HL Deb 08 September 1942 vol 124 cc290-312

LORD MARCHWOOD rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they will reconsider the present position in respect of decorations and awards for gallantry to the officers and men of the Mercantile Marine; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move the Motion which stands in my name with the object of drawing attention to the unsatisfactory position of the Mercantile Marine in regard to awards and decorations for gallantry at sea, in the hope that this House will be the instrument which will persuade the Government to alter the present position so that these men will have their deeds and services recognized in an appropriate manner. To my mind there are two ways of doing this, neither of which in my opinion would present insuperable difficulties, and either of which would give the greatest satisfaction to the men of the Merchant Service. Moreover, both would have the effect of doing away with the differentiation and invidious distinction which is now made between the two Navies. At the beginning of the war we heard a tremendous amount of talk about equality of sacrifice, and my object to-day is to get the Government to link up equality of sacrifice with equality of reward. That has been denied, and is still being denied, to the men of the Merchant Service.

Early in the war it was decided that war service in the Merchant Navy and Fishing Fleets should be recognized by civil awards unless the ship was operating with or under the direct orders of the Royal Navy, when its crew would then be eligible for naval awards. The idea in the mind of the Government at that time was that nothing should be done which could lend colour to the suggestion that armed merchantmen or defensively equipped merchantmen were part of the Armed Forces of the Crown. It was felt that the men serving in these vessels should not be placed in a position where they could be treated as francs-tireurs or be looked upon as combatants masquerading as seamen, and it was felt that the fact that they were receiving civilian decora- tions for even defensive action would be proof to the enemy that they had true civilian status. Unfortunately, that decision no longer applies to the altered circumstances of to-day. These men are now fighting the enemy every day and every hour and every minute of the day. They were the first who were attacked in the war. They are, in fact, facing the same risks and perils with the same courage and devotion to duty as are the officers and men of the Royal Navy. They are in every way complementary to the Royal Navy, and for that reason I feel they should receive the same awards for gallantry.

The Government are aware that the decision no longer protects the merchant seamen from the ruthless and brutal ferocity of the Nazis, and that no special consideration is given them if they are taken prisoner by any of the Axis Powers. On May 27 I wrote in my official capacity as Master of the Honourable Company of Master Mariners to the responsible Treasury official asking that favourable consideration might be given to the question of officers and men of the Merchant Navy being eligible for naval awards. At the same time I was asked to make representations that the Government might reconsider the award of the O.B.E. (Civil Division) to the captain of the "Sydney Star."

The "Sydney Star," a vessel which was bound for Malta in convoy, carrying troops and munitions, was attacked by the enemy in the middle of the night, shelled and torpedoed and so badly damaged that she was in grave danger of foundering. The captain gave orders to disembark the troops by the lifeboats. It was found that only three of the davits were working, the others having been shelled away. He then signalled to the destroyer escorting the convoy and asked that she would come alongside and disembark the troops. This was done and 484 officers and other ranks were disembarked as well as part of his own crew. The vessel was listing heavily and making water very fast. The pumps could not cope with it. He had 30 feet of water in No. 3 hold. The captain was asked to leave his ship, but he said "No, I will stand by her with the crew I have, and endeavour to reach port."

Next morning, at daylight, going along at a very reduced speed, owing to the heavy list—she had 16 feet of water in No. 1 hold, 8 feet in No. 2 hold and 50 feet in No. 3 hold—she was again attacked by torpedo-carrying 'planes and Stuka dive-bombers. The captain, with the men from below decks and the few of the crew who were left, manned the guns and fought them away. They struggled on and at last the "Sydney Star" limped into Malta. The Governor of Malta wrote congratulating the captain on his marvellous seamanship, his courage and his devotion to duty, and expressed grateful admiration of the excellent work which had saved his ship and brought the cargo to port. The liaison officer on board, in his report to the Vice-Admiral, Malta, spoke of the marvellous endurance of the captain who had been on his legs for three days and nights without sleeping, and for twelve days continually alert on the bridge. He said he could not praise too highly the courage and devotion to duty of the captain, and the captain said that great credit was due to his officers and men that the ship reached port.

Awards were given for this stirring adventure. The officer commanding the destroyer rightly got the D.S.O., because when he was disembarking the troops E-boats were circling round in search of the vessel. The captain of the "Sydney Star" got the O.B.E. (Civil Division). I ask your Lordships, do you feel that that is equal treatment and just recognition of these gallant services? I hope man}' of your Lordships heard on the radio that dramatic description by Commander Kimmins the other day of how another convoy, in face of the most violent attacks from sea and air, fought its way through the Mediterranean, and the epic story of Captain Dudley Mason, of the "Ohio," a tanker which was torpedoed and bombed and set on fire. Yet she went on to the end and limped into port, having saved probably the most valuable cargo in the convoy. That armada of warships and merchantmen was manned by men fired by a single purpose and determination—namely, to defeat the enemy and reach their goal. Bravery such as that is really and truly wonderful, and I want to see these men properly rewarded. To say that the bravery of such men is properly recognized by giving them civil awards is making a mockery of the whole system of awards for gallantry, and I sincerely hope that the Minister will tell us to-day that the Government have made up their minds, or will make up their minds, that there shall be a change.

After waiting for two months for a reply to the letter which I wrote to the responsible Treasury official, I got my answer. The first half of the letter formulated the reasons why the decision to which I referred in the opening part of my speech was taken in the early part of the war. The second half was a typical example of Whitehall ingenuity in ignoring the facts and refusing to face up to the issue. I would like to read it with your Lordships' permission. It states: The legal aspect was examined and it was thought that the special position of merchant seamen as civilians might be jeopardized by a change, and their status impaired. But even if this were not so, it is thought that the events of this war, at any rate, have shown that there are no proper grounds for considering a civil decoration as per se less in value than a military one, and it is thought that to make any change now in the Merchant Navy would be to give currency to this mistaken view. It would, moreover not only be unfair to other civilians who receive civil decorations for gallantry in defence, but would be grossly unjust to the many officers and men of the Merchant Navy who have already received decorations, and whose gallantry thus recognized has already greatly raised the prestige of civil awards, if by a change now official sanction were given to the view that civil decorations are of an inferior class. From this your Lordships will see that the Treasury official still argues that merchant seamen are civilians and that the Merchant Navy is not part of the Armed Forces of the Crown.

To show your Lordships the confusion of thought on this subject I will now quote what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport said in another place not long ago, when he was speaking on the Pensions (Mercantile Marine) Bill. He said it was because the Merchant Navy was regarded as an Armed Force—because it was felt that it was not possible to make a distinction between the treatment of the Royal Navy and the merchant ships—that the Merchant Navy was treated as a Service and the Navy scale applied to the Merchant Navy. There you have authority speaking with two voices: on the one hand the Civil Service saying that it is not an Armed Force and that there must be differentiation in awards; and on the other the Minister saying that it is an Armed Service and therefore there must be no difference in pension scales. It is not for me to decide which view is correct, but I prefer to take the statement of the Minister, seeing that it is backed up by Act of Parliament.

I will give your Lordships yet another ministerial statement, made by Mr. Attlee, the Deputy Prime Minister, in another place on April 9, 1941. He said that the men of the Merchant Navy were eligible for military awards when serving under the orders of the Royal Navy, as in the operations at Dunkirk, for which a number of military awards was made to the Service. That surely is a conclusive reason why the Government should agree to the request I am making to-day. Surely the work of the men who took ships to Malta in face of enemy attack from the air and on the sea, is comparable in daring with the deeds of the men who went across the Channel to bring home the British soldiers from Dunkirk—just as gallant and daring. If military decorations were given for that work which was done at Dunkirk, why cannot they be given for the work done by the men who went to Malta? The Government admitted that they were deserving of military decorations then: how can they justify refusal of military decorations now? They have done it once and they should continue doing it.

The Government have had to reverse many decisions made in the early days of the war, and it is indefensible that this particular decision should have been allowed to perpetuate a manifest injustice to a great Service. The contention that to make the suggested change would be grossly unjust to the many officers and men of the Merchant Navy whose gallantry has already been recognized by civil awards carries no weight with me, and I am sure that it carries none with others among your Lordships. I suggest that these men who since the war began on September 3, 1939, have received British Empire awards should be transferred to the Military Division for valour instead of being retained in the Civil Division, where the awards are more or less for good behaviour. I sincerely hope that the Minister will take note of my request in this direction.

The next thing that is said is that if a change were made now it would give currency to the opinion that civil awards were of less value than military awards. That view is bound to be held if the acts which earn many of the civil awards are not considered comparable in daring and gallantry with those for which military awards are given. A man can sit in his office for ten years, doing good service to the State and very possibly he will, get a high award in the Civil Division. But these awards are not at all comparable. There is no suggestion that naval men should be given civil awards; therefore the only fair way to my mind of adjusting this anomaly and of doing away with this differentiation is to give the Merchant Navy men naval awards. This ridiculous differentiation is not confined to the Services only; it often happens on the same ship. Most of the merchant ships have gunners from the Royal Navy and the gun crews consist of men of the Merchant Service. The officer in command of the vessel, the man who directs when the gun should be fired, and what action generally should be taken by the ship, is an officer of the Merchant Service. If some specially meritorious work is done by these men working together which is deemed to merit the award of decorations, the men of the merchant crew get civil awards and so does the officer, while the naval gunner gets a naval award. That is not logical.

Those who desire the change I advocate are not so much concerned with the relative merits of civil and military awards. What they are concerned with is to see that men who do the same service under the same conditions, who face the same perils, should have the same awards whatever they are. I think that that would be the fairest method. As an old sailor I would sooner have preference given to my first suggestion than to the other. It is begging the question to pretend that there is no soreness of heart over this differentiation. There is a great deal. A very outstanding merchant officer said the other day: "When we go into action the last things we think about are awards. But if all they can offer is an O.B.E. (Civil Division) I personally would be strongly inclined to refuse it. "Well, it is a very-sad state of affairs that such a feeling should prevail among that noble body of men. I am sure that the Minister of War Transport, whose heart is for the men just as much as mine is—I know him quite well and I have talked to him about these things—will do this if he can. I ask him to-day with all the force at my command that he will give this his most favourable consideration.

It is unfortunate that comparisons should be made between the status of civil awards and military awards, but the responsibility belongs to the Government. The Government are responsible because of their unfair discrimination against merchant seamen. However, I will not take up any more of your Lordships' time on this matter. I will only add that I feel very acutely on the subject, and I know that all of you believe that these men are deserving of the change for which we are now asking. I sincerely hope that the Government will take immediate action so that we can prove to these men, who are in the front line of battle in the Atlantic and throughout the seven seas, that the country wishes to recognize their gallantry and valour in a manner befitting the great services they have rendered and are rendering to the Allied cause. I beg to move.

THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY

My Lords, I rise to give all the support I can to the Motion which has been introduced by my noble friend Lord Marchwood. It is very appropriate that the Master of the Honourable Company of Master Mariners should bring this subject to your Lordships' notice, and I think that in doing so he has performed both a national service and a great service to the Merchant Navy. He has put his case before you with force and eloquence and I feel quite sure that he has the sympathy of the majority of your Lordships, for this House just before the Recess gave a very emphatic decision which showed how very much they disliked this discrimination. In that case there was discrimination between men of the Royal Navy and men of the Merchant Navy. Here is a case where you have men who are virtually in the same service in many instances and yet differentiation is made in the matter of awards for gallantry. Lord Marchwood spoke to you upon the facts of this question. He pointed out that Merchant Navy officers and men are entitled to naval decorations if the work that they were doing at the time the decorations were earned was done under the direct command of naval officers, but that they only get civil decorations if they were working on their own and shouldering the whole of the responsibility. So you get this anomaly, that if you have officers and men in the: Merchant Navy acting under naval orders—that is, receiving the benefit of expert advice—and not having to take responsibility themselves, they get naval decorations; but if they are on their own and are carrying out a naval operation, such as fighting their ship, without expert advice, they are only eligible for civil decorations.

Nothing that I say is intended to cast the slightest reflection on civil decorations. But do let us, for military deeds, give military decorations, and for civil service. give civil decorations. It has been said that it would not be fair to civilians who display gallantry in the civil defence of their towns and their homes and their families to give military decorations to merchant seamen because in normal times the merchant seamen are civilians. As my noble friend has said, the case is entirely different. When the merchant seaman steams out of harbour, leaves the protection of these islands and goes out into the seas where he knows he will be attacked, where he will have the responsibility not primarily for his own benefit of carrying those cargoes which are essential to the country, the national war effort and the war effort of the United Nations, that is not static defence; it is most aggressive. They go out with a determination to force their cargo through, in spite of anything that the enemy can do.

They are very much in the front line, because, in the naval war, merchant sailors and the ships in which they serve are the principal objectives of the enemy, and it is the honour of the Royal Navy to try to protect the Merchant Navy from the attacks of the enemy. It cannot be said that when merchant seamen go out from the ports of this country to Malta or to the Arctic they are engaged in trading. They are Government servants. They are acting under Government orders, and they cannot leave their employment should they wish to do so. They are just as much Government servants as are sailors in the Royal Navy. When they are ordered to go to Malta, or wherever it may be, they do so knowing that they win have to fight hard to get their cargo through, and that many of their ships will not reach their destination. Is that peaceful trading? Do the Germans consider, if these men get through to Malta or to Murmansk, that they are civilian sailors, and must be treated as such?

It has been said that it is some protection to these merchant seamen to be treated as civilians in the matter of decorations. I am sure that the merchant seamen do not want that kind of protection, even if it were any use to them, which of course it is not. They believe themselves to be, and they are, first-class fighting men, and they want to share in the rewards of success or in whatever treatment failure may bring with those who, with them, have the honour of maintaining our position at sea. Whatever the present regulations may be, upon whatever good reasons they may have been founded in the first place, recent experiences have shown that the work of maintaining our sea communications makes it necessary to overhaul those regulations and bring them up to date. I do submit that these men, who. are fighting sailors, should receive the same decorations as naval officers and men. The nation, by accepting this proposal, could acknowledge the debt which it owes to the Merchant Navy. If this concession is given, and if these men are allowed to receive the same decorations as the Royal Navy, then, although I am "on the shelf" and cannot speak as a rule for what the Navy thinks, in this case I shall be on firm ground in saying that no one will be more happy than their admiring colleagues of the Royal Navy. Finally, I should like to urge that, when these decorations are given, they should be given on the same scale as would be the case in the Royal Navy—that is to say, that the junior officers, junior engineers and men on the lower deck should get the same sort of scale of rewards as the personnel of a destroyer or submarine who have distinguished themselves. This overdue measure would be very well received if it came from your Lordships' House.

LORD MOTTISTONE

My Lords, I wish to intervene for one moment only, as President of the Institute of Marine Engineers, to say that I know that the engineering branch of the Royal Navy is in entire sympathy with the merchant engineering branch in asking that the merchant seamen should have the same kind of awards as the men of the Navy. If I may say so, I think that all of us who have listened to this debate must agree that the noble and gallant Earl has blown the official arguments sky-high. There is not one particle of argument left. I wish only to say, on behalf of the marine engineers, that I support the request which has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Marchwood, and by the noble and gallant Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery.

LORD BRABAZON OF TARA

My Lords, I do not know which Minister is going to reply, or whether the reply will be made on behalf of the Admiralty or on behalf of the Ministry of War Transport; but whoever replies is going to be in an exceedingly difficult position, because both his flanks have been turned, one by the noble Lord, Lord Marchwood, who speaks with great authority for the Merchant Navy, and the other by the noble and gallant Earl, who suddenly, from out of the blue, supported the noble Lord in a speech which was so over-powering that I should not myself like to be in the Minister's shoes. I rise to speak because for many years I had the honour of representing Wallasey, an area which supplies very many merchant seamen. It is one of the great privileges of the procedure of this House, as compared with that of another place, that we can raise a delicate subject like that of decorations, which in no circumstances of order could be raised in another place at all; and, although in these days of economy we shall not get the Papers which are demanded, nevertheless we shall have some interesting remarks made upon the general subject.

Frankly, I have always felt that little imagination has been exercised on the question of decorations. Take, for example, the decorations in the Army, and the general mix-up there between awards for gallantry and awards for Staff service, which is very remarkable. I have always thought that the Victoria Cross for great gallantry and the Military Cross for lesser gallantry should be awarded, and on the Staff side, where decorations are no less wanted and where services are just as important, there might be the D.S.O. and the C.M.G. I myself was given, for Staff work, and much to my annoyance, the Military Cross. In the Royal Flying Corps of those days, a Military Cross meant nothing else but that one had brought down a Hun, and I had not done that; consequently I refused to put up my Military Cross. My General was a very fierce man—you would hardly recognize him as the benevolent noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard—and he sent for me and, before I could explain my very subtle point, said, "Put it up within two days." That was the end of that; I was never able to put my point before him. It is somewhat late, but I should like to do so now, and it is a great disappointment to me that he is not here.

Imagination is needed in connexion with these awards, because people do appreciate them more than is sometimes thought. It seems to me that the case for the Admiralty has gone altogether, because they have said "We will give these awards to sailors in the Merchant Navy when under Admiralty orders." When are they not under Admiralty orders today? Does a convoy sail at any time which is not under Admiralty orders? The idea that because they are engaged in defensive fighting rather than offensive fighting there should be a discrimination in the matter of awards seems to me something which cannot be upheld in any way. I sincerely hope that the Minister, after these overwhelming arguments from at any rate three of us, will give way suitably.

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

My Lords, I should like to add a few words from the aspect not of somebody who has any special marine knowledge but of somebody who is a mere landsman, but who is desirous of supporting the claims of these merchant seamen, for whom this House has more than once expressed the very greatest sympathy and admiration during the present war. I cannot understand why there should be any doubt at all on this matter. The only argument that I have heard is contained in a Treasury letter which has been read by my noble friend, and it is that those who have received decorations of a civil character in this war may feel somewhat aggrieved if others receive decorations of the naval character which is now advocated so powerfully on both sides of this House. If that is all, it should be as easy as possible not only to give the more appropriate decorations during this war in future but also to offer those who have received civil decorations in the present war, and who are entitled to something better, an opportunity of changing the old decoration for the new one. It seems to me that there should be no difficulty at all in carrying that out.

What seems to me so impossible to justify is the treatment of people in the marine service who are undertaking the same, or even in some respects greater, risks as naval persons, who are travelling in ships that are armed, whose duty it is to light the enemy when they are attacked, who in every respect except that of being enlisted as members of the Navy, or receiving His Majesty's Commission if they are officers, are acting as combatants. And the suggestion that they should not receive the same award as combatants because that puts them under a certain amount of risk with the enemy is, I venture to think, wholly and entirely unfounded.

When we come to the actions of the Hun when he meets a merchant vessel, I am perhaps as well able as anybody in this House to express an opinion, because I have made a special study of that question. And it is idle to think that the Hun does anything but shoot down or destroy such a vessel without notice, or that he will give any consideration to it because the crew does not actually happen to be clad in naval uniform. All that has gone by the board, because we know that the German sea captain acts like a pirate if he comes across a British vessel. Accordingly, I strongly support the arguments that have been put forward, both from the naval, the military, and the layman's point of view, and I would suggest that it is impossible at this date to deprive the merchant seaman of these very much more pleasant and dignified orders or medals which he seeks to obtain. I only add this, that for my part I am all the more anxious to support the claims of the merchant seamen because I am well aware from previous debates in this House that they lead a most unhealthy existence, that they are not only running extreme dangers on the high seas when they meet an enemy, but that their life on board ship is one of constant trial under most unhealthy conditions, and that anything that can be done for them of a reasonable nature should be done, to keep them not only satisfied as to their conditions, but full of confidence that the ration appreciates the great service that they are rendering in the present war.

LORD CHATFIELD

My Lords, it may seem that after the powerful broadsides that have been fired at the Minister this afternoon it is quite unnecessary for anyone to loose off another gun. I do not altogether intend to do so either, but I did raise this very question a year ago. as the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, will remember, because he interposed some very wise remarks at the time from the point of view that the whole system on which we have based our rewards for gallantry to the Merchant Navy is founded on the false principle that has been mentioned by the noble and learned Viscount who has just spoken, namely, that if only you call the merchant seaman a civilian he is safe—the German will be so impressed by the fact that he is a civilian that he will leave him alone and treat him as he has treated all the rest of the civilians—as civilians. And we all know what the German opinion is as to how to treat civilians. But that argument—which was used, I may say in deference to what the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, has said, not so much by the Admiralty, but by those who in general deal with honours in this country—is a false one altogether, and it is one which ought to have been thrown overboard early in the war. It is quite natural perhaps that after the practices adopted in the last war, which gave general satisfaction, we should have started in this war on the same lines. But it soon became evident that the strain and the test which the Merchant Navy was going to be put to were going to be far greater than they have ever been in our national history, and that therefore a new era was coming which demanded that a change be made.

It is always difficult to make such a change—to change the type of decorations given for gallantry to a great Service. And that is why I want to say, having something to do with the awards for civil gallantry, that I think we should be very careful that nothing is said—quite apart from nothing being done—which will give the impression that any of your Lordships feels that the gallantry awards which His Majesty has set up for the reward of civilians are in any way less honourable or less to be proud of than any award given to a soldier, a sailor or an airman. You cannot in any way compare, excepting on an equal status, the V.C. and the G.C., or the George Medal and the Conspicuous Gallantry Medal. It is very difficult when you start on the lines that there are a great many civilian decorations which are given for purely sedentary work in an office, of great value and importance over a long period of years. Thus an officer in the Navy who has rarely had an opportunity of any particularly gallant service—there may have been a long period of peace—may get the K.C.B. for long and meritorious service and devotion to professional duty. You cannot look on a civil decoration, which is given for gallantry but which is also given for service of another nature, as being therefore lowered in value.

I do not know what the opinion of the Merchant Navy is—I find it very difficult to find out—but I am sure that the Navy feels that when a Service like the Mercantile Marine is fighting day by day and night by night alongside its comrades of the Royal Navy, it is wrong that there should any longer be any hiding behind the old precept that the merchant seaman is not a fighting man but a civilian. That idea should be thrown overboard to-day, whatever International Law on the subject may be—International Law is now a dead letter in most respects, if not all—because there is no doubt that to-day the merchant seaman should be considered as a fighting man. You then have to consider whether you will give him naval decorations, and I am quite sure that the idea put forward by the noble Lord who moved this Motion, that he should be given naval decorations, is correct. But it is possible that the change from one to the other may be difficult, because a great many merchant seamen have already got civilian decorations. One docs not want men to think—and they should not think—that these civilian decorations are not ones of which they may be thoroughly proud. There are occasions in the combination at sea between the Royal Navy and the Merchant Navy when the nature of the gallantry performed by these two Services—say, two ships, one under the orders of the other or in touch with the other—is so exactly alike that the awards given to both should be similar. In other words, it would be more appropriate in certain circumstances for the merchant seaman to get naval decorations.

If it was accepted that in certain circumstances the operation on which the merchant seaman is employed is absolutely analogous to that of his comrade in the Navy, then surely that would be a proper occasion for giving honours of a naval character. It would not involve the great difficulty of considering, if you make the complete change, whether those who have already got civilian decorations should have them changed to naval ones. Whatever decision is made, I am quite certain that this House would be profoundly unhappy, as I am sure would the Service to which I have the honour to belong, if the present situation were allowed to continue as it is. It wants changing, and I am sure it can be changed. I have no doubt that the noble Lord who is going to reply will accept the fact that it should be changed, and I dare say he will have some remedy which will commend itself to your Lordships' House.

LORD GORELL

My Lords, before the Minister replies may I remind him that there is a precedent to meet the one difficulty that has been mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Maugham, and the noble and gallant Admiral of the Fleet who has just spoken? In the last war there was instituted the Order of the British Empire. When it was first instituted it was a single Order, and it was described as a civil Order. It was given to a great number of soldiers and to representatives of the other Services. After a time it was felt to be inappropriate that those who were doing Service duty only should be in possession of what has been described as a civil decoration. Accordingly, the Military Division was instituted, and it was made retrospective. Anybody who had already received that award was allowed to change to the Military Division. I can see no reason whatever why that precedent should not be followed, It would meet the one difficulty which has been mentioned, and supply the Treasury official with what he desires above all in these matters—namely, a precedent for making the change.

LORD WINSTER

My Lords, I intervene for a few moments only because I have received a letter from Captain Coombs, one of the Joint General Managers of the Officers' (Merchant Navy) Federation. That Federation is, I believe, a powerful organization which represents with ability and considerable. success a great number of the captains and officers of the Merchant Navy, and your Lordships would feel it only right that the views of this Federation should be before the House whilst this matter is being debated. Captain Coombs writes to say: There may be something in the suggestion, although Merchant Navy opinion is divided on it.… Our view is formed on what we believe to be a matter of high principle and a question of good taste. The grant of honours and awards is surely a matter solely for the Royal Prerogative.… We are certain teat it is not the wish of the Merchant Navy that any suggestions on this matter should be put forward as from the Merchant Navy.… It seems that the very last quarter from which suggestions re Merchant Navy honours should emanate is the Service itself.… I have not had an opportunity of discussing this matter with the National Union of Seamen, so am unable to say what their view would be. Captain Coombs then asks me to be good enough to express the views held by the Federation as he feels strongly that any suggestion on this matter should certainly not emanate from the Service, "even supposing it is proper for it to be raised by outside friends of the Service." He adds that he makes these remarks with great deference, and concludes by saying: While Merchant Navy officers are, of course, grateful for the expression of Royal approbation by the grants of awards and honours, the two chief concerns to-day are:—(1) that the Service has sufficient of the best designed and built ships possible with which to carry on its war duties, and (2) that it will be assured of a square deal after the war. Whether that letter be agreed with or not, it does at any rate reflect the spirit of moderation which animates the officers of the Merchant Navy.

I need not say that this is not a Party matter in any way. This letter is not put forward as representing the views of the Party with which I am associated, nor do I put it forward as expressing my own views. The part which I should endorse is the concluding part referring to the need for the best designed ships with which to carry on the war duties of the Merchant Navy, and to ensuring a square deal after the war. In that respect may I say that the Merchant Navy may look forward with great confidence to the support of the noble Lord, Lord Leathers? From all that comes to my knowledge from the Merchant Navy, they feel confident that their interests are in good hands, and that they have received substantial advantages since the noble Lord has held his present office. If I may express my personal opinion it is this—nothing is too good for the officers and men of the Merchant Navy. If it were decided to give them more or higher honours than they now enjoy, no one would rejoice more sincerely than I would. These men show what is the highest form of courage—not the courage shown in the heat of action, when men's blood is up, but the courage shown in cold blood. Whilst their ships are in the danger zone they literally never know from one second to another when an attack may come which will sink their ships under their feet and perhaps cast them adrift in open boats in bad weather hundreds of miles from land.

What is very much in my mind is this. Hitler from the very outbreak of this war has made no secret of the fact that he relies upon the weapon of starvation to beat us to our knees. To bring that about, his first object had to be to try to break the nerve of the officers and men of the Merchant Navy so that they would not take their ships to sea. To that end he has given the German Admiralty deliberate orders to employ every form of barbarism, savagery, and calculated brutality against these men. And yet that campaign has failed completely. The nerve of the officers and men of the Merchant Navy has stood firm and will continue to do so. The country can safely rely upon them to continue to perform those duties upon which our hopes of victory rest. The noble Viscount the Leader of the House, speaking to-day, said something about the Elizabethans. Knowing this Motion was coming on, that reference made me think of that great roll of names of naval heroes which has come down to us from the Elizabethan age. These names come down to us like a roll of drums and through the haze of time these great sea heroes appear as very picturesque and very romantic figures. There may be nothing very romantic or picturesque about the men of the Marcantile Marine, or the ships with which they go to sea, but it can be truly said that no braver men have ever sailed from the harbours of our countries than they, and I repeat that nothing could be too good for them.

LORD JESSEL

My Lords, I should like to intervene for a few minutes only in this debate. I was very much struck by the speech of Lord Chatfield, Admiral of the Fleet. Lord Chatfield was, I believe—I do not know whether he still is—the judge of those who are entitled to civil awards for civil defence bravery. I am sure every one who has had a civil reward for bravery will be grateful to Lord Chatfield for his defence of the honour of a civil award, and those who have been given the O.B.E. and George Medal and all those who have received civil decorations for gallantry and saving life on land will be most grateful to him for what he has said. I think we are very much obliged also to Lord Marchwood for bringing these matters to the notice of your Lordships' House. There are a great many inequalities in the distribution of these Orders. I should have liked the noble Earl, Lord Cork, to explain to us why certain Admirals get only civil decorations. In the Territorial Force a number of senior officers get the K.C.B. and others get the civil C.B. I have never been able to understand quite why' the distinction between the Services has been made. It is true that in all these cases the decorations are for administrative services, and not for gallantry in the field.

We must be obliged also to the noble Lord, Lord Gorell, for his intervention. I well remember that when the Order of the British Empire was founded it was only one Order. As he has rightly pointed out to your Lordships, it was divided later on into two distinct classes. If we are not given to-day what my noble friend Lord Marchwood has desired, I feel that at all events the whole question of these awards might be gone into and at the same time the various anomalies might be considered. The Minister has been attacked on both flanks, but I think he will make a very good central charge when he comes to reply. At the same time, thoroughly sympathizing with the Motion as I do, I think that the time has come when the whole of these anomalies might be swept away, not only as regards the particular question before your Lordships' House, but the other questions affecting both his Majesty's Army and His Majesty's Navy.

THE MINISTER OF WAR TRANSPORT (LORD LEATHERS)

My Lords, I am sure we all feel very grateful to my noble friend Lord Marchwood for having put this Motion down for discussion today, for not only every member of this House but the whole people of the country are anxious that the great services ren- dered by the officers and men of the Merchant Navy should be fully and adequately recognized. I have naturally always taken a great interest in this question, and I am happy to be able to report to-day that we have been able to make very great progress along the lines desired by those who have spoken so feelingly today. I should like first of all to give a brief account of the awards and decorations that have been made to officers and men of the Merchant Navy and Fishing Fleets since the war began. It will not take long. We have now had three years of war. In the first year 353 awards to members of the Merchant Navy were gazetted. In the second year there were 815 and in the third year 1,383, making a total of 2,551 awards from the beginning of the war up to the 31st August, 1942. It is interesting that nearly 200 of these awards have been to foreign nationals who have been serving in our cause. The total of 2,551 includes, besides Commendations and Mentions, 468 British Empire Medals, 12 Sea Gallantry Medals, 29 George Medals, 72 Distinguished Service Medals, 4 Albert Medals, 68 Distinguished Service Crosses, 365 M.B.Es., 332 O.B.Es., 8 C.B.Es., I Knighthood and 3 George Crosses. Noble Lords will realize that over 700 officers of the Merchant Navy have been appointed Members, Officers or Commanders of the Order of the British Empire. Apart from two Dunkirk cases, all those have been included in the Civil Division of that Order.

It has been suggested many times, and again to-day, that these awards should have been included in the Military Division of that Order rather than in the Civil Division, and I should like to examine this contention for a moment, because I think it is most important that nothing should be said or done which might give the quite erroneous impression that there is any greater merit in appointment to the Military Division of the Order of the British Empire than to the same class in the Civil Division. Appointment to the Order in the Civil or Military Division is settled merely on the question of fact whether the recipient is a civilian or a member of one of the Services. Seniority in the Order depends entirely on the rank in the Order and the date on which the award was made. There is no difference in the value or in the standard required between the two Divisions, Civil and Mili- tary. The same applies to the British Empire Medal. There is no importance in the fact that there are a Military Division and a Civil Division.

It has been suggested that as an alternative to appointment to the Order of the British Empire, or the award of the British Empire Medal, an officer or rating could suitably be given some military award. I have naturally examined this suggestion carefully, but the great majority of the recommendations in question refer to occasions on which the gallant services of our officers and men were not rendered in action with the enemy. They were services for which their opposite numbers in the Royal Navy would be appointed to the Order of the British Empire or awarded the British Empire Medal. Many of the strongest claims for recognition by Merchant Navy officers and men are for their skill and endurance in long passages, often in open boats. For such cases military awards are not suitable. The courage and endurance shown in such cases is of the very highest, and in the Royal Navy as well as in the Merchant Navy the officers and men concerned would be considered for the George Cross, appointment to the Order of the British Empire, the George Medal or the British Empire Medal. We must therefore be very careful not to let it be thought that the military awards are of greater intrinsic value than those awards, which are open to the Merchant Navy and the Royal Navy.

Now if I may I wish to turn to the military decorations which are from time to time awarded to members of the Services and to state precisely what the position of the Merchant Navy is. There is first the Victoria Cross. Officers and men of the Merchant Navy are eligible for this unique distinction. They are also eligible for the Distinguished Service Cross for services in action with the enemy, and 68 officers of the Merchant Navy have been honoured by this Cross. As regards the other military decorations, officers and men of the Merchant Navy have not been eligible for the Distinguished Service Order, the Conspicuous Gallantry Medal or the Distinguished Service Medal, but I am very happy to announce that His Majesty the King has graciously approved that the statute of the D.S.O. should be amended so as to cover officers of the Merchant Navy for services in action with the enemy. Noble Lords will very shortly see gazetted awards made in connexion with the recent Russia and Malta convoys. These will include a number of D.S.Os. for Merchant Navy officers who took part in those operations.

The C.G.M. was issued nearly seventy years ago for petty officers and seamen of the Royal Navy and N.C.Os. and others who distinguished themselves by acts of conspicuous gallantry in action with the enemy. His Majesty the King has also approved that an Order in Council should be made to provide that this medal also may be awarded to equivalent ranks in the Merchant Navy for gallantry in action with the enemy. Then there is the D.S.M. I am glad to be able to state that His Majesty has been graciously pleased to allow seamen in the Merchant Navy to be awarded this medal for special conduct in action with the enemy. The object in mind is that military awards are appropriate for merchant seamen when engaged in operations which amount in effect to sea battles. The position is now as follows. Civil awards for which officers and men of the Merchant Navy are eligible are the George Cross, Knights Bachelor, C.B.E., O.B.E., M.B.E., Albert Medal, George Medal, Sea Gallantry Medal, British Empire Medal, and Commendations. Military awards are the V.C., D.S.O., D.S.C., C.G.M., D.S.M. and Mentions.

There was only one point in my noble friend Lord Marchwood's speech to which I feel I must take exception. He said, perhaps without thinking, that these officers, when going into these operations of war under great hazards, had uppermost in their mind awards. I do not believe they have them in mind at all.

LORD MARCHWOOD

May I be allowed to interrupt? My noble friend has an entirely wrong conception of what I said. I said that was the last thing that these men when going into action were thinking about. I hope my noble friend will withdraw.

LORD LEATHERS

I certainly withdraw. I am sorry, but that was what I understood my noble friend to say, arid in the interests of the men I felt I ought to refer to the matter. I think I ought also to mention the letter to which my noble friend Lord Winster referred. It is true that the officers of the Merchant Navy have no desire to seek for different treatment, and that is true also of seamen. Representatives of their own union have said it to me time and again. I feel that there is a peculiar obligation on us to see that all that should be available to them is made available. I am very glad that it has fallen to me to inform your Lordships of the steps so recently taken. Officers and men of the Merchant Navy, like their comrades in the Royal Navy, in the Army and in the Royal Air Force, have rendered to this country such signal service that we shall be for all time in their debt. This debate has enabled us to pay homage to them again. Their service is beyond praise and it is right that officers and men of the Merchant Navy should be eligible for all those gallantry awards that are available to those in the Royal Navy.

LORD MARCHWOOD

My Lords, the announcement made by the noble Lord makes me feel that it was well worth the anxiety I have experienced during the last few weeks, when considering how best to support my plea for these men. I am sure that I can say that the officers and men of the Merchant Navy, with their humble duty, thank His Majesty for His gracious approval that these awards, the D.S.O., C.G.M. and D.S.M., shall be added to the list of decorations open to the Merchant Navy. This is a red letter day for them. I thank those noble Lords who have supported me throughout this debate. The one jarring note was the letter read by my noble friend Lord Winster. I was surprised to hear that, and it compels me to state that a great many officers who have spoken to me both personally and officially, state exactly the reverse of what Lord Winster said was the view of that particular Federation. I am pleased that he gave his own opinion afterwards. It was a very nice corrective. The noble and gallant Earl, Lord Cork, said that the Royal Navy will be pleased. I know they will. The Admiral of the Fleet who was in that convoy which went to Malta signalled to the captain of the tanker "Ohio," "I am proud to have met you." Is not that a splendid record for a man to have? I was glad also to have my noble friend Lord Mottistone's support on behalf of the engineers. There is a feeling that there might be a little more consideration given to the meritorious work and the valour of the junior officers, both deck and engine room officers. The men in the engine room go through hell at times when a ship is being shelled and torpedoed. These men will, I am sure, receive the consideration of the Minister, for I know his heart is in the right place. I wish his hearing was as good. I thank him most sincerely for what he has told us to-day and I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.