Lords Sitting of 10 September 1941

Preamble
The House met, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
LORD SOULBURY.
The Right Honourable Herwald Ramsbotham, O.B.E., M.C., having been created Baron Soulbury of Soulbury in the County of Buckingham—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
LORD SHERWOOD.
Sir Hugh Michael Seely, Baronet, having been created Baron Sherwood of Calverton in the County of Nottingham—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
SCARISBRICK ESTATE BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Select Committee that it is not expedient to proceed further with the Bill; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

THE STAMP PEERAGE: A QUESTION OF STATUS.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT SIMON): My Lords, I wish to invite your Lordships' attention to a question which has arisen in consequence of the lamentable death in an air raid of a former member of your Lordships' House, the first Lord Stamp. Lord Stamp's eldest son, Mr. Wilfrid Stamp, was with his father at the time and was also killed at practically the same moment. Mr. Wilfrid Stamp has left a widow and three daughters, but no son; there can be no doubt, therefore, that the succession to the Stamp Peerage has passed to the second son of the first Lord Stamp, who was formerly known as Mr. Trevor Stamp, and he is in course of being summoned to your Lordships' House accordingly. The question arises, however, whether Mrs. Wilfrid Stamp and the daughters should be recognised as holding the status and title which would be proper if the elder son, Mr. Wilfrid Stamp, momentarily succeeded to his father's Peerage.
The Law of Property Act, 1925, by Section 184, provides that where two persons have died in circumstances rendering it uncertain which of them survived the other, such deaths shall
24
(subject to any Order of the Court) for ail purposes affecting the title to property be presumed to have occurred in order of seniority, and accordingly the younger shall be deemed to have survived the elder. Whether this statutory provision actually applies to the devolution of title to a Peerage may be doubtful, and it is beyond question that your Lordships' House, acting if necessary in the first instance through the Committee for Privileges, retains the right to determine whether a claim to Peerage is made out. I feel confident, however, that, if need arose, the Committee for Privileges would be guided by the analogy to be found in the Law of Property Act, and, of course, as your Lordships will have observed, the only question at issue here is as to the proper status and designation of these ladies, and there is no possible doubt as to who is the present holder of the Peerage.
The view which I have formed, after careful reflection, is that it is not necessary to ask the Committee for Privileges to investigate the claim made on behalf of these ladies, for I feel confident that the Committee would recommend the House to concede it. But I have thought it proper to report the matter to the House in the hope that I may have general concurrence in the course which I propose. This would be that the present holder of the title should be called to your Lordships' House as the third Lord Stamp—a course which will impliedly recognize that his elder brother momentarily held the title—and it will follow that these ladies will enjoy the status, style and title which they derive from their relationship with the new Peer's immediate predecessor.
I have done my best to ascertain the view of a number of leading members of the House who were available, and I understand that they concur in this proposal. In particular, among legal members of the House, my predecessors, Lord Hailsham and Lord Maugham, agree, as do also Lord Atkin, Lord Russell and Lord Wright, whom I have had the opportunity of asking. Further, I am authorized by His Majesty the King to inform your Lordships that, assuming that my proposal finds favour with your Lordships' House, His Majesty agrees, in view of the circumstances in which Lord Stamp met his death, that the procedure proposed would be appropriate.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, as Chairman of the Committee for Privileges of your Lordships' House, perhaps I may say one word. I find myself in entire agreement with what has fallen from the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack. As he has said, the usual practice is that these matters should be referred to the Committee for Privileges, but in this case it seems obvious that the Committee would be in favour of the course which the noble and learned Viscount recommends your Lordships' House to pursue. A Report Tom the Committee is, of course, made to this House, and this, when the House accepts it, amounts to a Resolution of the House. I understand that it is proposed, in order to put matters quite in order—this is the first time that a case of this kind has occurred—that there should at a subsequent date be an official Resolution which would put the matter on the same footing as the acceptance of a Report from the Committee for Privileges; but for my own part, and as Chairman of that Committee, I find myself in entire agreement with what has fallen from the noble and learned Viscount.
LORD ADDISON: My Lords, on behalf of those with whom I am associated I take the opportunity of saying that we entirely agree with the course proposed by the noble and learned Lord Chancellor, and hope that it will commend itself to your Lordships' House.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, on behalf of those who sit on these Benches with me I beg to express our concurrence with the course which the noble and learned Viscount has suggested. It seems to be the common-sense course to take, and I feel sure that your Lordships will agree to it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, perhaps it may be appropriate for another of your Lordships, and one who does not belong to the legal profession or occupy any official position in the House, either in office or in opposition, to say a word of concurrence with what the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack has proposed We all share very acutely in the sympathy aroused in the whole country by the death of the late Lord Stamp and the position in which his relatives have been placed by that de-
26
plorable event, and we are satisfied—I am quite sure that your Lordships are satisfied—that the course suggested by the noble and learned Viscount is the right one. I am glad, however, that my noble friend the Chairman of Committees has suggested to your Lordships that the decision implied by the speech of the noble and learned Lord Chancellor should be formulated in a Resolution. I am not a lawyer, but I do not think that the Statute to which reference has been made, and which applies to property, would affect the holding of a Peerage. At any rate, it is much better that the matter should be put beyond doubt, and the statement of the noble and learned Lord Chancellor, even though it commends itself, as I am sure that it does, to the universal concurrence of your Lordships, is not quite sufficient as an absolute formulation of the situation in which these ladies stand. It would be far better, therefore, that there should be a Resolution.
As the Chairman of Committees has said, the usual procedure would be to send it to the Committee for Privileges, but even the decision of the Committee for Privileges would not be conclusive. That would have to be finally sanctioned by a Resolution of your Lordships' House, and it is really the act of the House which is important and not anything else. I am therefore very glad indeed to hear that it is proposed that there should be a Resolution. I would ask the Leader of the House whether that is the decision of the Government, and if he himself will propose such a Resolution.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD MOYNE): My Lords, from what has fallen from various noble Lords, it is evident that the House is in full agreement with the course recommended by the Lord Chancellor. I am sure we are all very much indebted to the Lord Chancellor for the research and advice which he has been good enough to afford us. I certainly agree with the noble Marquess that the matter should be regularised by a Resolution of the House. I will therefore, before our next sitting, put on the Paper a recital of what the Lord Chancellor has suggested and move that that Resolution be adopted by the House, and that the Writ for the present Lord Stamp be issued to him as third holder of the Peerage.

MERCANTILE MARINE.
LORD MARCHWOOD LORD MARCHWOOD rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether in view of the paramount importance of the Mercantile Marine to the national well-being, both in times of war and peace, they will appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the conditions of service with a view to raising the status of the personnel and constituting the Mercantile Marine as one of the National Services of the country; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move the Motion that stands in my name, which is supported by my noble friends the Earl of Cork and Orrery and Lord Chatfield. In submitting this Motion I am encouraged to believe that I shall be strengthening the hands of the Government for a task of real national importance which lies before them and helping towards the realisation of an ideal repeatedly expressed by Ministers and members of all Parties and by thinking people in every walk of life. I trust I shall be able to prove to your Lordships that what I am asking for is a measure of justice and recognition for the officers and men of the Mercantile Navy, who are playing such a prominent and vital part in this war with a fearlessness and disregard of personal danger and hardships in keeping with the finest traditions of our great National Services. This is no question of politics or Party, nor is it personal or partisan, and I sincerely hope that it will raise no controversy in regard to industrial conditions, for that is the last thing we desire. I should very much like to emphasize that it is in no sense a move in favour of nationalization, nor is it a reflection on shipowners generally. We appreciate that a great many shipowners have played their part nobly, remunerated their officers and men on a scale which is in advance of the minimum laid down, and some on their own initiative instituted pension schemes prior to the Government taking action in this direction. Unfortunately a certain number still remain whose record, viewing it in the most favourable light, is very far from praiseworthy. This is, however, a nation-wide request made in the hope of securing for the officers and men of the Merchant Navy what is undoubtedly their due.
The Merchant Navy is an industry, and it is also in fact, if not in name, a National Service. We are asking the Government to
28
give it pride of place with our three armed Defence Services so that it may attain by right and title the dignity and status of a National Service. Not so long ago Mr. Bevin, Minister of Labour, stated that he wanted to see the day when a boy could enter the Merchant Navy with a complete career of sea service before him, with good pay and a pension at the end, with his accommodation worth while, and a feeling of pride in his craft. These sentiments have been consistently voiced by most of the responsible Ministers of the Crown. That is what we wish to see established and which, with good will, understanding, and the sinking of personal feeling on the part of all interests concerned, can quite easily be done. The changes aimed at would necessitate a certain amount of control of the entry and training of those intending to make their career in the Service, and it is quite possible and probable that some of the personnel of to-day resent intervention by any authorised control, disregarding the fact that, if better conditions obtain generally, the nation, the industry, and all connected therewith would automatically benefit to a considerable degree.
There are bound to be difficulties to be surmounted seeing that the suggested proposals affect conflicting interests and involve several Government Departments. It is for these reasons that we are asking that a Royal Commission should be appointed, quite apart from other important considerations which would have to be studied. This is a many-sided problem, and a very outstanding one. The Royal Commission would be in a position, and have the power, to take evidence from everybody concerned or interested. They could have submitted to them schemes, proposals, and suggestions so that they could study them. They could sift the evidence and arrive at a considered and, what is even more essential, a strictly impartial judgment based on a complete knowledge of all the facts. Critics may say that a Royal Commission is just a machine for delaying and shelving difficult questions, and this is doubtless true on occasions. If, however, the Government really desire it for the purpose for which we are asking—namely, to give the Commission every helpful advice and assistance and to function expeditiously—they can quite easily provide for that end.
This war has brought to this nation more than ever before a lively realization of the magnitude of the debt we owe to the Royal Navy. Is it, I wonder, always remembered, when we are voicing our thankfulness, that Great Britain has two Navies—the Royal Navy and the Merchant Navy? The former guards these islands, the latter feeds them. If Britain were not guarded by the Royal Navy she could not be fed by the Merchant Navy, and if she could not be fed by the Merchant Navy there would be little occasion for her to have to be guarded by the Royal Navy. Those two great Services function together. They are interdependent and complementary, and whilst we have nothing to reproach ourselves with in regard to the gratitude shown to the Royal Navy, unfortunately we cannot say the same regarding her Cinderella sister, the Merchant Navy. The National Maritime Board, a kind of joint industrial council of the shipping industry, have improved conditions of employment in the Merchant Navy in a good many directions, and that is all to the good Some of these improvements are war-time measures to meet the exigencies of the present situation, and to-day we ask the Government for an assurance that they will be made permanent so as to form a foundation upon which to build and improve after the war.
Investigations should and must be made how best to make the Service attractive from every point of view, so that our sea-minded youth will be encouraged to adopt it as a career in the sure knowledge that they will have continuous employment, adequate pay, and reasonable advancement and promotion, and pension rights when they retire. The training of boys who enter the Merchant Navy should be such as to allow them to advance in the Service by definite stages of training and instruction until they emerge fully qualified officers and seamen with a full sense of their responsibilities. It is felt that the Merchant Navy should have a uniform of its own which would be universally recognised. The standard uniform of the officers, as it exists to-day, is optional, and a great many of the liner companies do not even accept it. The Merchant Navy has a magnificent record of loyal and gallant service both in times of peace and war, and the daring deeds of
30
its personnel bear comparison with the glorious exploits which have so deservedly brought high awards for bravery to officers and men of the Royal Navy. Unfortunately, officers and men of the Merchant Navy are not eligible for these awards, neither is there any comparable distinctive decoration for them, and I sincerely hope that this anomaly will be investigated. I am sure any suggestion for a special gallantry award to the Merchant Navy would receive the warmest support and approval of the Senior Service.
The crippling effects of unfair foreign competition and the question of how best our Merchant Navy can be protected might also be examined. Shipowners can hardly be expected to meet this one-sided competition unaided, and at the same time carry out improvements to their ships and for their officers and men entailing, as they do, a very considerable expenditure. The outstanding importance of building the right type of cargo vessels has increased as regards design, tonnage and speed in replacing those lost by enemy action cannot be overstressed. Speaking recently to a Captain on active service in the Merchant Navy, I gathered that considerable doubt exists in the minds of a good many serving officers as to whether the most suitable vessels are being built both from the economic standpoint and the point of view of safety, and upon such a vital question as this surely the considered views of a Royal Commission would prove valuable and extremely helpful to the Government. I sincerely hope the Government will compare the help that a Royal Commission could give with what help could be given by the National Maritime Board, important as that Board is.
Our officers and seamen in the Battle of the Atlantic have been fighting against tremendous odds, with staggering losses in lives and tonnage. The risks they have run in convoy have been greatly increased for the reason that our Navy, since the last war, has been reduced in every class of ship. Many of the vessels employed in carrying cargoes to and from these shores are slow, unhandy, and very vulnerable to attack, and for a considerable space of time, for reasons that are outside our control, they were insufficiently equipped for their own defence. We had also surrendered our rights to the western approach ports of Ireland which, had we

31
not done that, would have provided useful protective bases for our anti-submarine vessels and aircraft. Furthermore, the enemy, with improved and deadlier war machines on, above and below the sea to aid them had the advantage, in their ruthless onslaughts to destroy our shipping and prevent foodstuffs reaching these shores, of command of the coast line from Norway to the Bay of Biscay. With all these risks these men have never faltered; with all these hardships they have never flinched. They take everything as part of their job, and are ready and willing to sacrifice themselves in the service of their country.
These are the men we are pleading for to-day in the hope of securing the rights to which they are entitled, and nothing should be allowed to stand in the way of this being done. Seldom have the Government been provided with a greater opportunity of doing the right thing. Seldom has a decision been awaited with keener interest, and the fact that a Motion has appeared on the Paper in another place, supported by one hundred elected representatives of the people, is surely an indication of how strongly this opinion is held. I trust that your Lordships to-day will let the world see that it has been agreed to set up machinery which will secure to the men of the Merchant Navy, who are prepared to give their all for the sake of the nation, the position and status they so richly deserve and to which they have so long aspired. I beg to move.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, I rise to support the Motion introduced in such eloquent terms by my noble friend, and, if I may say so, in such a very modest way, for he never hinted at the peculiar qualifications he possesses for addressing your Lordships with authority on this subject. He is a trained seaman, a certificated master mariner, and a master of the Order of Master Mariners. He therefore can speak with special authority on the views of that very important body of national servants. What he says upon this subject cannot be ignored, and he has put his arguments in such a comprehensive and convincing way that they really leave me very little to say. It will not be necessary therefore to occupy more than a few minutes of your Lordships' time.
32
Before making any further remarks I should like to emphasize that I am in no way connected with any interest concerned. My endeavour is to view the matter from the broadest possible point of view. I have no specific suggestions to make. My hope is that the Government will accede to this request for an inquiry to examine into all the many and varied problems of the Merchant Marine, with a view to finding out all that it is necessary to know and then to formulating a scheme whereby this indispensable Service can be put upon the footing it deserves with due regard for all the interests involved. The principle of an inquiry now into various matters with a view to having a plan ready to put into execution as soon as peace conditions return to us, and it is practicable to do so, has been accepted, and is being worked on in many directions; and I submit to your Lordships that in no particular case is it more necessary to be prepared than in the case of our Merchant Navy. Surely it is better to go into the subject now than to wait until that difficult time that lies ahead when the nation is gradually reverting from a war footing to a peace footing.
There would then always be the danger that legislation might be forced upon the Government and, without the necessary deliberation, some irrevocable steps might be taken to satisfy a popular outcry of the moment. There will be plenty of troubles in the period of transition without having one ready to hatch out at any moment in that very great essential to national recovery, the Merchant Navy. How much stronger would the position of the Government be if they had at their back the findings of an impartial and strong Committee, if they were pressed to bring in legislation or if they desired to introduce a change on their own account. When I say "now" I do not intend to convey the idea that I think such an inquiry could start next week or even next month. Time must be given for the various interests to marshal their facts and prepare their case; but the sooner they start doing that the sooner can we get down to the real work of preparing a scheme. It must be a lengthy business and I am optimist enough to believe that if we wish to have a scheme ready for the peace we should start as soon as possible, or we may be too late.

33
For several years prior to the war the shipping industry was in an unsatisfactory state. It hardly paid its way, if indeed it did pay its way. The personnel was for various reasons very discontented and dissatisfied with their lot, with the result that many fine seamen turned their backs on the sea and sought employment elsewhere; and lately we have been trying to drive them back. The number of ships decreased to a great extent—to a serious extent—and there was sometimes difficulty in finding efficient crews for the ships that remained. Ships that were built were not altogether satisfactory from the national point of view. One of the principal causes of this has undoubtedly been that the shipping industry has been looked upon by successive Governments as one industry among many, and insufficient attention has been paid to the fact that, although it is of course an industry, it is also a Service whose well-being is vital to the national prosperity whether in peace or in war.
To support the statement I have just made I would remind your Lordships that in 1933 a petition was presented to this House by the noble and gallant Earl, Lord Howe, praying for a public inquiry into the conditions of service of the certificated navigating and engineer officers of the Merchant Navy. Lord Howe produced ample evidence of the need for such an inquiry. The noble Lord who replied for the Government had the duty of conveying to the House an answer which had been drafted before the debate in your Lordships' House had taken place. I venture to hope that nothing of that sort will happen to-day. The answer refused an inquiry on the ground that—and I quote—"the petition was on behalf of only one section of the personnel engaged in the industry." The point was stressed that shipping was an industry and the speaker went on to say—and again I quote—"It would be a breach of policy to set up an inquiry when there was machinery of the joint industrial council type working effectively."This reference was of course to the National Maritime Board, and the answer indicated quite clearly that the question was looked upon as an industrial dispute to be settled within the industry and without bothering the Government.
It seemed that there was no realization that the Government had some responsibility to the nation to see that the certificated
34
officers were serving under conditions which would ensure an ample supply of navigating and engineer officers to our merchant ships. What was described as "one section of the personnel" was the body of men without whom the industry could not possibly function, a body indispensable to this country both under war and peace conditions. Surely the statesmanlike proceeding would have been to grant that inquiry and then to widen its terms of reference, so as to make quite sure that all was well with this indispensable Service in 1933, for in that year there were not lacking signs that we might again require every ton of shipping and every seafaring man we could lay our hands on. I do not mention that debate of 1933 in order to bring up old controversies, but to indicate the narrow view taken at that time of the position of the Merchant Navy in the national life. I submit that that view persisted right up to 1939. At any rate we had at the end of 1936 a leading shipowner declaring in protest that the Merchant Navy was not a mere sideline of British industry which could be left to its fate with no other result than financial loss. On the contrary, he said that "it was to Britain bone of her bone, and flesh of her flesh," and in speaking of the state of shipping at the time he declared that "what was required was a completely impartial and a painstaking diagnosis of the trouble." That, my Lords, is what we are asking for to-day.
It must be admitted that a good deal has been done since 1933 along the lines then suggested to better the position of the personnel of the Merchant Navy generally. Some of the steps, as my noble friend pointed out, were taken before the war and others have been introduced as "war measures." Are they to be perpetuated? What alterations will they want to suit altered conditions? I do not believe the fringe of the subject has yet been touched. Now under the influence of war, far from the certificated navigating and engineer officers being looked upon merely as a discontented section of the industry, they are lauded to the sky as the leaders of the men who are keeping our lifeline intact. The nation realize, and Hitler realizes, that if they fail in that duty our defeat is inevitable.
What those who ask for this inquiry hope to see is a comprehensive survey

35
upon which a plan can be formulated in which the dual rôle of the Merchant Navy will be fully recognized for all time—in war as indispensable to our national security, and in peace as an industry of the greatest importance to our well-being. There are many interests that want safeguarding and reconciling before a satisfactory solution can be arrived at, and no stronger argument can be urged in favour of an inquiry than the fact that those interests are often in conflict. For obvious reasons any recommendations as to change with a view of bringing all the interests into line had much better be made by an impartial body of men which has all the prestige, of a Royal Commission. There are those, as has been pointed out, who object to the term "Royal Commission." What's in a name? If we have a strong and impartial Committee I dare say that would satisfy my noble friend, so long as it is impartial and strong—impartial not only between sections of the industry but impartial as between the nation and the industry.
There are, of course, the interests of the owners and shareholders who very naturally want a return upon capital invested and time and trouble taken to secure results. Owners are responsible to their shareholders and, rightly and very naturally, wish to run their industry upon business lines. There are the interests of the officers and men who want proper conditions of service, and security of employment, the casual nature of which is at the present time one of their chief grievances. They want some assured provision for their later life if they serve well through a long term of years, or for their families if they die at sea; and they want protection against the bad employer, a type which still exists. There is nothing effective at the present time to ensure that a man who owns ships and employs British seamen is worthy of doing so. An extraordinary incident occurred during the Spanish Civil War which will be fresh in your Lordships' memory, showing what can go on under the Red Ensign. If I may I will give you one particular case which is perhaps the best example of things which can happen. It was that of a ship named the "Mirapanu" which was commanded by a Russian. The chief mate was a Rumanian, the second mate was a Greek,
36
and the crew were composed of Greeks, Rumanians and others. There was not one British subject on board. Yet that ship sailed the seas flying the Red Ensign and this country might have got into extreme difficulties over this bastard British ship. Surely the law that allows that to happen ought to be revised. I know it may be said that it is against the law; but it did happen.
Finally, transcending everything else, national interests require an ample supply of shipping of a suitable nature manned by well-trained, contented, efficient officers and men, ready in war to take their place in the first line of defence to which they undoubtedly belong, and in peace to play their part in retaining for us our lucrative and proud tradition of being, to use an old expression, "the wagoners of the sea." For what the nation wants it must of course be prepared to pay. It would be grossly unfair to saddle the industry with the expense of providing it. The Government would naturally have the responsibility of seeing that the nation got what it paid for, and the line of demarcation between industrial interests and national interests would have to be clearly drawn. If this inquiry is not held now, is it likely to be held when we have the inevitable slackening off after a long period of strain and effort? It will not. If history is any guide to the future it will be shelved along with other troublesome questions and the Merchant Navy will again have to taste the bitterness of being neglected by those they have never failed, who praised them when the country was in danger, and turned their backs when the danger was overcome. The granting of this inquiry by the Government, or the acceptance by your Lordships of this Motion—because I hope the noble Lord will carry the matter to a Division if he considers it advisable—will send a message of hope and encouragement to thousands of British sailors serving all over the world and giving devoted service to our cause and country.
LORD CHATFIELD: My Lords, I am very proud to support the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Marchwood. I believe that in bringing forward this Motion he has performed a national service. He speaks, as the noble Earl has just told you, as an old merchant seaman. I speak as one of the sister Service. I do not claim to speak for that Service, but what

37
I shall say is, I believe, fully representative of naval feeling. I know how proud the Royal Navy is that what is called the Battle of the Atlantic, but which is really a sea campaign, is being carried on by these two Services together. I know how proud the Royal Navy is of its comrades in the Merchant Navy with whom they have been carrying on the struggle now for nearly two years. There are two sides of this problem. In the first place there is the long-range problem, the problem of which the noble Lord has spoken, of the things which ought to be done as a permanency for the Merchant Navy, but which we can now only envisage, study and plan. Those things obviously cannot be carried out at the moment. On the other side, there are the problems which are immediate and which ought to be rectified now—the injustices that are going on of which the country is unaware.
As the noble Lord, Lord Marchwood, said, the two Services are sister Services. Indeed, they had a common origin—trading, and defending themselves in doing so. From time to time they have had to separate for technical reasons, but they have always remained one Service with a common task and a common responsibility—to defend the life of the people in these islands, and later of the Empire, in the system which we have built up for our livelihood and our happiness. Neither of them is of full value without the other, and yet, whereas the State—when it is in a wise mood—will take the Navy to heart and treat it as a vital necessity, and will spend annually many millions of the national income upon it, the other half of our maritime strength is allowed to shift for itself, and when danger comes the State hopes that all will be well and that somehow the Merchant Navy will muddle through gallantly, but under great handicaps as it did in the last war and is now doing in this war. What a wonderful thing it is, then, that our gallant merchants and our shipowners and our seamen have never failed us; that they have for many centuries built up the welfare and prosperity of these islands by their enterprise and courage and imagination.
We take all these things for granted in peace. We do not appreciate, nor does the public, the work of those who administer and conduct the Merchant Navy any
38
more than we think of the men who are working for them. We do not help them really, though we tried to do so in a half-hearted way some years ago, in their continual fight against foreign State-aided competition—those foreigners who are trying to drive us off the sea. It is surely in the interest of every citizen of the British Empire that our sea legs are not cut from under us. I am not one who believes that the Merchant Navy should be run by the State. No one who, like myself, has experienced the agonies of a fighting Service being looked after by the State, blowing hot and cold, according to the political atmosphere of the moment, and the convenience of the moment, can view with equanimity the prospect of the conduct of the Merchant Navy being turned over to Whitehall. It would be a terrible thought to me. Its independent responsibility, calling into its ranks the ablest very often of our great industrial leaders, has been typical of the adventurous spirit of the people of these islands which would never have resulted from State control.
As the noble Lord who moved this Motion said, there is no such suggestion in this Motion. Yet much too much is demanded of that leadership. If the Merchant Navy is to be efficient in peace for its normal work and yet able in war to come to the rescue of the country, then that Merchant Navy must be helped by the State, not half-heartedly, but wholeheartedly. Ships which are built purely for economic trading are not likely to be built as the best ships to fight against submarines. Those freighters which are the backbone of our Imperial life have a lack of speed which really is quite pathetic, and it is a serious handicap to the Royal Navy in protecting them from the violence of the enemy. It really is pathetic to feel that at this day, in 1941, we are building ships, the majority of which cannot go at more than about ten knots, which means that when you are in convoy—and you can never steam a convoy at the full speed of a merchant ship—the speed of the convoy is little more than seven knots. It is the more regrettable when you come to think what modern machinery can do at the present time. When, for instance, a few years ago we re-engined and re-boilered a battle cruiser after twenty years, the result of putting in modern machinery was that we saved

39
2,400 tons weight. That is an example of what a wonderful advance modern marine engineering shows. And yet, in these days, the merchant ship is steaming about the ocean at a speed which really was obtainable thirty or forty years ago.
There ought to be the fullest inquiry into this question as to whether we cannot build merchant ships which can steam, as foreign merchant ships do, at an adequate speed, and at the same time can be economical for trading purposes. I, personally, believe that they can. I raised this question before the war when I was serving the State. I moved with the Board of Trade and with the Admiralty, but nothing could be done. You never can get anything done about the Merchant Navy because there are so many people who are interested and who have conflicting views. This is one of the reasons, as Lord Marchwood has pointed out, why we want a Royal Commission. But you cannot expect a shipowner to devote his money to building, so that the State shall not fail in war, ships which he feels will not be so economical to him for ordinary trading purposes. If the ships are lost, if the cargoes and the crews go to the bottom, it is not so much the owners' loss in war, it is a national disaster. And yet if the shipowner does spend his money in trying to be wise with a view to the possibility of war, and to ensure, so far as he can, that his ships will be fast enough and strong enough and appropriately constructed to mount guns, and that the crews will be trained in the innumerable weapons which the merchant ship now has to use to defend herself against attack by aircraft, submarines and so on, then that money must come out of what he has available for improving the lot and the accommodation and the welfare of his men.
It is quite wrong that this, which is largely a financial problem, should fall on these private individuals, good as they may be. A great responsibility rests on the Government to see that our merchant ships when built, in peace-time as in war, are all that they should be, and that their crews are recognized both in peace and war for what they are, as we honour them with our lips now. It is a responsibility that the State has dangerously neglected. As I have said, when the Royal Navy was neglected how could you expect money to be devoted to the Merchant Navy?
40
It was impossible even to imagine it being done three or four years ago. Well, when we get safely through this storm the same counsel will assuredly prevail unless public opinion, based on public education in the problem, is brought to bear on the Government and on Parliament.
Now, I wish to turn to a side of the matter which is more urgent, and, to me, is more distressing. That is the side of the problem which deals with the lot of the merchant seamen in war. Do you know how much our war effort is handicapped by the unfair treatment which the State gives to these merchant seamen now? They fight daily side by side with men of the Royal Navy. Wherever there is a convoy to bring in our food and supplies, and wherever there is a convoy to take our troops or their supplies into a war theatre, there the officers and men of the Royal Navy and the Merchant Navy have equal risks. They suffer equally from the violence of the enemy, and the losses in the Merchant Navy are certainly as great as in the Royal Navy. But when they return to port under the Red Ensign, what then? Do they get the privileges which the State organizes for the men of the Royal Navy? No, indeed, they are treated quite differently. They are not granted equal status commensurate with the equal risks they run. They are not recognized in port as brave men ought to be recognized. Take the case of men of the Royal Navy and the Merchant Navy serving in the same ship. Perhaps together they man the same gun under the Red Ensign. Now suppose they survive the loss of that ship. What is the treatment of those two classes of men when they come ashore? It is quite different. Let me quote you a few cases in point. I could quote many but here is one that is typical. It is not an exceptional case, not a case which will stir you; as I say it is simply one which is typical of many.
A ship was mined near a naval port and the crew of eleven, including three naval survivors, took to a raft. This is what the Chief Officer said:
"We had two men, merchant seamen, badly injured. We all suffered from exposure. A naval motor launch came to our rescue and picked us up. The two wounded men slid off the raft and would have been drowned, but a naval Sub-Lieutenant dived in and rescued them and they received every naval attention. We were taken to a small harbour where we transferred to a smaller vessel. Some

41
of us were then transferred to another motor launch. Unfortunately, they seemed to forget us then, and we were left standing two hours on deck without any attention. Eventually we arrived in a dockyard port. There was a telegraph office there and we asked for permission to send messages to our people to tell them that we were safe. This was refused, at which we were rattier annoyed. Eventually we were taken to hospital."
Then there are complaints of the treatment in the hospital.
He goes on
"We left the second mate and three other naval survivors on the first motor launch. I have since seen the second mate and I am told they were also taken to the dockyard port. On arrival, the commander of the motor launch sent the three naval ratings to the naval hospital, and said he much regretted that, as the second mate was a Merchant Navy man, he could do nothing for him, and he advised him to go and try to find the Seamen's Mission. The second mate made his way ashore and was stopped ay a policeman, who inquired his business in the dockyard. When he told him, the policeman said, 'It is not a mission you want, but a hospital,' and so eventually he was brought to the same hospital as the others."
You observe, my Lords, the entirely different treatment in principle of those two sides of our maritime strength—the Navy man and the merchant seaman.
I could tell you of another case, but I shall mention it only briefly, because I have already called the attention of the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, to it. I want to mention it, however, as a matter of principle. An enemy raider captured a large number of British merchant ships, taking their crews—mostly merchant seamen and officers, but including a certain number of naval men—prisoner. Eventually this raider was captured by us and the prisoners were brought on shore at a Colonial port. When they came on shore, the naval men were very well looked after, but the several hundred merchant seamen were left largely to shift for themselves. They were taken to a town where no one showed the slightest interest in them. I was told this story by the representative of one of our charitable missions abroad; luckily he was there and was able to give them the sympathy, the care and the medical attention that a great many of them needed. I could tell you many other stories—stories of merchant seamen arrested on board a man-of-war, after they had been rescued from a marine tragedy, because they might have seen some secret on board, and so on.
42
The reason why these things happen is that the men of the Merchant Navy are treated in the same way as ordinary civilians. I should be the last to disparage the ordinary civilian; no one is more gallant than he. After all, however, the worst sufferers among our civilian population have to endure the brutality of the enemy only for a few days in the year, whereas the whole time that a merchant seaman is at sea he is in danger. If his ship is torpedoed there is no ambulance with a lady driver waiting to take him to hospital, there arc no kind people to nurse and comfort him. He has to go in a boat, perhaps in half a gale of wind, and trust to luck ever to get home again at all. That is the lot of the merchant seaman, and it is wrong that when he comes on shore he should be treated as if he were an ordinary man in the street. After all, we expect these men to go on doing their work.
Not only are the merchant seamen not given the privileges which naval men have of free tobacco and cigarettes and free postage of letters, but they are not given cable facilities, and the Service canteens, which are so important to seamen, are not open to merchant seamen unless they are in uniform. The question of uniform for the Mercantile Marine is not in a very satisfactory condition; there is a uniform, but it is optional and it has to be paid for by the men. The vast majority of the men do not have it; they have a small badge with the letters "M.N." on it which they can wear in their coat, but they consider that this is ineffective and is an inadequate symbol of what they are and of what they are doing for the country. Sometimes they turn it upside down so that it reads "N.W.", which they think better exemplifies what they are—"Not Wanted." As I have said, men of the Royal Navy and of the Merchant Navy may serve side by side in the same ship and fight the same gun, but whereas the naval man gets a Service steel helmet and a Service respirator, the merchant seaman has no steel helmet and has a civilian respirator. There is a great deal to be said in time of war for treating the Merchant Navy in exactly the same way as the Royal Navy in these matters, and I am not at all sure that they should not be put under the White Ensign. However, that is a different question.
I now come to a question on which I touch with some diffidence, that of

43
honours. The men of the Merchant Navy who serve under the Red Ensign are given civil honours for their gallantry, but if they serve under the White Ensign, under what is called a T.124 contract, they are eligible for naval honours. That seems a little odd in time of war. No fewer than 900 civil honours have been awarded to the officers and men of the Merchant Navy, and if I had time I could tell you what they were; 500 of them have been commendations for brave conduct. Under the White Ensign they have had 132 Service honours, including one Albert Medal. Those numbers are a guide to their heroism; but, although I know how proud they are of their civil honours, and especially of the Order of the British Empire, I do not feel it is right that there should be two different types of honour for men doing exactly the same work under the same conditions. It used to be argued that if merchant seamen were given a uniform and were given naval honours they might be treated as belligerents, but surely the day is past when that need worry the State, for if the merchant seaman is not a belligerent I should like to ask who is! Does the German submarine commander treat the merchant seaman as a non-belligerent? It is purely an academic and an ancient point, but it rules in Whitehall at the present time—the idea that certain things must not be done or the merchant seaman will be made a belligerent.
The State should recognise the Merchant Navy man, as far as it is in his interest, as a fighting man, with all the privileges in war that the title implies. That is what we want done and, if it is done, then, as the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, has said, there is nowhere where it will be more whole-heartedly welcomed than in the Royal Navy. I know that the officers and men of my Service feel that much more ought to be done for the men of the Merchant Navy, and that it ought to be done now, at this moment. I hope that the noble Lord who is going to reply will give us an assurance that it is going to be done now and not put off until a later date. There is also the question of the clothing and the medical attention which these men receive. I should like to ask the noble Lord who is going to reply whether he is satisfied with the circumstances of our merchant seamen who are prisoners of
44
war and who are interned. I am not satisfied; I do not believe that they receive the same privileges from the enemy or from neutral countries in which they are interned as do the officers and men in uniform of the Royal Navy, even when they have been captured on the same merchant ship.
This Motion, as I have said, is an appeal for public education on the Merchant Navy. Now is the time, when our minds are attuned, our backs bent to the strain, when the danger is imminent, and while we have not only the inclination but plenty of time. We can devote just as much thought to looking after the future of British life at sea as we are preparing to do to looking after the comforts and happiness of British citizens on land when the war is over. After all, what is Lord Reith doing with his vast organization? He is planning to rebuild our cities. That seems to us who live in them to be very important. There are many other Committees, I believe, who are, quite rightly, working out how we are going to develop the national life on an improved basis when the war is over. What we ask is that now, at the same time, you should work out in exactly the same way, in the same spirit, in the same good will, what is going to be the life of the British seamen at sea after the war.
I do not know, myself, whether a Royal Commission is the best and most rapid way to do justice and to lay the foundations for a wider future, but if there is a better way that will give the nation confidence, then let us be told what is is. The matter is urgent, and there is a vast number of people interested. If I had told you these stories in the first three months of the war, and if these things that now exist, these handicaps to the merchant seamen, had only happened at the beginning of the war, you might very well have answered, "We are very sorry to hear these things, but we will see that they are put right." But these things have happened, and are happening, when we have been at war for two years. What confidence can we have if it is stated, "We will put all that right"? It will not be put right, because there are too many conflicting interests, too many—not less than twenty—different organisations, State Departments, trade unions, ship-owning organisations, charitable institutions, and

45
so on, all interested in this vast and most difficult problem. If it is suggested that these things can wait until peace, then, as the noble Earl also said, I do not agree that that would be a satisfactory solution.
During the last war exactly the same things were said about the Merchant Navy as are being said to-day, and we were told "when the war is over all that will be put right." Was it? No, very little was done until quite recently. I know what the National Maritime Board, the Ministry of Labour, and the Admiralty have done in order to try and improve the lot of the men on our ships, but what has been done is not enough. We have no guarantee that it is going to last because it has been done nolens volens, because it is a war necessity, and if they did not do something they were not going to get the men to man our merchant ships at all. It is no good a number of old gentlemen sitting round a table and saying, "I suppose we must do something for the Merchant Navy." That is not the way to do things. We do not want only action from the head, we want action from the heart. We want a sense, certainly, of overwhelming gratitude to these men. We want a Commission which will act with some sense of shame for past neglect by the State of an important duty. But what we want more than anything else is the determination to put things right.
I believe that the country is unaware of such things of which I have spoken, and will not be satisfied by any evasive treatment of this problem. Some things can and will, no doubt, be done locally with good will—that is to say, to remedy the very bad state of affairs that exists in many respects in our great ports, Mersey-side, Tyneside, South Wales, and so on. But that is not enough. We want a full and practical recognition by the whole Empire of what the Merchant Navy means to it, in peace and in war, so as to raise the whole status of that great Service, to help the shipowner and their men, not only in their interests, but in the abiding interests of the whole Empire. We must spend the money that is necessary—that awful question of spending money which is so difficult to get! How ponderous is the weight on that Treasury chest which can only he lifted by innumerable hands! We want to get these innumerable hands from the whole country, so that they will
46
lift open the chest, and let the Merchant Navy have every year, as has the Royal Navy, some financial support to help it to carry out the improvement of its ships and also to improve the lot of the personnel.
I should like to see this uniform question dealt with most seriously and immediately. I do implore your Lordships to take that problem seriously now. This is a uniform age. Everybody wears uniform. What do we not do as a State for our civil defence workers? They are all given uniforms. The recruit who joins the Army or the man who joins the Home-Guard is given uniform. Every municipality has its workers in uniform, every bus conductor, every transport worker on shore, wears uniform. When the Merchant Navy transport worker who has ploughed the sea comes ashore in a suit of plain clothes is he likely, in these days, to be treated with the respect he deserves? He is not. The State should give him uniform and pay for it, and do it now. That is a vital necessity, I hope that the wise and proper treatment of the Merchant Navy will be made one of our proudest memories, and will remain a monument to those who have perished at sea that the nation may continue to exist.
LORD MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships more than a few moments, but I desire to say, speaking for myself, and I believe for those on these Benches, that we entirely support the demand for action, and action now, to redress some of the grievances referred to by Lord Cork on a previous occasion and again to-day, and now by Lord Chatfield. We are grateful to Lord Marchwood for having brought this matter forward. No man can speak with greater authority than he on the Merchant Navy. I want to clear up a misunderstanding with my noble friend on this matter. He proposes a Royal Commission and a State Service. I should myself doubt very much, if you want immediate action, whether either of these ways is the way to get it. For my part, feeling very strongly on this matter as I do, and in the circumstances of my life being in constant touch with officers and men of the Merchant Navy, if the noble Lord, Lord Leathers, replying for the Government, says, "I shall not do anything now, but you will have a Royal Commission and we shall call it a State

47
Service," I should vote against the Motion. If, on the other hand, he says, "I cannot agree to a Royal Commission, and the question of a State Service is a little complicated, but I will act now," I shall vote for it. I think a great many of us take that view.
My noble friend Lord Marchwood will forgive my saying so, but a Royal Commission is not the way to get action. The matter is too urgent. I gather that Lord Chatfield takes the same view. My noble friend (Lord Marchwood) nods his head, so we are all at one. It is really very wrong that these anomalies should continue. Your Lordships will remember the occasion when Lord Cork raised the question—it seems a small detail—of the treatment of sailors of the Mercantile Marine as compared with the treatment of men of the Navy in hospitals. There was an inequality there, and we all felt that it was unfair. I remember that my noble friend Lord Crewe said that he thought a thing like that ought not to continue. I do not know how far that has been put right; perhaps Lord Cork will tell us if it has. But other inequalities continue to exist. That has been dramatically, and indeed tragically, shown by what Lord Chatfield has said to us today. It is quite clear that in matters of this kind the Royal Navy and the Mercantile Marine should be treated absolutely on an equivalent basis, and that I think this House is entitled to demand. The treatment may not be exactly the same, but it must be as fair to the one as to the other. We know from both noble Lords who have spoken that the Royal Navy themselves are anxious—even passionately anxious they have told me—that these inequalities should be removed.
Most of the grievances which undoubtedly exist, have already been referred to. For instance, there is a matter of uniforms. In that, as in the question of whether the Merchant Navy should be a State Service, I think one of the first questions to be decided is: Do they want it? If they do, they ought to have a uniform. I think they certainly ought to have a uniform if they want it. As to honours, the noble Lord, Lord Chatfield, speaks upon that matter with greater authority than anyone else. Surely there should be equal opportunities of honour for merchant seamen as for men in the
48
Royal Navy. There can be no justification for differentiating adversely against the merchant seamen.
LORD CHATFIELD: May I interrupt for a moment only to say that when the noble Lord contends that they should not be treated adversely as regards honours, I would not like it to be thought that I would put the civil honours on a lower status than the Service honours? On the contrary, I think they are equal. The point I was more at pains to make was that it was inconsistent and typical of the system by which we run the two Services that they should have different honours, not that I say that seamen would rather have the fighting honours than the civilian. My point was that both are of equal grandeur, honour and importance to their recipients.
LORD MOTTISTONE: I quite understand, but what the noble Lord objects to is this differentiation. Of course, if the men of the Merchant Navy like what they get now just as much as what they would get, cadit quœstio; but if they do feel, as I gather they do, that they are in a sense adversely treated, then I think that matter ought to be put right. The point I was coming to was the question of security of tenure for the merchant seamen and of pension. I am sure that we ought to take action on these points. There is a deep sense of grievance on the part of the Mercantile Marine that, whereas if they were in the Royal Navy they would have a pension and various advantages, in the Mercantile Marine, in some cases, there are none of these things. When they are no longer wanted they are cast away like an old shoe. That does happen, and it is all wrong. The men to whom we owe so much ought not to be in that position.
Now the plea that I would make—and I think I speak for my noble friends on this Bench—is that the Government, if I may respectifully say so, should put that right by saying, "We do not want a Royal Commission now in war-time." I would like them to say quite frankly: "We do admit that we have not realized, until these speeches were made by noble Lords who know the case so well, that there was this grave disparity of treatment. We did not realize fully in our busy lives that there was this great discontent amongst the men to whom we owe so much, and we will, to use Lord Chatfield's phrase, take action now wherever we see a grievance

49
and remove it, and we promise to do that now." I hope and pray that the Government may give us an assurance of that kind, and that this time action will be taken forthwith.
LORD THURLOW: My Lords, having for forty years followed, as the main interest of my life, the work of the Merchant Navy, I venture on behalf of its members to express my view that this Motion will be accepted gratefully by many. When forty years ago I want out to the Pacific coast it was in the days of sail, and the conditions of a merchant sailor were probably as bad as anything you can imagine. The masters did their very best to make them better. The coming of steam, of course, has changed matters., and it has been a great joy to me to follow the careers of boys whom I knew as apprentices, on the Pacific coast of North and South America, and who rose to eminence in their profession in the last Great War. Some of them are holding posts of great importance in the present war.
I do feel that what is essential at the present moment is that there should be some guarantee of continuity of service when the war is ever. That has been urged by the mover of this Motion. I remember so well how, after the last war, sailors were turned adrift. Firemen, owing to oil being used instead of coal, were in many cases thrown on the streets. All that the public had been so keen to know during the war was forgotten as we passed into twenty years of peace. Now, in the middle of a greater war, it is essential that we should see something done. A Royal Commission may take time to examine the many points brought up by different interests, but continuity of service, proper pay, proper facilities for leave and proper opportunities for a crew to be found to look after the ships while the men are on leave, would do something to mitigate the circumstances which are likely to arise. I do not want to say more, but I would assure your Lordships that many officers and men in the Merchant Navy to-day, who are known to me, will be watching eagerly to see what comes of this debate and will be grateful to Lord Marchwood for having raised this matter.
LORD WRIGHT: My Lords, I hesitate to intervene in this discussion because I do not profess an intimate or a personal knowledge of the seafaring conditions or
50
the seafaring industry, nor can I speak with the authority of the two noble and gallant Lords who have discussed in the most generous way the disparities, the anomalies, and grievances that they have observed in the treatment of merchant seamen. It is very fine to see that there is so little jealousy—no jealousy at all, but only the most generous admiration and sympathy, with which everyone here will fully sympathize, for the noble, devoted, gallant and often—perhaps always—inadequately rewarded efforts and sacrifices of the merchant seaman. I have no special knowledge of seafaring life, except such indications as I have discovered during the many years of my professional life at the Bar which were largely concerned with matters of shipping and maritime affairs. But I have had the opportunity of discussing this Motion with the important body which represents the officers and which has considered this Motion very fully in co-operation with the Seamen's Union. As your Lordships' know, there are two great unions in the shipping industry. Apart from the Shipping Federation, which is the union of the shipowners, there is the Officers (Merchant Navy) Federation and there is the Seamen's Union. They have, I believe, more or less in agreement, considered this Motion and what should be said about it. I understand that my noble friend Lord Strabolgi will follow me shortly and will deal with the matter particularly from the point of view of the Seamen's Union; but I understand—I may be wrong—that there is no real difference between them.
Now, the real question here, and the only question which is immediately relevant, is whether here and now there should be a Royal Commission appointed in the terms asked for in the Motion of the noble Lord who has raised the question. On that the attitude which I confess appeals to me is this, that there is no benefit now to be derived from the appointment of a Royal Commission. This debate, as it has progressed, has covered a wide area—a rather wider area than perhaps some of us contemplated—and I myself feel that it is a debate which is a real and vital contribution to the future well-being of the shipping community. It has elicited instances and comments on various matters which call for redress and remedy, and in that respect whatever follows from this debate

51
cannot be otherwise than of the greatest value. It would be very unfortunate if anything were to be said or done in this House which would seem to indicate the slightest lack of sympathy or lack of consideration for the noble seamen who are risking their lives in this war in following the sea. But, as I say, the practical question is whether here and now a Royal Commission should be appointed.
Most of the matters which have been referred to by the noble Lords who have so eloquently dealt with the topics are rather matters of administration than anything else, and it may well be that what has been said here may lead to some administrative measures earlier than otherwise would have happened. But the trades union with which I have had the advantage of discussing this question are really apprehensive that the appointment of a Royal Commission now would impede and delay the process of amelioration and of the rectification of the conditions of the Service which are now being pursued by the negotiating machinery set up and now in force between employers and employed—the National Maritime Board. The Board comprises the officers' and seamen's organizations and the shipowners' organizations. It is a sort of Whitley Council aimed at advancing the interests of the calling, dealing with shipping interests of every kind. They quite appreciate, as everybody appreciates, that great errors were committed, great mistakes were made, and there was great remissness in dealing with the Mercantile Marine in the period after the war. It is to be hoped that similar mistakes will not be repeated this time.
That being the position, I shall turn myself for the moment into the mouthpiece of the Officers' Federation who, as I say, are satisfied with the negotiating machinery—except that the shipmasters feel that they are not sufficiently represented on their panel on the Board—and I shall, in their own words, state the position which they desire to put forward. They say:
"While they believe there are many matters requiring speedy rectification in the conditions under which our gallant merchant officers and seamen are serving to-day, they believe that the present negotiating
52
machinery, suitably improved to ensure the complete representation of all organised seafarers"—
and they specially refer there, I think, to the masters—
"is well able to deal with these matters. They do not oppose the Motion before the House, but they feel that the situation would be better met if the Government gave a definite promise that the affairs of British seafarers will be officially inquired into immediately upon the termination of hostilities"—
they do not want matters to drift into obscurity, as after the last war—
"and a definite promise that no hindrances shall be put in the way of further improvements in conditions of service during this war and a promise that a deterioration of conditions shall not be permitted after the war. Because of the difficulties in holding a Royal Commission on a matter of this kind in wartime and of its slow procedure they do not support the Motion."
I feel that that is a very intelligible attitude which they adopt, and I shall be content to leave the matter there.
Before I sit down may I observe that my noble friend Lord Sempill, who has been sitting beside my during the debate, has been urgently called away and he asks me to say on his behalf that he supports the Motion which the noble Lord has advanced.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Leathers, has been under very heavy fire from my noble friend Lord Marchwood and the two noble and gallant Lords who have addressed your Lordships with such vigour. I feel some sympathy not only for the officers and seamen of the Mercantile Marine, who I am sure are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Marchwood, for his continued interest in their welfare, but also for the noble Lord, Lord Leathers. He is suffering for the sins of previous Governments. He has only just assumed high office as Minister of War Transport, and therefore he is Minister of Shipping. In the past, in spite of many pleas from many authoritative quarters, we have muddled along with the Board of Trade looking after twenty different departments, and without a separate Ministry of Shipping. If the course urged by the National Union of Seamen after the last war of setting up a separate Ministry had been followed, many things about which there is now complaint would not have been so badly managed.

53
I think the indictment of my noble and gallant friend Lord Chatfield was damning. I should hate to be a Minister and hear such things said. We know they are well founded. They are on the lines we have heard for a long time. Some of the things referred to by the noble and gallant Lord could be put right by the Minister of Shipping at once, and if that has not been done by the time the House reassembles I hope the noble Lords will return to the charge. As I have said, I sympathize with the noble Lord, Lord Leathers, who is suffering for the sins of his predecessors. We ought to have had a Minister of Shipping or a Minister of Marine long ago. That brings me to a matter which has not yet been mentioned, although I am sure it must have been in the mind of my noble friend Lord March-wood, and that is the case of the deep-sea fishermen. They are under the Ministry of Agriculture, and have been one of the most neglected of all national interests. I do not know whether even now my noble friend Lord Leathers has any jurisdiction over them. He shakes his head, so I take it that he has not. The Mercantile Marine is of the greatest importance, but I am sure the two noble and gallant Lords who have spoken will agree that without the deep-sea fishermen the country would be in a very serious difficulty. They are as essential to-day, for the defence of the country, as the Mercantile Marine and His Majesty's Fleet.
When this Motion was put on the Paper, I was asked by my noble friend Lord Addison to speak to it on behalf of the Labour party. As the noble and learned Lord who has just spoken remarked, the National Union of Seamen take a definite attitude towards this Motion. As my noble and learned friend said, it does not differ in essence from that of the organization which speaks for the officers of the Mercantile Marine. They appreciate the interest of the noble Lord who put this Motion on the Paper, and I am sure that the attitude of your Lordships' House in the debate will be highly valued, but they feel that a Royal Commission at the present time would not serve the purpose that is intended. They recall that a Royal Commission was set up in the past to consider the position of the Mercantile Marine and that some of the findings and recommendations of that Royal Commission were not put into force for forty years. They are afraid that the
54
same sort of thing would happen again. The National Union of Seamen is affiliated to the Party for which I have the honour to speak, and on all matters affecting the Mercantile Marine members of the Labour Party naturally give a great deal of weight to the views of that union. Ever since I entered another place as member for a great seafaring constituency I have worked in close collaboration with the National Union of Seamen, and I have the highest respect not only for the officials at headquarters but for the local representatives of the union in the ports who have had a long uphill fight during the lean years of trade depression and unemployment.
I am advised—and I am sure that the advice is sound—that a great deal could be done by the Minister of Shipping now without legislation to put right grievances felt by officers and men of the Merchant Navy which have been described so graphically by the two noble and gallant Lords who have spoken. I am sure my noble friend Lord Leathers must burn in his heart with shame that he should represent a Ministry which could be accused of allowing such neglect, because the neglect has been great and there is no excuse for it. That is as regards immediate grievances. The question of uniform I understand is highly controversial. Many men in the Mercantile Marine want to get out of uniform when they are on shore. My noble and gallant friends will remember that when we were serving officers we were glad to get out of uniform on shore, and I am informed that that feeling still prevails among merchant seamen. As I say it is a controversial matter, but I do not think that the man who elects to wear uniform should have to provide it out of his own pocket. Surely the State should provide such men with uniform just as the men who wear the King's uniform are provided with it at the public expense.
LORD CHATFIELD: Would my noble friend allow me to interrupt for a moment on this point? As he says, when we were boys we liked to get out of uniform when on shore, but that was not for the same reason that the men of the Merchant Navy have. The point is that their uniform is not a national uniform. It is not recognized and it does not carry the weight in the public mind that it should carry. That is the reason why they do not want

55
to wear it on shore. In the case of the officers, I am told that they only get third-class travelling warrants, and they do not want to travel in uniform in the same carriage as ordinary seamen because they think it is bad for discipline.
LORD STRABOLGI: My noble and gallant friend need not apologise for interrupting me. I welcome his interruptions, especially when they are so much to the point. At any rate, the question of uniform is certainly a very difficult one. My noble and gallant friend spoke of the time when we were boys, but I think when we were older men we still had this same feeling. He is sufficiently a historian to remember why that feeling arose. At one time the Navy was so unpopular during the Napoleonic wars that it was not safe to wear the King's uniform in public in the streets of London. That consideration, of course, does not apply to-day, but the tradition remains. The inclination of merchant seamen has been to get into plain clothes when on shore and some of the men obviously do not want to have uniforms, but in any case if uniforms are provided they should be provided at the public expense. These are matters which, as I say, could be dealt with administratively at once.
What of the future, because that is really what the noble Lord, Lord March wood, has in mind? He does not want the Mercantile Marine to be praised as it was during the last war and then forgotten and neglected as it was after the last war. The National Union of Seamen are alive to this danger and they feel that if future policy is not agreed before the end of the war—which may come sooner than many people think; we are living in very funny times—then the whole matter would be shelved in the confusion of post-war problems. For that reason they are to-day engaged in discussions with the employers on plans for the postwar Mercantile Marine. It is to be hoped that these discussions will lead to really good suggestions. But my general information points to two main reforms which are certainly needed. A generally held grievance—I am not now speaking so much of the officers as of the seamen, firemen, stewards and so on—concerns the accommodation and living amenities especially on board smaller ships, ships of
56
the tramp class or small intermediates and the like. Messing and cooking arrangements, for example, are greatly in need of improvement. The Mercantile Marine has not kept pace with the Royal Navy in messing arrangements, as my noble and gallant friends know. There really is great room for improvement there. What is suggested is, that after the war, when and if it is the Board of Trade which again has the Mercantile Marine under its tender and neglectful care, or to-day when the Minister of War Transport is responsible, when plans with regard to new merchant ships are being passed, as they have to be passed, by the appropriate Department, the officers and seamen's organizations should, as a statutory right, be consulted with regard to that part of the building plans dealing with the men's living conditions and accommodation. That I believe would do a great deal to effect improvement.
Though these things could be put before a Royal Commission, such matters, as I say, might be dealt with by an Amending Bill to the Merchant Shipping Acts which could be introduced now to be effective, perhaps in certain cases, after the war. I have ventured to suggest that to Lord Leathers, that a start might be made right away, that his draftsmen might at once begin examining the whole question of an Amending Bill to the Merchant Shipping Acts. I do not see any reason why they should not. Parliament, I am told, has not a great deal to do at the present time, and I do not see any reason why a Bill should not be introduced and thoroughly thrashed out in both Houses.
A second reform has been referred to by several noble Lords and I was asked particularly to stress it. It is what I may call the decasualisation of seagoing labour. It has been mentioned by the noble Lord opposite who spoke before Lord Wright. The position in peace time is that a ship comes into port and when she has berthed the men have to go ashore and they are left unemployed, without pay or anything else, until their services are wanted again. This has been one of the causes of trouble in the Mercantile Marine for many years now. But there again it is a difficult trouble to remedy. The seaman, I am sure, is quite right, and I will always support him, in insisting on the right of choice of ship. He has not the same safeguards that the Naval Discipline Act gives to the naval rating. A tyrannical

57
mate, who takes a dislike to a seaman, can make his life a hell at sea, and the man has no remedy such as a bluejacket would have in one of His Majesty's ships. In such a case, therefore, he wants the right, when his vessel has berthed, of seeking another ship. That I think is a safeguard which seamen should have and I shall always support them in their demand for it.
Whatever else he has done, my noble friend Lord Marchwood can congratulate himself on having, as I believe, performed a great service for the Mercantile Marine by putting this Motion on the Paper and enabling your Lordships to hear the speeches given before I ventured to address you. Although for the reasons upon which I have touched there are questions as to the value of a Royal Commission at the present time, everyone with the welfare of seamen at heart, and that includes the whole nation to-day, must feel gratitude to the noble Lord.
LORD AILWYN: My Lords, there is very little which I can usefully add after hearing the remarkable speeches made today in your Lordships' House, but I should like, as a serving officer, to pay my own small tribute to the incomparable work of the Mercantile Marine and to give the Motion of my noble friend my unqualified support. I do feel that, as other noble Lords have said, the country as a whole is very much inclined to take the achievements of our merchant seamen as a matter of course. I can only say that the Royal Navy is certainly fully alive to and conscious of the gallantry, the steadfast endurance, the selfless devotion and the singleness of purpose with which that grand brotherhood, the Mercantile Marine, quietly, calmly, unobtrusively and ceaselessly carry on their work by day and by night in fair weather and foul, in every part of the world. Any discrimination that may exist between the treatment meted out to the Merchant Navy and that meted out to the Royal Navy is distasteful and unwelcome, and should be ruthlessly swept away. For these reasons, and for many others, I should like to give the strongest support to the Motion of the noble Lord. Whether it is a Royal Commission or some other form of inquiry that is set up is not a matter with which I am concerned, nor do I care. But I do feel that some inquiry should be instituted forthwith into the conditions of the Mer-
58
cantile Marine, that great Service with which the Royal Navy is inexpressibly proud to be so closely associated.
THE MINISTER OF WAR TRANSPORT (LORD LEATHERS): My Lords, I have the honour of addressing your Lordships for the first time. I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving me the opportunity of paying tribute to the work of the officers and the men of the Merchant Navy. There is no need for me to stress to your Lordships how much of our food, our military equipment and our raw materials reaches us from overseas. In addition we have to maintain large and growing forces in distant parts of the world. All this depends on the Merchant Navy. Without the determination and courage of the merchant seamen, our armed forces could not keep the field nor could our people live. It is not an easy life sailing the seas in war-time conditions of black-out and convoy, but the men of the Merchant Navy do not ask for an easy life. They do their duty without fuss or display and no words of mine can indicate the debt of gratitude which we all owe to them. We are all in agreement with the noble Lord's desire to give to the personnel of the Merchant Navy that status and standing as well as the conditions of service which they so richly deserve. I only part company with the noble Lord on the question of method and, if I understand him aright, on his desire to constitute the Merchant Navy as a National Service on the same basis as the Fighting Services. I will come back in a moment to this latter point, but first I should like to explain why the Government are satisfied that the appointment of a Royal Commission would be unnecessary and inexpedient.
A Royal Commission is unnecessary because there already exists, in the form of the National Maritime Board, an organization representative of officers, seamen and employers which is fully competent to deal with the problems relating to the well-being and conditions of seagoing personnel. This Board, which was set up something like twenty-five years ago, has since then furnished a most successful example of industrial self-government. It has achieved a great volume of excellent work. It is a safeguard against the bad employer, and there is no evidence on the* part of either officers or seamen of any dissatisfaction with this

59
system. The appointment of a Royal Commission would certainly interrupt its smooth working, as it would become difficult for the Board to take decisions on any matters which might be before the Royal Commission. The result of the appointment of a Commission would thus be not to expedite but to retard the progressive improvement of conditions in the industry.
In the years immediately preceding the war, marked progress had been made in improving crew accommodation, food scales and manning; hours of work were fixed and overtime provided for. Arrangements were also made for all officers not already covered by pension schemes run by the different shipping committees to be brought within a national pensions scheme, run jointly by the employers' and officers' societies. Even more rapid progress has been made since the beginning of the war. Revised wage scales have been agreed; arrangements have been made for compensation for loss of effects due to marine risks, in order to supplement the Government's scheme, which covered only those due to war risks. Provision has been made for the payment of wages for a month or longer to all men whose ships have been lost by enemy action, half the cost being borne by the employers and half by the Government. Lastly, I must refer to the recent arrangements which have secured for officers and men of the Merchant Navy what they have never had before but what I hope they will always have in future—namely, continuity of employment and generous leave with pay. These arrangements have changed the whole basis of employment in the Merchant Navy. They have decasualised the industry, a reform which I am sure we shall all agree to be most desirable.
The objections which I have urged to the immediate appointment of a Royal Commission apply with almost equal force to any promise given now to appoint such a Commission after the war. The shadow of an impending Commission would discourage all development by the existing machinery, which is both more effective and more swift than procedure by Royal Commission. I am convinced from my many contacts with all sides of the shipping industry that the proposed Commission would be unwelcome to the
60
responsible and representative organisations concerned.
In the latter part of his Motion, the noble Lord refers to the possible constitution of the Mercantile Marine as one of the National Services of the country. The Merchant Navy is, of course, a National Service of paramount importance to the country in peace and in war, and the Government fully recognize this. If the noble Lord has it in mind that the Merchant Navy should possess a constitution more closely resembling that of the Royal Navy, it must be remembered that the ships of the Royal Navy are His Majesty's ships, whereas the ships of the Merchant Navy belong to private shipowners. Our merchant fleet is a commercial service of first national importance; it is not a National Service in the same sense as the Fighting Services are. Nevertheless, it is our earnest desire that our merchant seamen should, during their periods ashore, enjoy conditions as favourable as those of the men of the Royal Navy, and we have done much to secure this. Our Merchant Navy officers and men now travel at cheap rates when they go on leave, and four times a year they travel free of cost. Reduced fares are available for their wives and families to visit them when they are in port and unable to get home. Relatives of officers and men who are seriously ill receive free travel to visit them. Special arrangements have been made to ensure that officers and men can be at once informed if their relatives are injured in attacks made on this country. Concession telegrams are available for messages for the Merchant Navy as to those in the Armed Forces. Facilities have also been provided for telegrams at reduced rates for members of the Merchant Navy anywhere in the Empire on the same terms as for members of the Forces.
It is true that a merchant seaman wears no uniform, but there is an approved uniform for officers, which many of them wear ashore. A silver Merchant Navy badge, which has been referred to, is supplied to all ranks, bearing the initials "M.N." and the Tudor crown. This serves to identify men when they seek the special facilities which are reserved for them, and it also indicates to the public at large that the wearer of the badge is engaged on an arduous branch of National Service. As

61
regards uniform, I have been informed by the National Union of Seamen that this is not desired by the men, and indeed would be resented by them.
LORD CHATFIELD: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will make further inquiries on that subject. I am quite certain that if he was to take a referendum of the men of the Merchant Navy he would get a very different answer from that which he has received from the union which he has consulted.
LORD LEATHERS: My Lords, I should like to say that I have already obtained a great deal of advice and information from representatives of the men, and not only from the National Union of Seamen; and (his is regarded, as I say, as something which would be unwelcome to them. I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to a recent Fleet Order issued by the Admiralty referring to the services which the Merchant Navy is rendering to the country, and expressing the earnest desire of the Board of Admiralty that every opportunity should be taken by officers and ships' companies to foster the bonds of friendship and co-operation between the two kindred Services. The Order also indicates "he Board's wish that merchant seamen should not only be permitted but encouraged to make full use of naval canteens and other facilities, particularly in those ports where special facilities for the Merchant Navy do not exist.
LORD CHATFIELD: If they are in uniform. Those are very important words.
LORD LEATHERS: My information is that the wearing of the badge will entitle them to those facilities in the future. As is well known, however, special facilities for the rest and recreation of merchant seamen exist in the majority of ports at home and abroad. These are in the main supplied and run by voluntary organizations. It would be unfair and unwise in any way to attempt to supersede the very valuable work which these institutions are doing. It is our desire to foster and assist their efforts on behalf of merchant seamen, and where necessary we endeavour to co-ordinate their activities for the better service of the common interest. The Minister of Labour has set up local port welfare committees in the larger ports of
62
this country, and my officers serve on these committees. It is our constant object to ensure that seamen are well looked after while in port and that there shall be an adequate provision of clubs and hostels.
We have instituted world-wide inquiries into the arrangements existing abroad for welcoming and caring for British seamen, and we have always taken special care to see that Allied and neutral seamen serving the Allied cause are equally well looked after. Where facilities have been found to be inadequate we have given assistance, and considerable improvements have been effected. It is our aim that every port visited by any considerable number of British or Allied seamen should be served by an institute, or that some committee or person should be responsible for doing what they can to entertain them. Many of the institutes which existed abroad before the war have been extended, and in some cases supplemented with canteens. Arrangements have been made to set up completely fresh institutes at a number of ports. I should like to make special reference to the position in the United States of America. Before the war, owing to the absence of any language difficulty, it was considered that British seamen would feel at home in the cafes and cinemas and American institutes, but since the war it has been felt that some special provision should be made, and this has now been done at most American ports. The cost is being met by the open-handed generosity of United States citizens, and I am sure that I can speak on behalf of all your Lordships in expressing profound gratitude for this generous effort.
I realize that the noble Lord desires, as We all desire, to encourage the seamen's proper feeling of pride in the Merchant Service and its magnificent traditions. I feel, however, that much can be done through administratively promoted schemes for the proper training of men for the sea, and I am having this question examined. I have indicated that I cannot accept the noble Lord's request for the setting up of a Royal Commission, but I do not therefore exclude the possibility of inquiry of some form or another after the war. If I felt, or if at any time in the future I were to feel, that the appointment of a Royal Commission would best serve the interests which we all have at heart, I should not hesitate; but I am convinced

63
that there are much more effective means of reaching our ends. The problems of Merchant Navy personnel are obviously closely bound up with those of the whole shipping industry, and these in turn are bound up with the immense questions of post-war policy and reconstruction.
It would be idle for me now to attempt to lay down the lines of future development, but it is plain that a great deal of hard thinking and hard work will have to be done during, and in preparation for, the post-war period. In the meantime I am anxious that progress should continue through the established machinery which has shown its effectiveness over many years and not least during recent months. Your Lordships may rest assured that I and my Department are second to none in our admiration of the qualities of British seamen and in our determination that the position of the men who man our ships should properly accord, both now and in the post-war period, with the great services they render to the national cause.
LORD MARCHWOOD: My Lords, I have listened very attentively to every word that has been said by the Minister, and so have my noble friends who supported me, and, on their behalf as well as my own, I can tell him frankly that we consider it a most unsatisfactory reply and one which might almost be termed unsympathetic in view of all that has been told to him. The speech had been prepared long before the Minister heard the strong case that has been put forward today. It is treating the matter in a manner which really should not be possible in times such as these when we rely on the efforts of these men to defend the life-line of the nation. I am, with Lord Motti-stone, quite prepared that the anomalies, injustices, and everything that wants attending to to-day should be at once dealt with, but that does not in any way stop the Minister from appointing a Royal Commission which could go on inquiring and investigating all the points brought forward and giving a considered and impartial judgment to the Government on the whole matter. The Minister says he is quite pleased with all that the National Maritime Board has done. Then why does this state of affairs exist to-day if he is so pleased with what has been done in the past? All these things have been crying out for years to be attended to,
64
and now he comes forward and tells us he is quite satisfied that the National Maritime Board is the medium through which all these things will be put right.
I do not wish to divide the House today on such a matter as this. I have pointed out, as other speakers have done, that in the other place a Motion is down supported by a hundred elected representatives of the people. Surely that must carry some weight with the Government. I am going to ask here and now if the Minister—and I need hardly remind your Lordships he replied to scarcely one of the points raised during the debate—will guarantee that the improvements which have been brought about during the past few years, some of them war-time measures, are to be made permanent; and whether they are going to form the foundation on which the Government are going to improve and build as time goes on. The Minister did not say one word as to the kind of inquiry he intends to have, but it can hardly be impartial if it envisages those who believe that at the present time the Mercantile Marine is running smoothly. I have this matter very much at heart, as have my noble friends who supported me. I do not wish to make it difficult for the Government at the present time, but I am going to plead with the Minister to go back, think over all the points raised in this debate, and reconsider his decision. I pray Heaven it will be shown that the Ministry are sympathetic with these men and are prepared to set up machinery whereby we can have an impartial judgment given as speedily as possible as to what can be done. As I am far from satisfied by the reply given to-day, and intend to raise the question again, I ask permission to withdraw my Motion to-day.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

EVACUATION: FARES OF PARENTS.
THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH asked His Majesty's Government whether they have any scheme by which some contribution could be made to the fares of parents of children evacuated at the Government's instigation in cases where the railway or bus fare is above a certain amount, and the parents have not seen their children for a certain specified time.
The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, I rise to make the inquiry which stands under my name. In doing so I am conscious I am following big things with smaller things, or what I may call proceeding from the universal to the particular. In regard to the matter that has been engaging our attention, I may say it is one which is very near my heart, for constantly find myself in one of our most important ports, from which the men of the Mercantile Marine encer their ships. I was more than pleased the other day—and here I refer to what recently we heard from Lord Strabolgi—to find the admirable system there set up for the educating of cooks for the trawlers.
My question refers to the unhappy parents of children evacuated from their homes and carried to distant places. There is a town in the Diocese of Norwich from which, under very strong persuasion, the children have been evacuated. One cannot say it is compulsory evacuation, but the schools were evacuated, and there are no schools in the town for the children to frequent. That has been the case for the last fifteen months. The children themselves may not come home to stay, though they can come horn: for a short school holiday. This makes a meeting with their parents a costly enterprise, whether the children come to the parents or the parents go to the places in the Midlands where their children are. Some little time ago I had a conversation with the Chairman of one of our great railway systems, and I put before him the unfortunate position of parents who live in this particular town. As things then stood, the availability of the ticket which they could secure was too short to give the parents an adequate time for covering the journey in both directions and really seeing something of the children. Thanks to his goodness, the matter was attended to on all the railways, and the result was that the availability of the ticket was so far enlarged that it was made worth while for the parents to face the journey out and in with the certainty that they would be with their children for a time long enough to justify the expense and the time involved.
The railway companies generously adjusted the matter, and I am venturing to ask His Majesty's Government to follow this lead and to go a step further. In spite of the cheap travel facilities arranged by the Ministry of Health to enable parents to visit their children,
66
very many of them have not seen their children since they were evacuated, for the reason that they cannot afford the expense of the journey. In the case of the town in the Diocese of Norwich to which I refer there are no cheap fares less than £1 to bring a father or mother to the temporary home of the child and sometimes the fare is two or three shillings more. The journey involves two days travel, with its losses, in addition to the time spent in the reception area. I understand that special reduced fares are offered to parents receiving unemployment payment, and I believe the parents in receipt of public assistance-get help in a similar manner. Such cheap facilities, I believe, are granted to men serving in His Majesty's Forces and also to the teachers and the helpers evacuated with these children. I have been told of a number of cases in which a father and mother are genuinely unable to pay the necessary fare.
What I am asking is whether the Government, using the machinery of the proper Department, would be willing to extend these facilities to parents who have not been able to afford the cost of the journey to see their children. Every case, of course, would be inquired into very strictly, but these parents, when their case has been proved to be a good one, would share the privilege, or part of the privilege, accorded to those in receipt of unemployment or public assistance. On the general question, it appears to be desirable to make the whole plan of evacuation as acceptable as circumstances permit. The country, I feel sure, would not wish to create what I may call a special grievance; and I hope your Lordships will consider that it is important just now that the Government should, wherever possible, join in the spirit of sympathy and neighbourliness which is abroad among us. A gesture of this kind reaches much further than the restricted number of parents who would be helped to keep the affection of their children and family life as close and tender as these hard times permit. There is such a thing as a real bereavement which is not caused by the long journey to that bourne from which no traveller returns. If we cannot heal the one at least we can do something to soothe the other. Sunt lacrimae rerum: mentem mortalia tangunt.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, with the cooperation of the railway companies, arrangements have already been made under which parents, wishing to visit evacuated children, may obtain special cheap travel facilities. Vouchers entitling the holder to travel at a reduced fare may be obtained once a month by each parent. Return tickets available for three days are obtainable where the journey cannot conveniently be made in one day, and during the holiday season parents have been able to obtain one ticket, available for a period of eight days, so as to enable them to spend their summer holiday with their children. The fares charged under these arrangements represent a very substantial reduction on the ordinary fares, more particularly for the longer journeys, as will be seen by one or two examples with which I will trouble your Lordships for the purposes of illustration.
Taking the starting point as London, if a parent desires to go, say, to Leicester, which is 99 miles away, the ordinary monthly return fare is 20s. 3d., but the special return fare for visits to evacuees would for one day be only 12s. 10d., and for three or eight days, 14s.11d. If Brid-port is the place which it is desired to reach, this is 149¼ miles away. The ordinary return fare is 29s. 9d. A ticket may be had by visiting parents for 14s.7d. or, for three or eight days, 18s. 1d. Take Torquay as another illustration. It is 199¾ miles from London. The monthly return fare is 40s. 5d., and an evacuee return fare may be had for 16s. 4d. If we take the furthest point, Penzance, which is 305£ miles away, the ordinary return fare is 62s. 2d. and the special return fare for visits to evacuees is 23s. 1d. If the parent wishes to travel to Scotland, to Edinburgh say, 392 miles away, the return ordinary fare is 80s. 11d. and, for three or eight days, the return fare for visits to evacuees is 38s. 3d. There are no similar arrangements in force for cheap road fares, but road services and supplementary fuel rations are authorised where there are no suitable railway facilities, and the Regional Transport Commissioners, when authorising these services, ensure that the fares are at a level which is not unreasonable for this class of service. Finally, parents who are in receipt of unemployment assistance and are unable to afford even the reduced fares, may apply to the Public Assistance Board for a
68
special grant to enable them to visit their children, and Public Assistance authorities have been empowered to make similar grants to parents who are in receipt of public assistance.
THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Lord for his reply. I can only express the hope that perhaps the Government will go a little further than they have done, and will not restrict the advantage of very much reduced fares to parents who are in receipt of public assistance.

SCHOOL FEES.
THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH asked His Majesty's Government whether they are in a position to guarantee the fees within specified limits of children placed by their parents, since killed by enemy action, in specified types of schools. The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, the second question I have to ask is one of an educational character. A case has arisen recently in one of our coast towns where the parents of two children, who were being educated at a secondary school now evacuated to the Midlands, were killed in an air raid. Both these children show considerable promise, and it is felt that nothing should be put in the way of their education being continued. It is learned that the deceased parents fully intended that these children should, on leaving the secondary school, proceed to college and, but for the parents' untimely decease through enemy action, there is no reason to doubt that the financial circumstances would have made this possible. As it is, the children are now under the guardianship of an uncle who, while he has every wish to do everything in his power for the benefit of the children, does not feel justified in undertaking, unaided, the additional expenditure involved.
So far as the actual school fees of the children are concerned it is to be anticipated that the education authority will give all possible facilities, but the question remains of the maintenance of the children and their clothing while they are away at school. A child who is otherwise qualified to receive an allowance ceases to be a dependent child when he or she attains the age of fifteen years. One child of the two of whom I am speaking has already ceased to be a dependent child and the other child will cease to be a dependent

69
child very shortly. Unless, therefore, some special provision can be made in cases of this kind the children who would profit from further education, and I hope become in the end really useful citizens, may be deprived of the opportunities which they would have had but for the fact that their parents have been killed through enemy action. This example may be typical of many more, and some amendment of the civilian personal injury scheme to meet such cases would seem reasonable.
The Minister of Pensions is; reported to have said on the 16th of July:
"Children whose parents have been killed by enemy action will become children of the State. They will receive education of the same standard which their own parents would have given them and in addition a pension."
This, my Lords, is the question which I have to raise.
LORD SNELL: My Lords, subject to certain conditions and within a specified limit provision exists for the grant of education allowances for the children of deceased officers and men of the Naval, Military and Air Forces respectively whose deaths are attributable to service, and similar provision is made for the children of officers and men of the Mercantile Marine whose deaths are attributable to war injuries. The personal injuries civilians scheme in many respects replaces peace-time compensation arrangements, but does not incorporate any provision for the grant of education allowances.

PROFITS OF SERVICE FILMS.
VISCOUNT TRENCHARDhad given notice that he would ask His Majesty's Government what happens to the profits derived from Service films produced under the direction of the Government after all the necessary expenses have been paid, and whether such profits go to the Treasury; and also move for papers. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to rise to propose the Motion that stands in my name. I have very little to add to that. I am referring particularly to the film Target for To-night, but I include all films produced under those conditions. I understand that the original cost of making the film Target for To-night was borne by one of the Government Departments. I am not suggesting any exceptional measure for this particular film, but I think it
70
would bring to the notice of the public what is the procedure in regard to cases like this. I am asking what happens to the profits after all the expenses are paid.
I would like to point out that I look upon it as very similar to the Military Tournament at Olympia or the Royal Air Force display at Hendon. The Military Tournament at Olympia is paid for and run by the Government, by Government Forces. All the expenses of that Tournament are paid out of the takings at the gate and the profits go to the Service charities. It is the same with regard to the Air Force Display at Hendon, with which I have had to do in the past. The profits go to the Air Force after all the expenses have been paid. The public go only in their thousands to see the Military Tournament at Olympia and they go only in their thousands to Henden, but when you have a film, a new method of showing what goes on at Olympia all over the world in every cinema to millions, the principle is no different. Of course, in producing a film the expenses may be greater, but I should doubt it; I should think they are a good deal less. They have to have that film shown and they have to make a contract with the people who show it. I do not know what profits they are allowed. But that is not relevant to the point I am making. Pay all that; but beyond that what happens to the profits? In my opinion they should go to the Service charities. This is not a method of raising taxation. If this has become a method of raising taxation it should not be so. I do not think His Majesty's Government should show films in order to raise taxation. I beg to move for Papers.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, my noble and gallant friend has raised a very interesting question, and has raised it with brevity. He has made it plain that he is not suggesting that one particular film—say Target for To-night—could be taken by itself with the idea that if there are profits made in the case of that film the losses which have been incurred in other films should be disregarded. He takes the matter, as he explained to us, as a whole. I have made inquiries and they confirm what I am sure is the impression of your Lordships that a good many films have been produced which would be called Service films—that is to say, films for which Service facilities were provided, films which deal

71
with welfare, films which deal with intelligence, films which deal with war records and with training. Quite a large number of films have been produced with the assistance of Service facilities and are used for all kinds of purposes and shown in many places. The fact is that up to the present, whereas, of course, the taxpayer has paid all the expenses—it is entirely a Treasury matter—the receipts have not met the outlay, still less has there been a profit made which would overset the expenses of production and distribution. Indeed I understand that the present situation is one which would show a very considerable loss.
It is true that after a large number of films had not had a profitable run the film that is now referred to has much better prospects. The more that film can be seen the better. I have not had the advantage of seeing it myself, but I believe it is a most interesting and stimulating film, and I hope it will have the widest possible circulation. I have no doubt it will do a great deal of good. But I do not think it could be regarded as reasonable that after the taxpayer—it is all very well to talk about the Treasury, but really it is the taxpayer—has had to bear all the burden of the production and distribution of a series of films, when one of them does ultimately make a profit that film should be taken by itself and the profit should go to some different recipients than the public Exchequer.
That view has already been expressed in the House of Commons, and that is the view that the Treasury has felt obliged to take. An answer was given to a question in another place by the Under-Secretary of the Ministry of Information which said that any profit which might be derived would accrue to the Exchequer, on which fell the cost of production. I must say that I cannot think that that is an unreasonable view. I will take note of what my noble friend has said about the Military Tournament at Olympia and about the Air Force Display at Hendon, and I will see that those cases are brought to the notice of the Treasury. I had not previously heard the analogy suggested. All that I can tell your Lordships is that I have made inquiry of the Treasury and that the view at present taken is the view which was communicated to the House of Commons. To repeat the matter in a sentence, the Exchequer—that is the taxpayer
72
—has had to bear the cost of films which have been made, and whatever be the loss the taxpayer must shoulder it. Therefore it is not unreasonable that, if profits are made by a particular film, they should go to relieve the burden which the taxpayer has incurred.
I would only say, in conclusion, that there is nothing abnormal in profits, if they should happen to accrue, going to the relief of the taxpayer. Every Chancellor of the Exchequer in every Budget has certain things which come in for reasons of that sort. There is therefore no departure from constitutional principle. While I sympathize very much with the good work that is being done by the R.A.F. Benevolent Fund—which I know my noble friend had a good deal to do with starting after the last war, and of which I think he is now one of the trustees—it cannot be forgotten that there is an enormous burden being thrown upon the country in connection with these very Services, and I am not myself convinced that if this film does ultimately make a profit, there would be anything wrong in saying that that profit should fall into the Exchequer.
VISCOUNT TRENCHARD: My Lords, I hope the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack will not be hurt if I say I am not altogether satisfied with his reply. I hope he will bear in mind that this is purely a Service film. It is not a film made for propaganda. I have seen the film Target for Tonight and I have had the privilege of visiting the squadrons concerned. It shows the exact action that goes on every night and every day. It is not made up into a story. There ought to be very little cost of production. The cost of distribution is another matter, but that is really not relevant to my point. This film is not like ordinary films. When I asked for special treatment, I was not referring to any film which may be considered as propaganda. I was referring to films showing the action of the Services without any outside accessories brought in whatever. I feel that a number of people will be surprised at the answer given by the noble and learned Viscount, and I would earnestly ask the Government to look again into the question in cases where films are purely Service films and not made for propaganda. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932:
BOROUGH OF CREWE ORDER.
BOROUGH OF CROSBY ORDER.
COUNTY BOROUGH OF BARROW IN FURNESS ORDER.
CITY OF SALFORD ORDER.
BOROUGH OF SUDBURY ORDER.
CITY OF WELLS (SOMERSET) ORDER.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA AND BURMA (THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE): My Lords, I beg to move that the Orders standing in my name be approved.
Moved, That the Orders made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, and laid before the House yesterday, be approved.—(The Duke of Devonshire.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PRICES OF GOODS ACT, 1939 (AMENDMENT OF FIRST SCHEDULE) ORDER, 1941.
LORD TEMPLEMORE: My Lords, I beg to move that the Order standing in my name be approved.
Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee yesterday, be approved.—(Lord Templemore.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SECRET SESSION.
LORD MOYNE: My Lords, I beg to move that the further sitting of the House this day be secret.
Moved, That the further sitting of the House this day be secret.—(Lord Moyne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.
The Official Reporter then withdrew.
House in Secret Session.
House adjourned.