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order).
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (HOLLAND AND LINDSEY) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order).

BRITISH SHIPPING (ASSISTANCE) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Temple-more.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL or ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
Payment of subsidy.
1.—(1) For the purpose of helping the owners of vessels registered at ports in the United Kingdom to compete with foreign shipping in receipt of subsidies from foreign Governments, the Board of Trade may, subject to such directions as may be given by the Treasury, and upon recommendations made by an advisory committee (hereinafter referred to as the "Tramp Shipping Subsidy Committee") appointed for the purposes of this Part this Act by the Board with the concurrence of the Treasury, pay to the owners of vessels eligible for subsidy under this Part of this Act subsidies in respect of tramp voyages or parts of tramp voyages carried out by such vessels in the year nineteen hundred and thirty-five:
Provided that no such subsidies shall be paid in respect of any voyage wholly between ports within the United Kingdom, Irish Free State, Isle of Man and Channel Islands.
(2) The vessels eligible for subsidy under this Part of this Act are vessels to which this Act applies, being vessels registered at ports in the United Kingdom, which have been British ships since the first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-four or, in the case of vessels completed after that date, since they were completed, so however that vessels completed after that date shall not be eligible for subsidy unless they were built in the United Kingdom.
LORD STRABOLGI LORD STRABOLGI moved, after subsection (1), to insert the following new subsection:
"(2) The Tramp Shipping Subsidy Committee shall include not less than two persons nominated by the associations of officers and seamen represented on the National Maritime Board."
The noble Lord said: Perhaps I may be allowed to say how glad I am to be addressing amongst your Lordships the Lord Chairman again, after his brief absence. The Amendment standing in my name, which I now propose to move, is one of two Amendments that were not discussed, so far as I know, in another place, and I want to make it clear that I am not really departing from the general rule that my noble friends have followed on this side of the House—namely, riot to press Amendments which have been discussed in another place. This Amendment wits not discussed in another place, and my other Amendments, which are similar to those moved in another place, have been put down with the concurrence of my noble friend Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, because of statements which were made in another place, and also on the Second Reading in
970
this House by the noble Lord in charge of the Bill, and also by Lord Essendon, who has great knowledge of shipping.
My first Amendment proposes to insert the following new subsection:
"The Tramp Shipping Subsidy Committee shall include not less than two persons nominated by the associations of officers and seamen represented on the National Maritime Board."
The Bill provides for a Committee to assist the Board of Trade in deciding what vessels qualify for a subsidy out of the public purse payable under this measure, and the Committee so far consists, I think, of six steamship owners, representing tramp shipping, two gentlemen representing cargo liners, and a very distinguished retired civil servant, Sir Charles Hipwood, who has great experience of shipping matters. So far so good. But there is no provision made for any representation of the officers and seamen of the mercantile marine, and in view of the importance of the questions which this Committee will have to decide and advise the Board of Trade upon, I think it is not unreasonable that these bodies should be represented upon it.
Let me read the remarks made by the President of the Board of Trade in another place. Mr. Runciman was speaking about the operations of the National Maritime Board. This Board has functioned very successfully in the interests of all parties and has done good work for the shipping industry generally, and my Amendment proposes that the bodies represented on that Board, who speak for the officers, both navigating and engineering officers, and the seamen—including firemen, stewards, artisans and so on—shall have a voice on the Committee. Speaking of this Board, Mr. Runciman said:
"One remarkable effect of the work of this Board has been that harmony has been maintained from beginning to end. Every decision has been unanimous, and we have succeeded during the last fifteen years in the industry in having nothing in the nature of a trade dispute. If anybody could justify its existence, the National Maritime Board certainly has done so."
Then he goes on to deal with the bearing that this has on the rate of pay, manning scales and so on; but those will come up later on another Amendment.
I think, after your Lordships have heard that quotation from the President of the Board of Trade, it will be admitted

971
that I am not proposing to introduce into this Committee anything like a wrecking or trouble-making element. Who are the bodies represented on the side of the officers and men? During the Second Reading of this Bill the noble Lord, Lord Essendon, said that the associations representing the officers and men in the mercantile marine supported this Bill. Of course that is broadly true. They do want an alteration of this kind made in the Bill. I am going to quote what has been written by the Secretary of the Mercantile Marine Service Association, and I would remark for your Lordships' information that this is the oldest of the associations representing the officers. It was established in 1857 and incorporated by special Act of Parliament in 1863. It has never engaged in what is known as strike action. It has done its best to serve the national interest in every way and it maintains at Liverpool a magnificent training ship, the "Conway," which has sent so many fine officers to the mercantile marine, and also not a few naval officers, as the noble Viscount opposite, Lord Bridgeman, knows very well. It also maintains very important and efficient homes for aged mariners, for the widows of seamen and so on.
The general work of this Association has been praised by everyone who has knowledge of it and it represents to the best of its ability the interests of the masters and officers of the mercantile marine. The other body, the Imperial Merchant Service Guild, is a very old body as well, recognised, respected and quite rightly looked upon with favour by everyone who knows its work. Now I will quote the letter from the secretary of the Association. He says:
"We rightly feel (and here I refer in addition to this Association to the Imperial Merchant Service Guild, the Marine Engineers' Association, Limited, and the Amalgamated Engineering Union) that we should have some voice in the administration of public money, which is not only meant to benefit the employers but the employees also."
The letter also says this:
"The four organisations representing navigating and engineer officers have made combined overtures to the President of the Board of Trade for representation on any body set up to deal with the administration of the subsidy, but apart from the usual acknowledgment that the application would be considered, we have heard nothing further—"
972
a not unusual experience of people who write to Government Departments. That letter was dated January 25 last. I propose that these four bodies, together with the National Union of Seamen, shall be entitled to nominate two of their members to the Committee set up under the Bill.
We now come to the other body, the National Union of Seamen. It covers all the deep sea going seamen—firemen, stewards and so on. It is represented on the National Maritime Board, it is a trade union, and a registered friendly society; and everyone of your Lordships must admit that it has raised the status of seamen, not only in our own mercantile marine but throughout the world. It was this union that broke the evil system of crimping—the selling of seamen when drunk by boarding house keepers. As a result of their work Shanghai-ing, as it is called, is a trade which is followed no longer. They raised the whole status of the seamen and firemen of our great merchant service.
During the War their activities were entirely on the side of the nation. Their whole endeavours were patriotic in the highest degree. They have had no strike since long before the War. In fact, they were rather too patriotic on one occasion, when they supported their own seamen who refused to carry the present Prime Minister over to an international pacifist meeting at Stockholm. They were then burning with indignation at the treatment of their own members by the tyrannical methods of the German submarine. I thought they did right at the time, and I think so even more now. Nobody can say that they had not a very great part in sending their members to sea after being torpedoed again and again during the War, and keeping up the shipping services without which we should have been defeated. Surely this body, representing the whole of the deep sea going seamen, well organised, respected and recognised, should have a voice on this Committee. Those are the reasons why, with my noble friend's agreement, I have put down this Amendment. I do not think it is unreasonable. I believe it will strengthen the Committee. It will remove the criticism that only the shipowners themselves, with the assistance of Sir Charles Hipwood, will have a say in the distribution of public

973
money among shipowners, and for this reason I hope the Amendment will commend itself to the Government.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line II, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Strabolgi.)
LORD TEMPLEMORE: I am sure your Lordships will all agree with the words of praise which have fallen from the noble Lord about these bodies, the National Maritime Board, the Imperial Merchant Service Guild and the two other officers' unions, and also the National Union of Seamen. Now, why does the noble Lord want these persons to be added to the Tramp Shipping Subsidy Committee? Presumably to ensure that national maritime rates of pay and so forth are guaranteed. As to that, I can only say that the National Maritime Board is the proper tribunal for dealing with cases where it is alleged that the Board's agreements have not been honoured. It is considered probable—in fact, I should think almost certain—that the Tramp Shipping Subsidy Committee will refer to the National Maritime Board in cases where this question arises, and will suspend their decision on the claim for a subsidy until after receiving the views of the National Maritime Board. The presence of a mercantile marine officer or seaman on the Tramp Shipping Subsidy Committee is really, in the opinion of His Majesty's Government, not necessary from this point of view.
Possibly the noble Lord may say they ought to be there to see that the subsidy is properly spent. I do not think they would be of much help in that direction. The general conditions on which the subsidy is to be paid are laid down in the Bill. What the Tramp Shipping Subsidy Committee have to see is whether the applications received from shipowners comply with the conditions laid down. To do this requires close knowledge, not only of the business of what I as a landsman may call "going to sea," but of the intricacies of the tramp and cargo-liner shipping trades, and the Government consider that this very expert and intricate knowledge is best supplied by the ship-owning element. As regards the argument which I think the noble Lord used, that the shipowners were going to sit in judgment on their own case, I do not think that is a very good argument,
974
because the principles on which the subsidy is to be paid are laid down, the maximum amount of the subsidy is fixed, and within that limit and according to those principles the Committee have to consider whether particular claims can be recommended for payment. It is to the interest of the shipowners to see that the sum available is applied only to those cases where the conditions have been observed. In any case, it has to be remembered that the last word lies with the Board of Trade. For these reasons I regret that I cannot accept the Amendment of the noble Lord.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD STRABOLGI LORD STRABOLGI moved, in subsection (2), after "vessels," where that word occurs for the third time, to insert "which provide such accommodation for the crew as the Tramp Shipping Subsidy Committee may deem to be reasonable and satisfactory, and being vessels." The noble Lord said: The subsection, if the Amendment which I am now moving is accepted, would then read:
"The vessels eligible for subsidy under this Part of this Act are vessels to which this Act applies, being vessels which provide such accommodation for the crew as the Tramp Shipping Subsidy Committee may deem to be reasonable and satisfactory, and being vessels registered at ports in the United Kingdom …."
This Amendment is to ensure that, at any rate, the minimum requirements in the way of accommodation on board ships receiving the Government subsidy shall be provided for the crew.
I do not want to harrow your Lordships with details of some of the perfectly appalling accommodation still found, I am sorry to say, even in ships flying the British flag. I think it is admitted there are many vessels where the accommodation falls far below what it is right and proper men going to sea should have provided for them. That being the case, I want to make certain that the subsidy is not paid to such vessels. The Board of Trade, of course, will reply that there are the Merchant Shipping Acts and that they ensure a certain minimum; but the Merchant Shipping Acts are badly in need of renovation, of being modernised in many respects, of being brought up to date, and accommodation for the crew is one respect in which the Merchant Shipping Acts are out of date. I do not think this is an unreasonable Amend-

975
ment, and I hope the Government and your Lordships will accept it.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 14, after ("vessels") insert the said new words.—(Lord Strabolgi.)
LORD TEMPLEMORE: I am exceedingly sorry to disappoint my noble friend, but I am afraid His Majesty's Government cannot accept this Amendment. It is quite impossible to put on the Tramp Shipping Subsidy Committee the onus of deciding whether the accommodation for the crews on a particular vessel is reasonable and satisfactory. The noble Lord mentioned the Merchant Shipping Acts. Really he answered the question for me, in a way, because the requirements in this matter are laid down by the Merchant Shipping Acts, and unless the accommodation complies with the statutory requirements to the satisfaction of a Board of Trade surveyor, the space which is occupied cannot be deducted from the tonnage of the ship on which dues are paid. Your Lordships will realise that the disallowance of such a deduction from tonnage would constitute a very heavy penalty on the owner of the ship. In any case, the question of crew accommodation is a matter for settlement in relation to the industry as a whole, and is undoubtedly a matter which, if thought necessary, should be dealt with by an amendment of the Merchant Shipping Acts. For that reason I regret I cannot accept the Amendment.
LORD STRABOLGI: I am extremely sorry to hear that reply. How long will it take to amend the Merchant Shipping Acts? It is extremely difficult to get a move on with this Government in anything, and I have no hope of this being done while the subsidy is in operation. After all, this is only for two years—
LORD TEMPLEMORE: One year.
LORD STRABOLGI: One year—"scrap-and-build" for two years. This would fill in the time that must elapse before we can amend the Merchant Shipping Acts.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
THE EARL OF ILCHESTER THE EARL OF ILCHESTER moved, in subsection (2), after "vessels," where that word occurs for the third time, to insert "in which separators have been
976
installed." The noble Earl said: The Amendment which I have put down is, I think, perfectly plain. It means that no vessel shall be eligible for subsidy under this Bill unless it has a separator installed. I have put down the Amendment in relation to the menace of oil floating in the sea round our coasts. As some of your Lordships may remember, I brought that matter up two years ago. Though His Majesty's Government did not see fit to adopt my suggestion, which was that a conference should be called in London on the lines of a conference which had been called at Washington six or seven years before, to deal with this whole matter, the Government considered it sufficiently important and urgent to pass the matter on to the League of Nations at Geneva. It would be inappropriate here to go into the details which I gave your Lordships then, and for the reason that the matter has gone to Geneva it is also unnecessary to do so. Possibly your Lordships will have seen that the Foreign Secretary, in another place yesterday, outlined the position of this matter at Geneva, stating that it had been considered by a Committee and would be considered in the near future by the whole League.
I am sorry to say that since I raised this point there is no improvement in this matter. Bird life is being seriously damaged as well as marine life in general. Only within the last few months I have heard of three or four cases on the south and west coasts of this country where large numbers of these unfortunate birds have been washed up, dead or dying, some of them in a state in which one could hardly recognise their species. It is also an interesting point to notice a number of mud banks, which the receding tide shows were three or four years ago covered with vegetation and weed of various sorts. From these mud banks, which were the home of fishes and also provided food and breeding places, nearly all that weed and vegetation has now gone. The most hopeful way of dealing with this curse is to instal separators in the ships which pass up and down our coasts so that the accumulations in the bilges of the ships can be taken out and not pumped back into the sea.
In 1931 a Bill was introduced ill another place suggesting that all English vessels should be forced to instal

977
separators, but it was then objected that in that case the foreigner would have an advantage over British vessels. Now, in this case, there is no such objection. In recent years separators of new types have been brought in and they are, I understand, becoming far less expensive. In the case of small vessels the cost of installation is not a very serious one, and it should be noted that quite a number of British steam companies have installed these separators voluntarily. I think, therefore, the Amendment can be considered a reasonable one—that no ship should be given a subsidy under the Act unless it has installed a separator—and I very mach hope that His Majesty's Government will accept the proposal. Great sympathy was shown by the Foreign Secretary in another place with the attempts to do away with this serious trouble, and I think it would help very much in the deliberations which will have to take place in Geneva, if the Government accepted this addition to the Bill. I think also that it would lead us a long step further in the direction of saving these unfortunate birds, and in saving the fishing industry and preserving the amenities of our coasts. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 14, after ("vesselss") insert ("in which separators have been installed").—(The Earl of Ilchester.)
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My noble friend and I are old protagonists in this particular matter. I am sure we were very much entertained by his remarks, which were exceedingly interesting, but perhaps they had very little to do with a shipping subsidy Bill. I may say in passing that this particular Amendment would, I believe, be ruled out of order in another place if it was accepted here, as it is outside the scope and Preamble of the Bill. I am very much afraid, while His Majesty's Government have every sympathy, as the noble Earl knows, with the subject which he has raised, they cannot allow a provision of this kind to he put into a Bill which deals with the subject of assisting British shipping. The Amendment would, to a large extent, nullify the value of the subsidy, as, I am informed, the cost of installing a separator is about £1,200.
On the general question of oil pollution I would say that His Majesty's Government cannot agree to any proposal in-
978
volving the compulsory fitting of separators in any form on British shipping alone. To do so would handicap British shipowners as against their foreign competitors. As the noble Lord has described to your Lordships the answer given by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary in another place yesterday upon this matter, he has saved me the trouble of quoting it, which I was going to do. I will only say in conclusion that until the League of Nations has completed its enquiries and it is known whether or not an International Convention on the subject can be obtained, His Majesty's Government are of opinion that the consideration of any proposal to deal with it by way of imposing a compulsory requirement as to the fitting of separators on board ships as against any other form of remedy, is premature. I cannot therefore accept the Amendment, and I hope my noble friend w ill see his way to withdraw it.
THE EARL OF ILCHESTER: I certainly do not propose to press this Amendment, but I suggest that the noble Lord who has replied to me is not quite correct in the amount he gave as the price of a separator. There are very many separators for the smaller ships which cost only a tenth part of the amount he mentioned. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD STRABOLGI LORD STRABOLGI moved, after subsection (3), to insert the following new subsection:
"(4) No subsidy under this Part of this Act shall be paid by the Board of Trade unless the Board are satisfied that—

(a) the wages paid to persons employed on the vessel during such tramp voyage were in accordance with the rates recognised by the National Maritime Board;

(b) the conditions of employment on board the vessel were of a reasonable standard for British labour;

(c) the vessel was fully and efficiently manned on deck and below."

The noble Lord said: This Amendment was discussed in a similar form in another place. We would not have proposed to move this Amendment in your Lordships' House but for the statements made on Third Reading in another place when it was too late for anything to be done with regard to the Bill. The President of the Board of Trade, speaking on the Third Reading on the 1st of February, used these words:

979
"If any body could justify its existence, the National Maritime Board certainly has done so. When we consider the bearing that that has on the conditions under which our men are serving, let me point out that already there has been announced as an indication of the policy of the Advisory Committee … that abiding by the wages of the National Maritime Board's scale must be an essential condition of receiving the subsidy; it would be an essential condition."
That statement was made on the Third Reading by the President of the Board of Trade in another place.
The Bill then came to your Lordships' House and, on the Second Reading, I ventured to offer a few remarks to your Lordships on the question of wages below the National Maritime Board's rate paid to Asiatic or foreign labour, and the noble Lord, Lord Essendon, rose from the place where the noble Lord, Lord Hutchison, is now sitting and, addressing your Lordships, he said—I give the effect of his words—that of course, speaking as a shipowner, this Advisory Committee would be quite sure to see that no subsidies were paid unless the National Maritime Board's agreements were carried out. The noble Lord, Lord Templemore, in charge of the Bill, said very much the same thing in the course of the very interesting reply he made to myself and the noble Lord, Lord Essendon. That being the case, surely the Government will not resist putting the words into the Bill? Surely not! After all, as I ventured to remind the noble Lord, Lord Essendon—I have had a note from him saying that he much regrets not being able to be here to-day as he has to be away from London—while I would accept any assurance from him, Lord Essendon is not the Committee and we can only be bound by what appears in the Act of Parliament if the Bill becomes an Act. Therefore I suggest that these or similar words ought to be put in the Bill.
It may be said that there are no blackleg shipowners. The noble Lord, Lord Essendon, said there were few or no shipowners who did not carry out their engagements and fulfill the conditions of the National Maritime Board. As one listened to him, one could almost visualise the wings sprouting out of their shoulders. But, as I say, while I accept the assurance of the noble Lord, he is not the whole of the shipowners of the country. Let us see the other side of the picture. I have a letter from another shipowner,
980
who asked me not to disclose his name, but I will show his letter to the noble Lord, Lord Templemore, or to any noble Lord who wishes to see it. He writes:
"May I mention that certain owners, although bound by the National Maritime Board agreement, before signing on engineers and/or other officers have asked whether they would agree voluntarily to rates of pay below those of the National Maritime Board. I am informed that owing to the unprecedented unemployment prevalent in shipping such deductions have frequently been accepted."
It may be said that officers and engineers are wrong in accepting lower wages than the National Maritime Board scale; but those of your Lordships who are aware of the terrible plight of unemployed shipmasters, officers and engineers to-day, can, I am sure, make excuses for these men—men who have given their lives to the national service, men of the highest qualifications without a blemish on their characters, who, because they cannot get ships, are reduced to the lowest depth of poverty and privation. But there is no excuse for shipowners who make these bargains with them.
That is the other side of the picture, and that is not all. Another Amendment which I have on the Paper deals with the question of foreigners. Forty-two per cent. of our present mercantile marine personnel—this was stated in answer to a question in another place two days ago—is composed of Lascars and foreign seamen, and 90 per cent. of those are paid wages below the National Maritime Board rates. The Goanese stewards of the P. and O.—excellent men and very good stewards—are paid below the National Maritime Board rates. There is no reason at all why that should be so. I submit to your Lordships that it is not right that we should agree to subsidies being paid out of public money, out of the taxpayers' money, to shipowners who otherwise qualify for the subsidy, if they are not paying proper wages as agreed between the members of the National Maritime Board. The majority of shipowners adhere to those rates, and surely it is not right that those shipowners who do not adhere to them should receive a subsidy.
So it is with regard to other conditions. I am sure your Lordships would not wish any vessel to be subsidised if she was not fully and efficiently manned. But in certain lines there has

981
been far too much employment of ordinary seamen in place of able seamen, and employment of apprentices who are practically used as ordinary seamen at, of course, a much lower rate of wages. Many ships undertake long voyages with too few officers to do the work efficiently. These ships, I repeat, are in a minority. I want to make it perfectly clear that I am not indicting the main body of British shipowners. But there is a minority who sweat their officers, who sweat their crews and who do not keep their bargains as members of the National Maritime Board. In view of what has been said by the President of the Board of Trade in another place and by the noble Lord. Lord Essendon, here, and by the noble Lord, Lord Templemore, speaking for the Government, I submit that this is a reasonable Amendment. I only want to put in black and white what they have promised.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 35, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Strabolgi).
LORD TEMPLEMORE LORD TEMPLEMORE When we debated this Bill on Second Reading, certain statements were made, as the noble Lord has said, by my noble friend behind me and by myself with reference to this question of wages. I made it perfectly clear that the Government and shipowners have no sympathy with bad owners or bad lines as such, and that the subsidy will not be paid to any owner who evades his obligation to pay National Maritime Board wages. The National Maritime Board, as your Lordships know, is a voluntary organisation which has worked extremely well. If its decisions are not observed, complaints can be made to the Board, who will be glad to consider any such case. No case has been made out for the statutory enforcement of its agreements, which, as I explained on Second Reading, would mean bringing within statutory control a range of questions which are not now the subject of statutory regulations.
The noble Lord did not go into that part of the Amendment which relates to conditions of employment, but if he will allow me I will deal with that. Accommodation and food are the subjects of statutory requirements which apply in effect to practically all the vessels which will be eligible for subsidy. If the object of the Amendment is to require that
982
owners of subsidised ships should comply with the statutory requirements, that is obviously unnecessary as the Merchant Shipping Acts contain machinery and sanction for securing compliance with their provisions. As regards paragraph (c) of the noble Lord's Amendment, which deals with the manning of ships, with which he did deal, again there are statutory provisions under which the Board of Trade have the power to prevent any ship from going to sea in an undermanned condition—that is, with a crew which is not sufficient for the safe navigation and working of the ship. In the view of His Majesty's Government there is no need to insert anything in the British Shipping (Assistance) Bill in order to secure that existing statutory obligations should be complied with. I am afraid I cannot accept the noble Lord's Amendment.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: I have listened with great attention to the replies given by the Government to the Amendments put down by my noble friend, and I cannot help being glad that debate has taken place on them because we have had to-day an illustration of the impossibility of any reasonable Amendment being accepted by the Government in your Lordships' House. When my noble friend told me that he was going to put down these Amendments I said: "By all means. I am in complete agreement with the policy they represent." But I am afraid that my noble friend is still under the delusion that your Lordships' House is a revising Chamber, whereas we who have been here longer know very well it is not a revising Chamber when a Conservative Government are in power but merely a registering Chamber, with the consequence that anything we suggest is immediately turned down. The arguments brought forward in support of this Amendment by my noble friend, who has a very close knowledge of the whole of this business, were very reasonable, but the answers of the Government were extremely lame.
Upon this last Amendment I really feel that we shall have to press the matter, if only to illustrate to the country outside the unsympathetic attitude of His Majesty's Government on a matter upon which there can be no sort of question or doubt. If my noble friend were

983
endeavouring to insert into this measure subsidiary and outside points which were irrelevant, or if he were trying to load up the Bill by placing too great a burden on the Tramp Shipping Subsidy Committee, I could well understand the Government saying that it was quite unnecessary. But upon the question of this Amendment we have a very clear declaration made by the President of the Board of Trade in another place in the debate on Third Reading, when unfortunately he could not alter the Bill at all, which in substance was repeated by the noble Lord, Lord Templemore, who is speaking for the Government. I feel convinced that there can be no member of your Lordships' House present here to-day who is in disagreement with the argument brought forward by my noble friend, or with the detailed manner in which he lays out the proposition, and I feel sure that if this House can ever prove itself to be a revising Chamber, here is its opportunity, upon an Amendment against which the Government have produced no sort of satisfactory argument. In those conditions I am afraid that we shall have to press this matter to a Division.
LORD RHAYADER: I suppose everybody in the House must sympathise with the conditions suggested in the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, and if the argument were really as sound as the noble Lord who leads the Opposition suggests, we might all go into the Lobby with him; but in truth the argument proves a great deal too much. If it is necessary to insert this provision in this Bill, it means that the whole system of the Merchant Shipping Acts has broken down, and the proper course for those who support the Amendment is to seek an amendment of the Merchant Shipping Acts and to deal with the matter through the Board of Trade. It seems to me to be really irrelevant to this Subsidy Bill. I have no love for the subsidy which the Government are proposing, but this is introducing general matters in relation to our maritime trade which really have no bearing whatever on the particular Bill we are discussing. The Tramp Shipping Subsidy Committee is not the body which settles the conditions. It has already been said, I understand, that its members will bear them in mind, and that is about
984
all that they can do. It is for the Board of Trade, which administers the Merchant Shipping Acts, and which has the last word, to see that subsidies are not given to any ships which do not fulfil the conditions specified in the Amendment. The Amendment seems to me to be really irrelevant to this Bill. I am sorry, but I cannot accompany my noble friend into the Lobby.
LORD STRABOLGI: I think I can convince the noble Lord who has just addressed the Committee that he should accompany us into the Lobby. The Board of Trade case is this. They say: "We can enforce the present Merchant Shipping Acts, admittedly not up to date, in ships trading between ports in this country, but we cannot do it in the case of ships trading entirely abroad." That, as I say, is the Board of Trade's case. The answer to that case is that the National Maritime Board does, in effect, influence for the better the wages paid in ships trading entirely abroad. I will give the noble Lord one example, which will, I know, interest him. The Red Star Line, which has just been sold to foreigners, was at one time under the British flag. The Red Star Line, although under the British flag, was controlled financially by Americans, and the crews were signed on at Antwerp. They never touched this country at all, and they were therefore outside the jurisdiction of the Board of Trade. But what happened? In the case of the Red Star liners, all the seamen—all hands—including the Belgians on board, were paid the National Maritime Board rates. As a matter of fact, the stewards were brought over from England, but apart from that the men, signed on in Antwerp other than the, stewards were all paid the National Maritime Board Rates. That is the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Rhayader. We now have a chance in this Bill to ensure that the National Maritime Board rates—none too high—are paid in all the ships which receive public money.
Sitting beside the noble Lord, Lord Rhayader, is the noble Marquess who leads the Liberal Party. Is he not going to support us in this matter? Part of, his great and honourable career was spent in the mercantile marine: as a poor boy, he served in the mercantile marine. Is he going to give us no support? What of the great Liberal Party, who agree,

985
with us, that it is through our fault in imposing tariffs that the mercantile marine is now suffering and has to come for subsidies—are they not at least going to see that these unfortunate men are properly paid? They will have something to say in the shipping ports if the Liberal Party do not support us. That is not a threat, of course; I am thinking of the effect in another place. Is the noble Earl, Lord Howe, with his long naval career and the great service that he has given in maritime matters, going to give us no support? Shall we get no support from the ex-First Lord of the Admiralty opposite, Lord Bridgeman? Are we to appeal in vain to your Lordships to act, as my noble friend says, as a revising Chamber? Who is with us in this matter? We shall see in the Division Lobby.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: I intervene only because of the reference made by the noble Lord to myself, and really for the purpose of saying that I doubt very much whether there is a single person in your Lordships' House who fails to sympathise with the observations made by the noble Lord. But they are not applicable to the present Bill. Of course, we are all in favour of having proper conditions and having the vessels properly manned. Really this is not a great question of sentiment. The whole point that
LORD STRABOLGI LORD STRABOLGI moved, after subsection (3), to insert the following new subsection:
"(4) No subsidy under this Part of this Act shall be paid by the Board of Trade
986
is involved in the Amendment which is now before us is merely whether this is the proper place into which to introduce provisions of this character. I should support these provisions if they were to be inserted in a, proper Bill, but I cannot but think that it would be the greatest mistake in the world, when you are dealing purely with this question of subsidy, however much one may deplore that it becomes necessary to do it, to introduce provisions of this character. They would render it very difficult to work the Bill, and would introduce Amendments which in truth would mean that all kinds of conditions would have to be examined and supervised by the Board of Trade when it is unnecessary. As I understand what was said by the noble Lord representing the Government, the Board of Trade is, and must be, already not only aware of the provisions but alive to them, and anxious to see that they are enforced. Therefore it seems quite unnecessary for us to put these provisions into this Bill. It is solely for that reason that I cannot support the noble Lord.
On Question, Whether the said new subsection shall be there inserted?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 4; Not-Contents, 38.

CONTENTS.

Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.) [Teller.]

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Sanderson, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Sankey, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Bridgeman, V.

Hutchison of Montrose, L.

Hailsham, V.

Marks, L.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Merrivale, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Mildmay of Flete, L.

Reading, M.

Mersey, V.

Ormonde, L, (M. Ormonde.)

Rankeillour, L.

Bradford, E.

Abinger, L.

Redesdale, L.

Dudley, E.

Alness, L.

Remnant, L.

Howe, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Rhayader, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Rochester, L.

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

Clwyd, L.

Stanmore, L.

Munster, E.

Eltisley, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Sandwich, E.

Elton, L.

Cage, L. (V. Gage.) [Teller.]

Templemore, L.

Bertie of Thame, V.

Hampton, L.

Wolverton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

unless the Board are satisfied that during such tramp voyage a reasonable proportion of the crew were British domiciled seamen."
The noble Lord said: I am afraid I have to trouble your Lordships with another Amendment, which is to insert a new subsection. May I particularly address

987
myself for a moment to Lord Rhayader? Here I put the onus on the Board of Trade, and that the Board of Trade needs some stricture put upon it I think the noble Lord, and other noble Lords, must agree. This Amendment is to ensure that at any rate public money is not paid to British shipowners who employ an unreasonable number of alien or foreign seamen, and the noble Lord, Lord Rhayader, who is an internationalist, as are we on this side of the House, will, I am sure, agree with me that when we have tremendous unemployment among British seamen we should not have foreigners employed on British ships to which a subsidy is paid, when there is not as I shall presently show, one British subject on board such vessels.
I must trouble your Lordships with a few facts on this matter, because the noble Lord, Lord Essendon, during the Second Reading debate, said, in effect: "Oh! of course, there are a few isolated cases, such as the s.s. Farnham'"—which I quoted on the last occasion. I want to show your Lordships that these cases are unfortunately not isolated. I have here a letter from the Mercantile Marine Service Association, who have communicated several times with the President of the Board of Trade on this matter, and I am sorry to say the Board of Trade simply gave evasive answers. The noble Lord says the Board of Trade can put all these matters right, but the Board of Trade does not put them right. The letter states:
"We continue to receive information of the extent to which foreign officers are displacing Britishers in British ships, a practice which is permitted owing to the weakness of the Merchant Shipping Acts, a piece of legislation now obsolete and calling for early and drastic revision. Foreigners under these Acts may own British ships and operate their vessels in foreign waters, and are doing so because the laws of other nations will not permit them to do what they desire, and so it can be assumed that it is the intention of such companies to evade as many regulations as possible.
"Cases of overloading of British ships manned by aliens substantiate this assumption. I have drawn the attention of the President of the Board of Trade to abuses under this head and enclose copies of the correspondence which has passed. I am sure you will be with me in thinking that the reply of the Department is both evasive and inconclusive."
I read out this letter because Lord Rhayader, and the noble Marquess who
988
leads the Liberal Party, would have your Lordships believe that because there is a Merchant Shipping Act all is well; but all is not well; and when the Board of Trade is advised of these abuses it is unable or unwilling to do anything. I invite your Lordships to remove one of these scandals by accepting my Amendment to this Bill. The letter to which I have referred continues:
"By way of further authentic information in support of the foregoing, the following is an extract from the report of the Commercial Secretary of the Board of Trade in Bucharest, dealing with British ships trading to Rumania during the year 1933."
I would invite the attention of the Board of Trade to what is said by their own Commercial Secretary. It is as follows:
"It should be noted, however, that of the 136,598 tons of the United Kingdom shipping, only about 54,000 tons are really British, the remainder being owned and manned by Greeks, ex-Russians and persons of other non-British nationalities. These vessels are officially owned by limited liability companies in London and trade only between the Black Sea and the Mediterranean ports."
It is a fact that the Merchant Shipping Acts cannot be applied there. You cannot apply those Acts in the case of these 54,000 tons of officially British shipping; but what your Lordships can do is to see that these ships do not get a subsidy unless they employ a reasonable proportion of British seamen.
I have quoted the words of the Commercial Attaché at Bucharest and the opinion of this very responsible body, the Mercantile Marine Service Association. I must now draw your Lordships' attention to some actual cases. I wrote to Lord Essendon and told him I intended to bring these cases up because the noble Lord rather led your Lordships to suppose that the case I quoted on the last stage of this Bill was an isolated one. Here we have the case of the steamship "Mari Handris," and at the time that this letter was written by the secretary of the National Union of Seamen at Malta she was flying the British flag and was a British vessel. Listen to the list of these "boys of the bull-dog breed" who man her. The master is a Greek, Dianisios Patronas, the chief officer is a Greek, John Patronas, the first engineer is a Greek, Fragoulis Kaganous. The second engineer is a Greek, the third engineer a Greek, the wireless operator a Greek,

989
the bos'n a Greek, the donkeyman, the steward, the messroom steward, the cook and six sailors—all Greeks. The four firemen are Greeks, but, in case it might be thought that special preference was given to Greeks as against British, we now come to three possible British nationals, and these are Set Kassim, fireman, an Arab, Mahomed Nagi, fireman, an Arab, and Mohammed Saleb, fireman, an Arab. The remaining fireman comes from the Free City of Danzig, the next man on the list is a German, and the last one an Estonian. These were all paid rates of wages much below those fixed by the National Maritime Board. I appeal to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, with his great interest in and regard for the British Navy. In time of war we have two reserves in the British mercantile marine's shipping and sailors. We can take over the "Mari Handris," she is on the British register; but how many of her crew can we employ to make up casualties in the noble Earl's next ship in time of war? Are we going to pay a subsidy to the owners of the "Mari Handris"?
The next vessel is the steamship "Minhla," belonging to the Levant Oil Transport Company, 66, Mark Lane. This vessel is a kind of floating League of Nations. There is no secret about the facts, because they were published in The Seaman, the organ of the National Union of Seamen, on May 16, 1934. The official number of this ship is 124,881. The master is a Hungarian, the chief officer an Italian, the second officer an Italian, and the interpreter an Italian. The chief engineer is a Greek, the second engineer a Greek, the third engineer a Russian, the wireless operator a Hungarian, the bos'n an Italian, there are four Turkish sailors and one Rumanian sailor, one Turkish greaser, and an Italian greaser, a Turkish cook, and three Turkish firemen, and the stewardess is a Rumanian. There is not one British subject there, not even an Arab. Is that ship to receive a subsidy under this Bill? If the noble Lord agrees that she should not, will he accept my Amendment?
One more case—the steamship "Prude," formerly the Belgian steamship "Jan Van Ripiswijk." Apparently the Belgians have to pay too high wages and follow certain conditions, so she was
990
transferred to the British flag, like other vessels I have quoted. The Dutchmen, for example, wanted to be too highly paid, and their ship was put under the British flag. Now this British vessel, the "Prode" is owned by the Steamship Trading Company of 110, Fenchurch Street; she is managed by Mr. A. McIntosh, and that is the only thing British about her except the flag—and the subsidy from the taxpayers which she might get unless my Amendment is accepted. The master and the mate are Italians, the bos'n a Rumanian, there are three able seamen, one an Armenian, one an Italian, one a Russian. The first and second engineers are Italians, one fireman is an Italian, one a Russian, and one a Yugoslav; the trimmer is a Russian, the steward is an Italian, and the cook a Frenchman. Their wages, which I could quote to your Lordships, are grotesque. They are far below the National Maritime Board's scale. For example, the mate gets £7 14s. as against the scale laid down of £16 a month. The fireman, instead of getting £8 12s. gets £5 a month. And so it goes on—sweated wages and alien crews.
The last vessel is the steamship "Horns," owned by the Maritime Transport Company, of Camomile Street, London, and her crew are apparently all Italians. They have names such as Giuseppe Grasso, Carlo Mirabella, Giovanni Rinciari, and Giuseppe Fuseo. Apparently there is not one English name among them. Some of them may be Maltese, but the letter of complaint is written by the secretary in Malta of the National Union of Seamen, and he would not complain if they were Maltese. Therefore I presume they are Italians.
I have given some eases of ships flying the Red Ensign and manned practically exclusively by foreigners, not by British seamen. Surely it is not the intention of your Lordships' House that we should pay subsidies to such vessels. On the Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Templemore, answering for the Government in your Lordships' House, said of course these vessels would not get subsidies, and Mr. Runciman and Lord Essendon have said the same thing. Very well, let us have it in the Bill. Let us make absolutely certain, and if we can ensure the employment of just a few hundred more British seamen who are now walking the streets idle—and who

991
may be needed one day—we shall have done a service to the country. I may have misled your Lordships by not fully explaining myself on the Second Reading when I said there were 40,000 foreigners and Lascars in British ships. The actual number of foreigners is 7,600 in round figures, and Lascars, Arabs and Chinese make up the remainder. Including all, there are 40,000 or thereabouts who are not domiciled British seamen. There are 7,000 foreigners, and there is a great army of British seamen on shore waiting for berths, willing to go to sea, and unable to go to sea because of the employment of so many foreigners and Asiatics in British ships. I think the case for this Amendment is over-whelming.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 35, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Strabolgi.)
LORD RHAYADER: The noble Lord has made a special appeal to me, and I rise to say not many words on this Amendment. On the last Amendment I was able to offer sympathetic agreement, but with this Amendment I have not the smallest sympathy from any point of view. I regard it as specially aimed at destroying the British shipping industry. Our shipping industry has been an industry of adventure, in which Englishmen have excelled themselves more than in any other industry in the world. Englishmen have gone into every part of the world, done trade with all nations, done trade between one foreign nation and another when they were not doing trade with this country at all. They have thirty-five per cent. of the sea-borne carrying trade, while having only thirteen per cent. of the world trade, and it does seem to me that for an Englishman to get up and deliberately seek to limit opportunities of British shipowners and British traders in seeking trade where it can be found, even if it involves the employment of foreigners, is a most short-sighted policy. Therefore, I oppose this Amendment with all the energy I can command.
It is the desire of everybody that British seamen should be employed. Shipowners would prefer to employ British seamen whenever they could. They are the best seamen in the world. We are proud of their record. Shipowners do not willingly employ
992
foreigners if they can get British seamen to do their work. The number of foreigners employed is, as the noble Lord has shown, negligible. There are just over 7,000 foreigners—that is to say, non-British subjects employed on all British ships. The noble Lord included with foreigners the Lascars who are mostly British subjects. He has modified his previous statement. He himself sees the injustice of including Indian or Chinese Lascars who may be British subjects. But we are left with this Amendment which is to get rid, apparently, of 7,000 foreign seamen. I am not sure that that is the whole effect of the Amendment. I am not certain what a "British domiciled seaman" is. Perhaps the noble Lord will tell me. It occurs to me that an Indian Lascar is not a British domiciled seaman, and therefore the noble Lord's Amendment, although he has qualified his original statement, would exclude the Lascar. Is that so?
LORD STRABOLGI: I ask for "a reasonable proportion" of "British domiciled seamen." I do want to replace many of the Lascars now serving at below National Maritime Board rates by British seamen. We are only subsidising the P. and O. at present.
LORD RHAYADER: I doubt whether the number of Lascars employed is high in proportion to the trade with the countries where they are employed. Other countries have adopted the policy which the noble Lord proposes, and are more and more adopting it; but the result is not extra trade. Every country which has adopted this policy has lessened its trade. It has had the opposite effect to that of causing more and more seamen to be taken into employment. It has diminished shipping and diminished the number of seamen employed. If we, the adventurous nation, we, the sailors of the world, we who pride ourselves on that title, adopt this narrow policy which the noble Lord proposes, it will lead to the cessation practically of international trade. Members of the Government know I am not fond of their measures in restricting trade. I think they have gone too far. I think they have limited trade. They have the best intentions in all that they do. They have no intention of diminishing the world's total of trade, but that has happened while they have been in office. They have joined other

993
nations in doing evil. All the nations of the world are limiting trade in one way or the other, and the result is that the international trade of the world is about one-third of what it was a few years ago. And this Amendment is going in that same fatal direction which will end in all trade ceasing, excepting the internal trade of every country.
What would it mean if this policy were carried to its logical conclusion as far as this, country is concerned? We have, as I said, thirty-three per cent. of the sea-borne carrying trade as against thirteen per cent. of the world's international trade. It would mean that we should be cut down to our thirteen per cent. We should have to dismiss, if we get rid of the Lascars and the foreigners, 34,000 British seamen according to the latest figures. Instead of providing employment for more British seamen, as a result of excluding foreigners and Lascars, it would mean there would be 34,000 more British seamen unemployed in this country as a result of the policy of the noble Lord. I believe it to be a most mistaken policy, and I believe shipowners are the last people who ought to be taunted with employing foreigners at the expense of their own countrymen. Men with mining interests going abroad to establish a mine in a foreign country or British industrialists starting a factory in France or Germany, as they used to do, do not take a large number of British subjects with them to employ there. They employ the natives of the country, and take with them only a few trusted men as overseers for the more important posts. Of all the great industries, shipping employs more British subjects than any other. Shipowners are the last people against whom the noble Lord should direct his energies. The whole case is flimsy and unreal. The British ship-owners have not deserved to be censured, as the noble Lord has censured them, for employing foreigners at the expense of British seamen. I do not believe the unemployment of British seamen is due, in any degree, to the employment of foreigners on British ships. It is due to other causes on which I need not dwell. No, the whole attitude of the noble Lord in this matter is really contrary to the interests of British shipping. I need not appeal to your Lordships to reject this Amendment. I have
994
got up because I was challenged by the noble Lord to declare my sympathy with him. I declare my abhorrence of the narrow policy which he has proclaimed.
EARL HOWE: I have listened with great interest to this debate, and my interest has been very much stimulated by listening to a Protectionist proposal put forward by a Socialist member of your Lordships' House and replied to with equal vigour in the Free Trade principles of the speech of the noble Lord who has just spoken. As a simple Tory who does not hold very extreme views either in the direction of Protection or Free Trade, but who merely is anxious to see that the best thing is done for British shipping that possibly can be done, I must confess to a certain amount of anxiety with regard to the Amendment which has been moved. I am very anxious to have an assurance from the Government, if they are able to give us one, that in cases such as those which have been put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi—cases where not a soul on board is a Britisher, and where obviously the ships are only sailing under the British flag for the purposes of convenience or something of that sort—the British taxpayer is not going to be called upon to provide money. That is my only anxiety in this business. I do not in the least want to add to the difficulties of British shipowners. Everyone I am certain who sits in this House, it does not matter whether he may put forward Amendments or merely listen to the debate which takes place, feels the gravest anxiety with regard to the future of British shipping and would do anything he could to help it. We rely upon the Government, who have the information in this matter, to guide us, and are quite ready to accept that guidance, but I would like to have an assurance, with regard to cases such as those which have been mentioned, that the taxpayer of this land will not have to put his hand into his pocket to help them.
LORD REDESDALE: I should like to understand exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Rhayader, meant. He described the employment of foreigners on British ships as negligible, and said there were only 7,000 foreigners so employed. I should like to know why any should be employed at all in these circumstances. Later on I understood him to say that our inter-

995
national trade was more or less dependent upon the employment of these foreigners. He cannot have it both ways. If the international trade is dependent upon the employment of 7,000 foreigners then they are not a negligible quantity. My sympathy is entirely with the Amendment, and I shall support the noble Lord if he goes to a Division.
LORD RHAYADER: What I endeavoured to say was that in the event of this policy being carried to its logical conclusion we should lose the trade we at present enjoy, except where we were trading from this country to a foreign country. We should be reduced to our natural share of the sea-carrying trade, and that would be a great deal less than our trade at present.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: The Bill with which we are dealing lays down that the subsidy may only be paid in the case of ships which are registered at ports in the United Kingdom. The noble Lord on the Second Reading the other day, and again to-day, quoted various cases of ships on which, as he rightly said, practically the whole crew were foreigners, and asked if those ships were going to get the subsidy. I should like to put that matter right at once. In the case of the steamship "Farnham," which he mentioned the other day, it has been ascertained that this ship is registered in Malta and will not, therefore, be eligible for the subsidy. He mentioned to-day the steamship "Horus." This ship also is registered in Malta and is not eligible for the subsidy. The "Mari Handris" is a Greek vessel and cannot get the subsidy. My noble friend also mentioned the tanker "Minhla." This ship is a tanker and is, therefore, not eligible for the subsidy. The only ship I am doubtful about among those he mentioned is the "Prode." I have not received an answer to the inquiries about her, but none of the others is eligible for the subsidy.
I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment for reasons which I will state. The adoption of the Amendment would result in imposing on subsidised vessels different conditions as regards the composition of the crew from those applying generally to British vessels under the Merchant Shipping Acts. And the same observation applies to this as
996
to other Amendments. It is not possible to amend the general provisions of the Acts in connection with a measure such as this dealing with a temporary subsidy. There has been a certain amount of talk in the debate about the number of foreigners actually employed in our merchant service. I have the latest figures here and will give them. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, I think, quoted certain figures, as well as my noble friend opposite.
LORD REDESDALE: They were not my figures. I only referred to figures quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Rhayader.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: I should like to give the figures so that there may be no doubt. The percentage of foreigners (other than Lascars) among the persons employed in vessels registered at ports in the British Isles fell from 8.1 per cent. in 1929 (16,400 out of 203,500) to 5.2 per cent. (7,700 out of 147,000) in 1933. The foreign officers employed represented only about 1 per cent. of the total number of officers in 1931, the last year for which figures are available. I should also like to say—and I would draw the attention of the noble Lord on the Liberal Benches to this point—that when foreign seamen or officers are employed there is generally good reason for it; as, for instance, in the case of ships which ply solely between ports abroad and never come home. Sometimes it is difficult to obtain British subjects for those vessels for reasons of climate and so forth. I think it is impossible to draw a distinction between domiciled British seamen and other British seamen as suggested in the Amendment. I should like to make this point again. The main object of this Bill, as I said on Second Reading, and I think I have repeated it to-day, is to do good to the officers and men of the merchant service by putting them back into employment, and the Government think that at this juncture the best way to do that is by giving the subsidy. I would submit to your Lordships that anything like the Amendment proposed, which would impose an additional hardship or handicap on the British shipowner in competition with foreign shipping, is bound to react to the British owners' disadvantage, and that this Bill is, as I have said before, no place for such an

997
Amendment. I regret, therefore, I cannot accept it.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Power to make advances in respect of approved proposals]:
LORD STRABOLGI: I want to raise a matter on Clause 2. I did not give notice of this to the noble Lord in charge of the Bill, but perhaps he will be good enough to pass on this proposal of mine to the appropriate Department. In another place on this clause, dealing with the subsidy to be paid to British ship-owners who scrap their old vessels and build new ones, it was proposed that the vessels would have to be broken up in this country in order to create employment—this proposal will also, I am sure be equally shocking to the noble Lord, Lord Rhayader—and the President of the Board of Trade said in effect: "Do not tie our hands in that respect because there are only about two large firms who specialise in the ship-breaking business and there may be a ring formed. A ring might be formed and prices might be raised against shipowners who wished to have their vessels broken up. Therefore it might be necessary to send vessels abroad to be broken up under this Bill." The suggestion I have to make, which I would be very grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Templemore, would consider with the Department concerned, is that some of these ships might be broken up in the three royal dockyards at Chatham, Portsmouth and Plymouth. They are short of work, they are well used to doing this kind of work, the scrap metal is valuable in this country, and by doing the work in this way you could prevent the exploitation of shipowners by a ring of ship-breaking firms. I make that suggestion in a very friendly spirit and I would be glad if the noble Lord would consider it.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: Of course I cannot possibly give an answer on that point at the present moment; but I give the noble Lord an assurance that I will pass on his suggestion to my right honourable friend, and that the Board of Trade will be consulted.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 6 agreed to.
LORD STRABOLGI LORD STRABOLGI moved, after Clause 6, to insert the following new clause:
Prohibition on sale of subsidised vessels to foreign owners.
". No vessel which has received a subsidy for any voyage or voyages under Part I of this Act or which has been built or modernised with financial assistance under Part II of this Act shall be sold to a foreign owner without the previous consent in writing of the Board of Trade."
The noble Lord said: Under Clause 1, we subsidise voyages and under Clause 2 we subsidise the scrapping of old ships and the building of new ships or the modernising of old ships. Having done that with the taxpayers' money, with the money of the unfortunate public, it surely would be unfair if those ships were sold afterwards to foreigners. The Bill is bad because shipowners, in order to qualify for the subsidy, must scrap twice as many tons as they build. The redundancy in world tonnage is to be remedied by reducing the British mercantile marine! I protested against that on Second Reading and I protest again now. But at any rate we can undo some of the mischief of sales of vessels to foreigners by saying that subsidised vessels shall not be sold to foreigners without the leave of the Board of Trade. If there are exceptional cases, then the Board of Trade, of course, will have discretion, but it does seem unfair that the taxpayer should assist in building new ships which may then be sold to the highest bidden and pass out of British service. I think this is a reasonable Amendment and I hope the noble Lord will accept it.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 6, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Strabolgi.)
LORD TEMPLEMORE: Really this Amendment is unnecessary so far as vessels built or modernised under Part II of the Bill are concerned. The noble Lord, I think, has overlooked the fact that Clause 3 (1) (c) (ii) already provides that vessels to be built or modernised under Part II must not be sold without the consent of the Board of Trade while any part of the principal or interest on any advance remains outstanding. This is much wider than the noble Lord's Amendment, which deals only with sales to foreign owners, whereas under the provisions of the Bill it will not be possible for vessels to be sold even to per-

999
sons at home. Therefore the Bill is stronger than the Amendment of the noble Lord. If the noble Lord wishes to apply this to vessels subsidised under Part I, it is not clear why he should do so because His Majesty's Government do not anticipate that so long as the subsidy is being paid owners are likely to sell their vessels. When the subsidy has come to an end there seems no reason why an owner, once having received a subsidy, should be placed in a worse position than the owners of vessels which have not received a subsidy. The Amendment is really unnecessary and the Government cannot accept it.
LORD STRABOLGI: I must make some reply to what has been said by the noble Lord. He said that the Bill provides that ships may not be sold as long as the mortgage is outstanding. That of course is so, and that is the case in every mortgage agreement. But once a mortgage had been paid off, ships built with the Government subsidy may be sold, and I submit that they should not be sold. Why should they be sold afterwards? With regard to subsidised voyages, the subsidies last for a year, and I think it would be reasonable, when the Government have enabled shipowners to keep afloat—we have been told that many of them would go out of business unless this Bill is passed—to say that, they should not afterwards sell their ships to foreigners. As it is, we shall have kept them in a profit making situation, and then when that is over they may sell their ships abroad. I think that is unreasonable and I am extremely sorry that the Government are not more sympathetic to my Amendment.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.

NATIONAL GALLERY (OVERSEAS LOANS) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

REGIMENTAL CHARITABLE FUNDS BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Application of funds]:
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: The Amendment which stands in my name is purely a drafting Amendment. It has no other purpose than to remove a possible ambiguity of wording. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Clause 2, page 2, line 20, leave out ("payment is made") and insert ("sum is paid to the holding trustee.")—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order).
Clause 49 [Payment of benefit pending determination of claim or question]:
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "allows" ["Where a court of referees allows"] and insert "allow." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I must apologise to the noble Viscount on the Woolsack for not having brought forward at an earlier stage of the Bill the Amendments which stand on the Order Paper in my name, but being a backswoodsman, I received notice that the Committee stage was taking place only after it had taken place, and the same remark applies to the Report stage. The object of this Amendment is to follow a rule laid down by the noble Viscount on the Woolsack, that all nouns of multitude in a Bill should be treated throughout the Bill as they start, either as singular or as plural. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 23, leave out ("allows") and insert ("allow").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SANKEY): My Lords, I am grateful to the

1001
noble Viscount for drawing our attention to this point: I agree that the alteration ought to be made.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, the next Amendment is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 24, leave out ("determines") and insert ("determine")—(Viscount Bertie of Theme.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 70 [Conditions of making special arrangements]:
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "per" and insert "for each". The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I do not think that "per week" is particularly good English. I was fortunate enough last year to persuade the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, that the words "for each" should be substituted for "per". I also notice that on the very next page of this Bill, beginning in line 29, the phrase occurs in Clause 71:
"Provided that the sum so paid shall not exceed in any year an amount calculated at the rate of one shilling for each week …."
so that even in this Bill the language is not quite consistent. If, in the clause under consideration, the word "per" should be used, surely on the next page the word "per" should also be used. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 51, line 22, leave out ("per") and insert ("for each").—(Viscount Bertie of Thome.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I hope that the noble Viscount will not press this Amendment, and I will, if I may, give him reasons for not pressing it. He has rather suggested that the phrase "per week" is not good English, and he desires to substitute the phrase "for each week". I think he will agree with me, at any rate, that as far back as the great Ben Jonson it was laid down that:
"Custom is the most certain mistress of language as the public stamp makes the current money."
With regard to the word "per," perhaps the noble Viscount does not think so highly as I am inclined to think of the Oxford Dictionary, and I quite sym-
1002
pathise with him there, but in that dictionary the word "per" is defined as:
"An English preposition used freely before substantives of many classes."
May I mention the five or six instances given, going back a long time: "per invoice," "per ledger"—and may I give the noble Viscount one instance which refers to himself: the noble Viscount "as per usual" is objecting to these expressions. Then "per head," "per foot," "per period," "per day."
Having defended the English, may I come now to the legal position? The word "per" has found its place in quite a number of Acts. It is a word in common usage, for example, in Finance Acts. It has been used in every one of those Acts since 1921, and it was approved by a predecessor of mine, Lord Selborne, in a case heard in the House of Lords. It would rather disturb these Acts if we did not agree to the use of the word "per," and I agree with the noble Viscount that it should have been used also in Clause 71 to which he referred. May I ask the noble Viscount not to press the Amendment? As a matter of fact, it is desired that this Bill should go to the other House to-night, for we think it important to get this Bill upon the Statute Book as early as possible, so that I shall be very grateful if the noble Viscount will withdraw the Amendment.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My, Lords, I should not think of opposing myself to Ben Jonson, to the noble Viscount on the Woolsack, or to the Oxford Dictionary. Therefore I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 73 [Special schemes]:
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (5), with reference to an association of employers and employees, to leave out "whom" and insert "which." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I do not think I need argue this.
Amendment moved—
Page 57, line 25, leave out ("whom") and insert ("which").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Viscount for moving this Amendment. It is perfectly right that it should be made.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 76 [Provision of courses of instruction by education authorities]:
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (1), with reference to an education authority, to leave out "their" and insert "its". The noble Viscount said: Does the noble Viscount on the Woolsack accept this Amendment?
Amendment moved—
Page 61, line 36, leave out ("their") and insert ("its").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Again I must stand in a white sheet. The noble Viscount is perfectly right in moving this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 81 [Miscellaneous powers of educational authorities]:
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: I think the noble Viscount will probably accept my Amendment upon this clause also?
Amendment moved—
Page 66, line 29, leave out ("their") and insert("its").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 91:
Proof of age, marriage and death.
(2) Forms for such requisitions as aforesaid shall on request be supplied without any charge by every registrar of births and deaths, and by every superintendent registrar or other person having the custody of the register.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME moved, in subsection (2), after "births," to insert "marriages." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I do not see any reason for allowing forms of requisition to be issued free for births and deaths, but not for marriages.
Amendment moved—
Page 72, line 21, after ("births") insert ("marriages").—(Viscount Bertie of Thame.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if I had not been instructed, I should have agreed with the noble Viscount, but I am afraid that we should both of us have been wrong. The position is that if we accepted this Amendment it would involve inserting a description of an official who does not exist. There is not a "registrar of births, marriages and deaths." The officials concerned are described as in the Bill, "registrars of births and deaths," although arrangements are in force by which these officials are also responsible in some cases for the marriage register. As I say, unless I had been instructed I should have agreed with the noble Viscount.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: My Lords, I in my turn stand in a white sheet.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
House adjourned at five minutes past six o'clock.