HL Deb 24 March 1970 vol 308 cc1336-66

2.52 p.m.

THE MINISTER OF STATE, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD BROWN)

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. We have before us today a Bill which will represent probably the greatest improvement that there has ever been in the lives of those who work in our merchant ships. It has already been welcomed by all sides of the industry and has received approval in another place. I trust that it will enjoy an equally generous reception in this House. I hope noble Lords will bear with me while I remind them of the circumstances surrounding the Bill and attempt to place it in its broader context.

After the seamen's strike in 1966, a Court of Inquiry was set up, under the chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Pearson, and produced its Final Report in February, 1967. This impartial and very thorough Report was accepted, in general, by all sides in the industry and it is the framework upon which we have, with the generous co-operation of all interested parties, constructed the Bill. It was felt that there were two major factors which lay at the root of the 1966 strike. These were the system of industrial relations within the industry and the antiquated provisions of the 1894 Act. The first of these has been the subject of negotiations in the National Maritime Board and considerable progress has, I understand, been made.

It is the second of these which the present Bill seeks to provide a remedy for. The Report recommended a large number of revisions and repeals over the entire range of the old Acts in as far as they relate to the terms and conditions of service of seamen. We have been remarkably fortunate in having such a distinguished and equitable Report, which covers so thoroughly and comprehensively all the matters of concern to seamen, as the basis for this legislation. I think it is fair to say that the combination of the implementation of the recommendations on industrial relations and the revision of the old Merchant Shipping Acts has been seen by all sides as a thoroughly acceptable package.

I should add at this point that though, of course, the Pearson inquiry dealt only with merchant seamen, we have taken the opportunity to apply most of the provisions of this Bill to fishermen as well. It would have been quite wrong to exclude this large section of our seafaring labour force from the benefits which will flow from the proposed legislation. Indeed there is another Bill, at the moment under consideration in another place, which also seeks to raise the standards of safety of our fishing vessels and thus improve the conditions of service of our fishermen. In some ways, of course, fishermen are not directly comparable to other merchant seamen, and there we have seen fit, in consultation with the industry, to make different and additional provisions for fishermen, which are contained in the first Schedule to the Bill. Here again we have kept in close touch with the industry in direct consultations with all parties.

The Pearson Report recommended that there should be widespread repeals of the multiplicity of obsolete provisions and unnecessary details contained in the 1894 and subsequent Acts. This we have undertaken in the three years since that Report came out. It has been a monumental piece of work. We reviewed 400 sections of the old Acts and decided that over 200 of them should be repealed without any re-enactment, either in this Bill or in the regulations to be made under it. The basic idea for the new legislation put forward by Lord Pearson's Report was that we should draft a Bill setting out the broad principles and policies governing these matters. This would allow for flexibility and thus foster rather than inhibit, as the old Acts had done, any future developments.

It has been very difficult in the past for the industry to take the fullest possible advantage of the advances made in technology, in management, in industrial relations and in welfare services when faced with the restrictive minutiæ of the old Acts. In the bad old days when they first appeared on the Statute Book they probably served a valuable purpose. As Lord Pearson's Report said (paragraphs 156–7): They were made at times when maritime, international and industrial conditions were very different from those we have now. In 1894 most seamen were illiterate, most ships had sails and not engines, voyages could last for many months, a ship at sea was altogether out of touch with land, and a ship in a foreign port was still out of touch with the United Kingdom. Also the British Empire was in full vigour. The structure of society was much less egalitarian than it is now. A very important difference between conditions as they are now and conditions as they were then is the growth of Trade Unions, who can look after the interests of their members generally and negotiate with the Employers' Federations on a wide range of questions connected with wage rates and conditions of service. Being protected by their Associations and Unions, the seamen do not now need so much protection by statutory provisions, though undoubtedly some statutory protection for them is valuable and ought to be preserved. Nowadays, then, a much less paternalistic ittitude is called for. The seaman is in a far better position to look after his own interests, and his employers are no longer the potential exploiters of their men that they perhaps once were. Though the special circumstances in which this industry works demand a rather higher degree of special legislation than average, there are vast numbers of matters which can now be left to administrative practice, or at least to regulations made under the Bill. These regulations will, of course, be drawn up with the fullest consultation with all sides of the industry, as has been the practice of the Board of Trade throughout. This is, of course, an important consideration in view of the wide range of powers which is sought in the Bill. There is, moreover, in Clause 95, a firm requirement that such consultation should take place.

At this point, I should like to turn to a brief outline of the Bill itself. The first group of clauses, Clauses 1 to 18, deal with employment on ships and payment of wages. For many years, seamen have attached great importance to the protection given them by their articles of agreement, a contract covering their employment on a specified ship or ships for a defined period. While providing for more flexibility to enable the industry to negotiate its contracts more freely in the future, we have retained the basic protection which these agreements offer. The requirement for a Board of Trade official to supervise the signing of every agreement has been removed as being unnecessarily avuncular, though a power to supervise if necessary is provided.

The use of a form of contract is fundamental. We have no wish to change that practice, but we hope that the new Bill will encourage general contracts in preference to individual crew agreements whereever possible. After all, many seamen are now in the regular employment of large companies and a contract covering general employment in the company is therefore desirable from the point of view both of flexible use of manpower and of savings in administrative costs. The Board of Trade would, of course, be empowered to ensure that such contracts were up to a high standard and afforded adequate protection to all parties.

Perhaps at this stage I should interpolate this. When I read the Bill for the first time I was very puzzled about the use of the term "crew agreement" at one time and "general contracts" at other times, because "crew agreement" has the connotation to me, as an ignorant person in this realm, of an agreement with the crew as a whole. I ought to point out that these crew agreements are in fact individual contracts as between seamen and the master of a ship or a company with agreement to serve on a range of ships. I think this ought to be understood, because I am afraid that those who are not, as the lawyers say, versed in the art, might run into the same confusion as I did in reading the Bill for the first time.

I move on to Clauses 19 to 26 which deal with safety, health and welfare— the matters which, perhaps even more than his money, are closest to a seaman's heart. The provisions for safety regulations in Clause 19 were introduced in another place and will enable us to implement any moves towards safer working conditions which are likely to arise in the future. The provisions on health and welfare do not embody any major changes of policy, except that, by enabling Regulations to be made, they will allow a constant improvement of the living conditions.

I deal next with Clauses 27 to 33 and 34 to 38 which are concerned with discipline and safety. The Pearson Court of Inquiry reached the conclusion that it was clear beyond doubt that a special disciplinary régime of some kind is required by the special conditions of sea-faring life. In paragraph 287, they considered that, discipline is necessary in the interests of safety, in order to secure prompt and co- ordinated action by the crew on any occasion of emergency for saving the ship, the crew, the passengers and the cargo from the perils of the sea. Discipline is necessary in the interests of efficiency, in order to secure the proper operation and handling of the ship and its equipment at all times. Also discipline is necessary for preserving law and order in the confined and inescapable conditions, because the ship is a 'total' institution, in which the seaman works, eats, sleeps and spends his leisure time in the same limited area and with approximately the same people as his work-mates, companions or neighbours. But at the same time, it is important that the discipline which such conditions necessitate should be made compatible with the standards of modern industrial life. The Bill therefore seeks to deal with misconduct as far as possible by the same means as the general law applicable to the rest of industry and to invoke special provisions only to a very restricted degree.

First of all, misconduct can be regarded as a breach of contract and dealt with as a civil liability. Clauses 39 to 41 limit civil liability in certain cases. Secondly, there are minor forms of misconduct for which it would be wrong to invoke the criminal law and which can be dealt with by a system of fines to be imposed by the master under Clause 34, or by a shipboard committee set up under Clause 36 of the Bill. We regard these shipboard committees as a very worthwhile development and we hope that in due course they will come into extensive use. Lastly, there are the very few cases of serious misconduct which might put the ship and those on board at serious risk. These comparatively rare offences would be outside the scope of the master to deal with and might well warrant prosecution in a court on shore. The real strength of all provisions concerning misconduct is, of course, not in the ultimate sanction which they mete out to those who offend against them but in the passive power which they have to preserve law and order. They preserve an atmosphere of discipline which powerfully assists safety at sea.

May I sum up these clauses? Clause deals with misconduct of a flagrant character which is likely to endanger the ship or the people on board, and Clauses to 31 deal with actions which, though in themselves less serious, could nevertheless be dangerous, such as drunkenness on duty, disobedience to lawful commands, persistent neglect of duty, combination with other seamen to disobey commands, neglect of duty or impeding the ship, and absence without leave. It is to be noted that it is only dangerous misconduct which carries a penalty of imprisonment. I should perhaps say that there has been some criticism of the provisions of Clauses 29 to 31. We regard them as right and necessary at the present time. However, should circumstances change and should one day a consensus emerge in the shipping industry that changes should be made then this would be something which the Government would have to consider seriously, though in doing so we should have to bear in mind our responsibility and concern for safety at sea. This Bill is an important landmark, but it is not the end of the road. No doubt in due course there will have to be changes and improvements through amending legislation.

Clause 42 deals with trade disputes. It removes the exclusion of seamen from the protection of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875 and enables them to withdraw their labour from the ship in appropriate circumstances. Clauses 43 to 61 deal with manning and certification, inquiries into conduct and investigation of casualties. The principal advance here is a far greater measure of flexibility. There are likely to be many important developments in the manning field in order to make the industry more competitive with its foreign rivals, and it is important to remove any statutory obstacles to the development of new methods of manning the ships and deploying the labour. Some control is, of course, still necessary in the interests of safety of life at sea and we have sought a balance between these factors. We have also made provision for the maintenance and repatriation of seamen left behind abroad, and, though we have not sought to make any major changes, we have tried to simplify the procedures. However, we think that the financial liability should be more for the ship-owner, and not the taxpayer, to meet in the future. There follow clauses dealing with deceased seamen, documentation, stowaways, administrative and other miscellaneous subjects.

The last provisions of major importance are those covering fishing vessels, Clause 91 and Schedule 1. As I have already said, there are certain important differences between life in fishing vessels and life in merchant ships and we have tried to take this fact into account. So, although most of the provisions of the Bill will apply to fishing vessels, the regulations made for them will be different. This will apply in particular to discipline. The fishing industry operates in a different way from the Merchant Navy; there is already a system of port disciplinary committees in operation and fishing vessels almost invariably operate from one port, to which they return frequently. Of course, safety is as important in fishing boats as elsewhere, and just as inseparable from discipline, and we think that there is a good chance that these can be maintained by the present arrangements.

Thus, Clauses 27 and 28 will, under this Bill, apply to fishermen as well as to seamen, but other misconduct will be left to the industry's procedures. However, we have made provision in Schedule 1 to apply to fishermen provisions about statutory offences similar to those contained in Clauses 29, 30 and 31 should that prove necessary and desirable to preserve safety at sea. These would be made by Affirmative Resolution procedure.

In this Bill we have the result of a long process of self-examination in the shipping industry, of a certain amount of unrest perhaps, but also of an enormous degree of co-operation both between the various sides of the industry and between the industry and my Department. One of the major obstacles to the harmonious working and the progress of the industry will have been removed with the passing of this Bill. It is vital for the present and future prosperity of this country that our Merchant Navy should continue to make its invaluable contribution to our invisible earnings and overall balance of payments. This, we hope, the Bill will make possible while ensuring that those whose working lives are spent in our merchant ships enjoy the prosperity and wellbeing that will ensue. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Lord Brown.)

3.10 p.m.

LORD SANDFORD

My Lords, the House as a whole is, I am sure, grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brown, for his skilful presentation of this Bill to us and for his explanation of its purpose. It is, as he said, something of an historic event, for what we are being invited to enact is indeed the first amending legislation of any significance since 1894 covering the field of industrial relations in the ships of the British merchant fleet. For that reason it seems to me to be good to begin by recalling to ourselves, in slightly more detail than the noble Lord perhaps allowed himself, the contrast between conditions at sea now. in 1970, and conditions at sea then, in 1894. Another reason, but perhaps a rather less good reason, for doing this is that I believe this is the first opportunity I have taken or been given since joining your Lordships' House eleven years ago of speaking on any subject to do with the sea, the element in which I spent the first 17 years of my working life. The temptation to reflect—just briefly, I assure you—about life at sea as it used to be 70 years ago, long before my time, and as it is lived to-day, I found irresistible.

As the noble Lord said, 70 years ago the change over from sail to steam was by no means complete. Protracted un-predictable voyages of 200 days or so were quite common form. There was no contact at all with home during that period except, perhaps, by speaking to another passing ship, and with bad luck it might take anything up to three or four weeks, for instance, to round the Horn. Nearly all of this time would be spent soaking wet, whether up top setting sails or even down below. There was certainly no air conditioning in those days, and there was no refrigeration either. Fresh stores soon ran out and what was left soon succumbed to tropical heat. A few weeks' delay in adverse winds soon had the whole crew on ships' biscuits and their accompanying weevils.

To those ordeals add the normal hazards of life at sea, and add on top of that the dangers of overloading, because at this time Mr. Plimsoll's efforts in another place had barely begun to have any effect. The loss of life at sea, through one cause or another, was not far short of 4,000 a year. Nor did the advent of steam ease everyone's lot, because to start with all the boilers were coal-fired. A fireman or stoker did not just spend his time watching gauges and turning valves on and off; he might, working watch and watch through 24 hours, shovel a total of 10 tons of coal into his boiler, and rake out the ashes. And that, in a trawler fishing hard in the North Sea, is no light task. It is small wonder then that it was not easy to get volunteers to serve at sea under those conditions. No wonder that masters then relied on crimps to recruit their crews! I do not know whether all your Lordships know about crimps. They were the keepers of what might be called lodging houses, inns and brothels combined, and the offer of the services of their establishments, on credit, could lure seafarers of all sorts into their clutches. They could then despatch these men, while still insensible, on board ship; and the wretched seaman might well find himself awakened from his carousals standing out to sea off Deal or Dungeness, bound for Hong Kong or the River Plate.

Incidentally, it was a colleague of mine of the Cloth, the Reverend James Fell, who was also a boxer, and the Missions to Seamen, who beat the crimps. What a happy contrast to find what I found last week while preparing for this debate! I was down at Gravesend, where the National Sea Training School train 2,600 ratings a year for our Merchant Navy. There is now a long waiting list of boys eager to go to sea in the ships of our modern merchant fleet. So there is a tremendous change for the better which we ought fully to recognise. But, good as that is, all has not been well with our merchant fleet in recent years. The 1960 seamen's strike gave notice to all concerned that something needed to be done, and the needed improvements, particularly in relations in the industry, hinged a good deal on more up-to-date legislation. It was the last Administration who, immediately following that strike, started the long process and were able to announce progress towards amending legislation, in consultation with all sides of the shipping industry. They announced such progress in another place towards the end of 1963.

So far as I can judge, the present Government allowed that preparatory work to lapse, as the next event in the story was the seamen's strike of 1966, which, apart from the contemporary issues clustering around the actual dispute, drove home once again the lesson that the strike of 1960 had already taught about the stale of affairs in our merchant shipping fleet and the urgent need for more legislation. At any rate, at that point Her Majesty's present Administration took action and appointed a Court of Inquiry with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Pearson, whom we all look forward to hearing in a moment, as Chairman. Under the stimulus of that Inquiry, the work, first begun under the Tories in 1962, went forward once more. The first fruits, as the noble Lord has reminded us, appeared with the Report in February, 1967, and the next fruits are the Bill that we have before us to-day.

So much for the historical background, and so much for the origins of the Bill. I felt I should amplify a little in those two ways what the noble Lord, Lord Brown, said in presenting the Bill to us, in order to set the record straight and perhaps fill in a little of the back-ground. I now turn to the Bill itself. I turn to it first of all to give it a very warm welcome from these Benches and to wish it a smooth passage on to the Statute Book. We shall have a number of points to probe, some matters to raise, and maybe Amendments to put forward at the next stage. We shall have something to say about consultation with the fishermen, and about the number of different clauses and parts of the Bill.

None of those merits much attention now compared to the welcome which we accord the Bill in general, or the congratulations which we should like also to bestow on those responsible—and many parties have been involved—in bringing it forward for our consideration. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Pearson, and his colleagues on the Court of Inquiry, the staff of the Board of Trade, the leaders of the various parties who come together in the National Mari-time Board, all these have worked long and hard and played their distinctive and honourable parts in preparing at different stages in its long story this legislation and in bringing it forward to-day.

Our merchant shipping industry is pre-eminent, if not unique, among the traditional industries such as coal mining and cotton spinning—preeminent among the traditional industries of Great Britain in maintaining still to-day its international standing in the contemporary world. If it is not now quite the biggest merchant fleet—it is the third biggest—who is there to say that it is not still the best, to say nothing of its being one of our largest earners of industrial exports: over £250 million net per annum? We particularly welcome, therefore, this successful attempt by the Board of Trade, and the others I have mentioned, to furnish at least this industry, this vital industry, with a modern, up-to-date framework of law for the conduct of its affairs and the regulation and development of industrial relations in particular. One can only wish that in other Departments of State, and in other countries, there had been the same patient and steady seeking after righteousness. The noble Lord, Lord Donovan, and his Royal Commission, like the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, and his Court of Inquiry have now reported, but the attempts of Her Majesty's Government to put the findings of the Donovan Royal Commission into practice have been fainthearted indeed.

There are two further points to notice as we consider the Pearson Report and this Bill on Merchant Shipping. First of all how futile it is to say that statutory legislation has no part to play in industrial relations! How right it has been here, in the shipping industry, to employ a wide range of methods to deal with the problems that arise. As the noble Lord, Lord Brown, himself has said, there have been, first, encouragement for more and longer contracts between the individual seafarer and the single company which he serves; second, the development of further co-operation within the National Maritime Board and the other committees that cover the whole industry; third, very properly, the relegation of many issues from Statute Law to Board of Trade Regulations—I under-stand that there be 32 separate sets of regulations under this Bill. But there will be the retention, very properly, of many other matters, occupying 90 clauses in this Bill alone, on the Statute Book. Of course, statutory legislation has an indispensable part to play in industrial relations, and the better, clearer, fairer, more up to date it is, the batter the other matters can be deals with by regulations, industry-wide negotiations, company contracts and so on.

If I may, I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to one other factor; namely, how by far the greater part of this maritime legislation has operated in favour of the employee, the seaman: controlling his recruitment, safeguarding his pay, securing his victualling, protecting his safety. 1 cannot think of any other party covered by this legislation who has benefited more than the employee, and I challenge anyone to mention any other employee who in the past 75 years has had more legislation devoted to his welfare than the seaman. It seems to me that those in the unions who are now resisting legislation covering the field of industrial relations have a very short memory and scant appreciation of how much it has operated to their advantage and in their favour in the past.

There are just a few questions to be raised at this stage about the Bill. First, I think we have to ask ourselves this question. Does the Bill fulfil its main purpose of putting into effect what the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, and his Court of Inquiry recommended? This is a matter to be examined in much more detail as we come to each separate clause later on. But I suggest that it will be done very much more easily and readily when we have, as we shall in a moment, the benefit of the views of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, himself on this point. Secondly, is there a case for modifying in any substantial way the recommendations of Lord Pearson and his Court of Inquiry or for going outside the matters that engaged the attention of that Court? I would think not. Thanks to that Inquiry, and to this Bill, substantial progress has been made, and I think the important point now is to secure what we have got.

Furthermore, there is in session, as your Lordships know, the Committee of Inquiry into Shipping, chaired by the noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale, whose terms of reference end with the words—and I quote from Hansard of April 19, 1967: The Committee should take into account"— that is the Committee of the noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale— the first and subsequent Reports of Lord Pearson's Court of Inquiry into certain matters concerning the shipping industry. It would, I submit, therefore be unwise to depart far at this stage, before Lord Rochdale's Committee report, from that matter which Lord Pearson's Court of Inquiry had before it.

I should think there would be one further reason for now accepting this Bill substantially as it is, and it is this. As the noble Lord, Lord Brown, said, Lord Pearson's Court of Inquiry was a balanced, impartial body. They took evidence from every side and have produced, as he said, an equitable, balanced Report. It did not perhaps please everybody—that was not its purpose—but it was accepted as a basis for further discussion within the industry and for further legislation in due course. It was accepted, not because it gave everybody what he wanted, but because it carried forward the consensus that had been achieved after so much toil after 1964; and because it represented a fair deal of work for all those who go to sea in ships. On the basis of this Report, a Bill is being presented for us to make into law.

Of course, it is ultimately up to Parliament to decide what the law of the land is to be. There is everything to be said for those who have certain interests at stake to draw those interests to the attention of the legislators and to have them considered. Yet it is as improper as it is counter-productive to couple an approach to Members of Parliament with threats, veiled or unveiled, of strike action in support of Amendments that may be desired by one of the parties. The Times on March 12 reported that such a thing had occurred in connection with certain clauses on this Bill in another place. I have no way of judging whether there was any accuracy in that report. But we should, I believe, greatly welcome the fact that, despite this, the Bill comes to us unaltered in the manner called for; and we assure the Government that we shall look to them to see it through here unweakened in that way at all. The firm assurance that the noble Lord, Lord Brown, has already given us on that point will be welcome.

I should like the noble Lord, if he can, when he winds up this debate, to spell out a little more precisely what he means by the term "one day". It will be worth looking at Clauses 27 to 31 again; but, after the disciplinary committees have been introduced and given a fair experimental period, and after Lord Rochdale's Committee has reported, it must mean, I should have said, "after a lapse of time of at least two years". Subject to the noble Lord's being able to increase his assurance to us on that point in that manner, we can assure him of our support for this admirable Bill.

3.30 p.m.

LORD MILFORD

My Lords, the very conditions of the seamen in the Merchant Navy can give rise to a state of mind which makes them feel frustrated, irritable and antagonistic; and this can happen to the officers as well as to the men. The people on the boat may be leaving a difficult situation at home. There may have been family quarrels, or a child or wife may be ill, so that when the men go to sea they may be all tensed up. Therefore it is important that any rules, regulations or legal restrictions in a new Bill must avoid anything which could cause irritation, resentment or any sense of grievance. In a broadcast on May 16, 1966, Mr. Wilson said: There are petty and now outdated restrictions and frustrations arising from the fact that life at sea is regulated by an outdated Act of Parliament of 1894. He went on to say that the Ministry of Labour offered the Seamen's Union a Court of Inquiry which, after dealing with wages and overtime, would examine all the other issues that have poisoned relations in the industry for so many years. It was recognised that there was a great deal to be inquired into and a great deal that needed to be changed, and he promised that the full authority of the law and the full help of the Government would be available to assist and speed the process of change.

At that time the biggest issue was the equivalent of the penal clauses. Later, in the House of Commons, on May 23, Mr. Wilson made it clear to the Executive of the National Union of Seamen that the Government are well aware that one of the major contributory factors in this situation has been the failure over the years to deal with an outdated and archaic system of regulation of the terms and conditions of seagoing employment. He said: It is the Government's intention to arrange for a powerful, thorough and independent inquiry into all the complex issues affecting the terms and conditions of seagoing employment. Thanks to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Pearson, we have now had the Pearson Report, and it will be interesting to hear the noble Lord speaking this afternoon.

On March 11 this year the Under-secretary of State for Employment and Productivity admitted that the National Union of Seamen did not like the clauses on penal legislation, Clauses 28, 29, 30 and 31: the Union said that their existence was a daily provocation. He therefore suggested that the unions and employers should come together under the National Maritime Board, and said that if they got agreement and under-standing, the Government would be ready and happy to go along with them. But on the same day there seemed to be a contradiction on the Government Front Bench in another place, because a few hours later the Junior Minister at the Board of Trade said this: …. we can reasonably hope that almost all offences will be dealt with on board ship by the master, assisted.… by representatives of his crew. The exceptions will be those coming within the scope of Clauses 28, 29, 30 and 31. … The disciplinary provisions are right and necessary for the present time, but circumstances can change."—[Official Report, Commons, 11/3/70, col. 1504.] In other words, he envisaged changes, and a further Bill, in the future. The National Union of Seamen wonder how long that future is going to be. The last Act was passed 67 years ago: how long are they going to wait before these Clauses 28, 29, 30 and 31 are changed?

I admit that fines have been substituted for imprisonment but let us examine these clauses to which the National Union of Seamen is still strongly objecting. To take Clause 28, why is there so much drink on board? Would it not be better to look at the causes and opportunities that have made it possible for a man to resort to drink or drugs? Has a man who has drunk too much yet has done nothing which results in loss, destruction or serious damage to the ship, to be criminally penalised? In regard to Clause 29, who decides the source of a lawful command? There are other officers giving orders besides the master. This clause is much too open to misinterpretation. A man may have an entirely reasonable complaint but may be told to "shut up and carry on". Is he to be penalised and fined if he objects?

Clause 30 is the one which the Union dislikes most because it sees, carrying on from the question of lawful command, the clause as a possible threat to trade unionism; to members of the crew getting together for a trade union discussion, or working out what the trade unions could do. In regard to Clause 31, if a man misses his ship he has then got to prove that he was not absent deliberately and without cause, or was not reckless. The whole proof must be on that man. This also the Union thinks is not fair. Lastly, why should ship owners be in a special, privileged position to have legislation at their disposal to enforce industrial agreements? Why, when Her Majesty's Government have withdrawn their proposals for penal legislation in industrial relations (I am referring now to In Place of Strife), must our merchant seamen be exceptions? Treat seamen like anyone else; trust them. Penal clauses can irk and may lead to strife or, through resentment, to things which the man does not really want to do. Let us get rid of these causes of strife.

3.37 p.m.

LORD MANCROFT

My Lords, before addressing a few words to your Lordships in support of this Bill, I am in duty bound to remind you that as a director of the Cunard Line I have an interest to declare. In a more un-Parliamentary sense I hope that everybody has an interest in a Bill concerning the Mercantile Marine, so closely is it linked with the health, wealth and happiness of this country. Naturally I welcome the Bill, but as the noble Lord, Lord Milford, has just indicated, in the last few days it has run into muddy waters. Up till now it has been a detailed and technical but generally agreed measure. Now controversy has arisen, and I do not criticise the noble Lord, Lord Milford, for having raised what may at first sight seem to be Committee points; they are more than that. He is right: a matter of principle is involved, and there has been a good deal of heavy breathing behind the scenes and a good deal of to-ing and fro-ing. I, for my part, was puzzled, as I think my noble friend Lord Sandford was also, to know how the matter now stood. Having listened to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Brown, I am still puzzled, although now of course on a much higher level.

These clauses arise directly out of the recommendations of the Pearson Committee, and we are looking forward with pleasure to hearing what the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, has to say. They were, in a way, a package deal. There was a compromise, with all the usual pros and cons of a compromise, but it was, I think—and most people think so, too— a reasonable recommendation. I was therefore glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Brown, say that the Government proposed to stand by the Pearson recommendations. I look forward to hearing the answer he gives when he comes to reply to this debate, to the question put to him by my noble friend Lord Sandford about the time factor.

I cannot agree with those who maintain that the penal clauses, as they are called, reflect an undignified relationship and one which is not sympathetic to the industrial concept of the 1970s. As my noble friend Lord Sandford pointed out, and the noble Lord, Lord Brown, too, discipline at sea must inevitably be stricter than it is on land. We live, as we know, in a permissive—some of us would even say licentious—society. We live in an age in which all discipline is automatically questioned. That is one of the reasons why the police have difficulty in getting recruits, and the Armed Services too. It is one of the reasons why the turnover of merchant seamen is as high as it unfortunately is. But obviously, the standard of discipline called for in a heavily laden merchantman in a Force 8 gale is greater than that which would be acceptable on a warm Saturday afternoon in the King's Road, Chelsea. We must accept that. Life is different at sea, where the safety of a ship, its crew and cargo, depend on a standard of discipline which is unacceptable in less confined conditions ashore. We do not, for instance, find any stowaways in the King's Road; we find some very odd people admittedly, but not stowaways.

I would say, in passing, that this Bill is a little gentle on stowaways and on those members of the crew who help them. But at sea so much depends on the man next to you behaving reasonably and predictably. A master cannot work his ship without reasonable discipline. What a master wants is nothing unreasonable or tyrannical or antediluvian. He merely wants a clearly defined discipline with no grey areas, a discipline which the crew can understand and respect. If a man is not prepared to understand and respect the reasonable proposals put forward by Pearson and embodied in this Bill, then he ought not to go to sea. You really cannot have ships run by committees or run by some syndicalist system, and to those who think you can I would only say, have a look at the standard of discipline in the Russian Merchant Marine, where it is very stiff, particularly in those ships—I am certain this will be of interest to the noble Bar.oness, Lady Summers kill —which have women masters.

I repeat, there is, I think, a reasonable solution in the Bill. The 1894 Act was a very different Act from this Bill, and I hope, therefore, that the Government will be supported in their decision to stand by these proposals; not of course by every comma—by all means let us look carefully at these clauses and see if there is some way of improving them. I must say I have sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Milford, had to say on the question of drunkenness—it is of course important that sobriety be upheld at sea —but I can appreciate that a young commis waiter going ashore at a cruise port and coming back having had "one planter's punch" too many is one thing, and a quartermaster drunk at the wheel quite another.

This Bill also demonstrates how times have changed in the industry, and they are still changing rapidly, not only in disciplinary matters but also in relation to conditions generally and to the whole concept of the role of the Merchant Navy. I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, describing some of his own experiences at sea, though he does not of course go back 76 years. But in 1894 when the old Act was put on the Statute Book there was no radio, scant comfort, and voyages took you months away from home. Now in addition to radio we have refrigeration and air conditioning, which have brought about a revolution in food, accommodation and general well-being.

Not wishing to prolong the debate for another three hours, I will omit for practical reasons any reference to the pay of Merchant Navy officers and seamen. There have been other changes and they have been immense, not only in crew conditions but in the industry as a whole; in types of trade, in types of ship, in managerial techniques and in inter-national relationships. And yet the wheel is now coming full cycle. We now have tankers that have to tie up so far away from port that the crew never see land in the whole round voyage. Perhaps I may be excused for drawing on my own experience, but the three passenger ships in our line are all based in America at the moment and do not see their home port. Their crews are relieved by an air lift.

When I first went to Cunard I went to clear out the desk they had given me in the old South Western Hotel in Southampton. Many of your Lordships will remember it. It is now the Cunard office. I found a cutting there from an old local newspaper; it must have been dated about the mid 'twenties. It showed a photograph, taken from our roof, of the docks which contained at that moment 22 major passenger liners. Out of idle curiosity I climbed up to the roof and looked from exactly the same place from which the photograph had been taken, and there were only three passenger liners in the docks that afternoon. That shows one of the many changes which have taken place in the period covered by this Bill. I am not of course suggesting the death of the passenger liner; far from it. There are, I think, something like 19 building in the dock-yards of the world to-day, and another seven under discussion. But it does emphasise how in all aspects the industry has in the last few years undergone a fundamental change, and that is why this Bill is important to us at this particular moment.

The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, referred to Lord Rochdale and his forth-coming Report. I am really puzzled to know what more Rochdale can recommend that has not already been achieved. This Bill takes account of all those changes. It is overdue, but under-standably so, because it has been a complicated measure, and it is important that as much of it as possible should have been agreed upon. I hope it will remain an agreed measure. It is important for the future wellbeing of the industry that as much as possible of this measure should be removed from the role of controversy.

May I read a small passage from a letter written by a Mr. Abraham Howlett, deckhand in the Brocklebank ship "Tigris", in 1865 to a younger brother inquiring whether he should take up the Merchant Marine as his life's work. Mr. Howlett says: Our master, Captain Miller, is a hard man but brave and skilful. Our work, too, is hard, but the victuals, though they might not satisfy the Lord Mayor, suffice us well enough. The heat in Indian waters is well-nigh insupportable but I have not had to face my wife for 147 days; and for this may Providence be praised! I do not know whether that was typical then, and I hope not now, of the able seaman's life. But the seaman has always been able to take the rough with the smooth; it is the very nature of his calling. I hope, therefore, that the Merchant Marine and your Lordships' House will support this Bill as it is. It accentuates, and rightly so, a great deal more of the smooth than the rough.

3.48 p.m.

LORD PEARSON

My Lords, on behalf of the Court of Inquiry, to which perhaps some reference may already have been made—and may I say to the House that I am very sorry I was not able to be in my place earlier in order to hear what has been said—I should like to say a few words of especial welcome and support for this Bill. We had the considerable privilege—and it was a privilege, although it involved considerable labour—of holding a number of meetings and listening to evidence and argument and receiving memoranda from all sides of the industry, and with that great help we prepared eventually our Report. But that was more than three years ago, and we know that since then there have been further discussions and deliberations, and it is therefore no surprise and no disappointment to find that in a number of respects the Bill has departed from what we had recommended.

It is, however, of great interest to us to observe that the five or six general recommendations which we made in paragraph 162 of our Report have been accepted and are now adopted in this Bill. I should like to read paragraph 162, because I consider that these general points are of major importance. We said: Therefore we suggest, as an outline of the methods to be used in revising the relevant Parts of the Merchant Shipping Acts, the following points:—

  1. (a) there should be a newly-drafted Act, not merely amendments of the existing provisions;
  2. (b) there should be extensive jettison of obsolete provisions and unnecessary detail;
  3. (c) the new Act should be designed to deal broadly with matters of principle and permanent policy, and to foster and not to inhibit future developments;
  4. (d) the new Act should confer powers for all the details and the administrative requirements to be worked out, and changed from time to time as may be necessary, by Regulations and Orders of the Board of Trade;
  5. (e) many matters should be left to be dealt with by contractual arrangements and industrial negotiations."
Those broad general propositions, to which I would attach considerable importance, have been skilfully implemented in this Bill.

There are three specific matters on which I should like to say a few words. The first is rather a matter of detail, but I think it is just suitable briefly to be mentioned on Second Reading, and I am anxious to take this opportunity of mentioning it because I think there is a minor defect at this point in the Bill. Clause 8 imposes a penalty on employers for non-payment of seamen's wages. That is eminently sound, because of course seamen are in a peculiarly disadvantageous position if their wages are not paid promptly. They want to be going on leave and then on the next voyage, and they are not well placed for holding meetings with their trade union officers and bringing actions and so on. It is right, therefore, that there should be a severe penalty.

But I think that where this clause is not quite right is that this severe penalty is not in any way related to the amount of the unpaid wages involved. The penalty is one of up to 56 days' wages if the wages remain unpaid for 56 days or more. That penalty is quite reasonable if a large sum of wages remains unpaid—£200 or £100 or something of that nature. Then the penalty is perfectly reasonable. But should the amount unpaid be a small one, say the trifling sum of 10s., then this penalty of 56 days' wages is so excessive as to be utterly unreasonable, indeed absurd; and I would respectfully suggest that that absurdity ought to be removed from the Bill.

The second point I want to mention on the same clause, in view of what was said in another place, is that there is an exception from liability in subsection (4). But as I read that subsection, I do not think it is wide enough to relieve employers of liability if they make an innocent, minor mistake in working out what is the amount due; if the employers have miscalculated and have paid, say, 10s. less than they ought to pay then they are in default. 1 do not think that subsection (4) affords them any protection. At any rate, if I may speak informally, I think that a "sea lawyer" would fix on this point with great glee, and would have a good chance eventually of getting away with it.

I want now to mention the clauses relating to offences by seamen, especially Clauses 27 to 31. Speaking from memory, I think that of these, Clauses 27 and 30 are the most important. But Clauses 28 and 29 have raised the greatest amount of dispute. So far as they go, these clauses are entirely in line with the recommendations contained in paragraphs 311 and 325 of the Report of the Court of Inquiry. Some parts of the recommendations have been omitted from the Bill, but I do not wish to say anything about that. The provisions that remain in these clauses are, in my opinion, likely to assist in the maintenance of good discipline on board ship.

In paragraph 287 of the Report we expounded our reasons for saying that good discipline on board ship is a most essential matter. I do not think there is any dispute about that. The question that has been disputed is whether provisions on those lines—that is to say, provisions for possible prosecution in courts on shore in respect of misbehaviour at sea—would or would not be conducive to good discipline. There is a serious conflict of opinion on that question. My own view, which harmonises with the unanimous recommendation of the Court of Inquiry, is that the existence of such provisions would be helpful to the maintenance of discipline on board ship. Therefore, I welcome the inclusion of these provisions in the Bill.

I should like to say a few words about Clause 36, that important and, it may be, highly controversial clause which relates to the proposed innovation of ship's disciplinary committees. This important proposed innovation is referred to in paragraphs 293 to 296 of the Report, where we set out at some length the arguments for and against the proposal. In the debate in another place, complaint was made that paragraph 296, setting out the conclusions, was somewhat obscure. It was not meant to be at all obscure. The points involved can be shortly stated. On the one hand, no one can say at the present time whether this proposed innovation would be successful or not; therefore it would not be right to introduce it generally at the present time. As we said in the Report, jurisdiction should, for the time being at any rate, remain vested in the master. On the other hand, the proposed innovation is sufficiently hopeful to make it right to try it out experimentally in some ships to see how it works. That we recommended. Presumably, if the experiment works well, the system will be extended; if it works badly, it will be dropped. I still think that that is a reasonable approach to this most difficult and important question.

As to future stages of the Bill, I hope to be able to attend when your Lordships consider the details in Committee. But as at present advised, I am not intending to take much part because I feel sure that there are many noble Lords who have first-hand experience of these matters, whereas my information is only at second-hand, although it is true to say that three years ago, in common with those sitting with me, I received a great deal of interesting and valuable education and instruction on all these subjects. In conclusion, may 1 say that we have deep affection for and admiration of the British Merchant Marine, and we hope that this Bill will make its suitable contribution to the peace and prosperity of this great and essential industry.

3.58 p.m.

THE Marquhss OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR

My Lords, I ask leave to make quite a short intervention at this point, and to refer particularly to the position of people at work in shipyards. In the first few days of this century I myself became an apprentice in a shipwrights' society—in fact, I still hold my certificate as a member of that society. At that time it was all a question of working in wood, and a great many of us became anxious when first iron and then steel began to take the place of wood. Occasionally there was unemployment. This was unfortunate. There always remain with me the words of a mate, who said, "D'ye ken, Dudley, it's bad when you're idle and the kids start roaring for grub?" I have always remembered those words. But we did go ahead. Perhaps I may recount one thing that happened to me. I was caulking a deck, and the shop steward said," You're going too fast. You mustn't go quite so quickly as that." That is, of course, just a recollection from my own experience. This is not a Bill about building ships, but a Bill dealing with how to work them when they are built, and I apologise for just mentioning my own experience, the memory of which has stayed with me all my life.

4.0 p.m.

VISCOUNT RUNCIMAN OF DOX-FORD

My Lords, I must first, as a shipowner, declare my interest in this Bill, and secondly, in the same capacity, welcome it most heartily; the more so as it is, over so great a part of its ambit, agreed to—and I think with something like enthusiasm—by all the parties affected by it. Particularly are they agreed on the sense of gratitude they feel to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Pearson, for the Report which forms the basis of the Bill. Until a very few days ago, one had hoped that there was agreement on everything in this Bill; but, as has already been said this afternoon, issues have now emerged on which it is clear that certain persons feel strongly. It is disappointing that this should be so, particularly in the light of what has just fallen from the lips of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, himself.

It is no good pretending that a ship is like a factory ashore. Neglect, drunkenness, absenteeism and disobedience are no doubt regrettable anywhere, but at sea any one of them may give rise, and at very short notice, to serious and damaging consequences, certainly to the efficient prosecution of the voyage by the ship herself, and even to her safety and the safety of those who sail in her. I should have thought that it was pretty well self-evident that under such conditions one is bound to look for more strictly codified disciplines than are always necessary in shore-going occupations. Indeed, so far as my own small experience goes, I think it is true to say that the happiest ships are those in which discipline is strict, impartial and clearly understood— a point which my noble friend Lord Mancroft has already made.

I also find it extremely difficult to believe that the average British seafarer is as readily provoked as the noble Lord, Lord Milford, seems to think. A vast majority of seafarers have nothing to fear from this sort of disciplinary clause. It is extremely unlikely that any one of them will ever come into personal contact with it during the whole course of his seafaring career. But if one bad man in a ship can cause difficulties which affect the work and shipboard lives of all the rest, it seems to me only sensible that the rest should be protected by the knowledge that any one man who may set about doing this sort of thing is subject to appropriate penalties.

Nevertheless, as has been indicated already this afternoon, the representatives of the shipowners have stated their willingness to see these clauses reconsidered if, in the light of two or three years' experience, they are found to be unsatisfactory. I would only add that it is very much easier to mitigate the effects of a provision that is found to be too strict than to tighten up a provision that is found not to be strict enough. Meanwhile, the owners and the officers' associations who bear a heavy responsibility in these matters, have declared their full support for the Bill in its totality and as it stands. Therefore I welcome the assurance given by the noble Lord, Lord Brown, that Her Majesty's Government intend to stick by the Bill, and the whole Bill.

One agreeable feature, among many in this Bill, is that it is largely an enabling Bill, in that it provides for a wide range of matters to be dealt with by regulations. I trust that when the Board of Trade come to consider the regulations, the whole 32 sets which they are empowered to initiate, they will not feel that, just because they are empowered to make regulations, they have immediately to set about doing so over the whole field. I hope they will allow experience to show what is needed and that they will move through that. The Bill wisely requires consultation with the appropriate organisations before regulations are made. This power, well used, can, and I hope will, encourage the great advantages of flexibility and indeed of experiment (particularly in certain directions) which this Bill now makes possible.

The Bill should be taken as a whole. There are inevitably things in it, and things not in it, which some would wish otherwise. At the risk of a small digression I may say (if I may speak for a moment in another capacity, as a Trustee of the National Maritime Museum) that I am sorry that it has not been found practicable to include in the Bill provisions to amend the 1894 Act to protect from depredation what are generally known as historic wrecks. This is a matter of some concern to those who seek to preserve for the nation objects often of great historical or archæological value. However, I venture to hope that Her Majesty's Government may yet find means, if not in this Bill then in some other way, to achieve this object before it is too late.

As has been said, this is the first comprehensive revision of the law relating to merchant seamen and to the Mercantile Marine which has taken place for a very long time. It is welcome for many reasons, but one of the chief of them is that it takes a stage further the expression of the principle that, while a general surveillance of the affairs of the Mercantile Marine by the Government is proper and desirable, a detailed intervention in its everyday affairs is neither; and that these detailed daily affairs will be best ordered, so far as possible, by those whose livelihood they directly concern. In fact, if I may so put it, the best position for a Government to adopt in these matters is, like Dibdin's; Cherub, To sit smiling aloft, to keep watch for the life of poor Jack ".

4.7 p.m.

VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS

My Lords, I intervene very briefly. I think the House will be interested to know that I am probably the only person present who has ever sung the Merchant Shipping Act 1894. Strangely enough, it was made into a song—and for a very good reason. Most of the seamen of that date could not read, so some genius, either in the early trade unions or at the Board of Trade, made it into a sea shanty, with each verse as a separate clause. I remember singing this at sea as a deck officer in order to keep a young crew active during the long night watches. I will not sing it to your Lordships this afternoon: I am a very bad singer, and I am sure you are all very relieved. I might, however, recite two verses. It started off: If you want to join a British ship, You must not roam at large; If you want to join a British ship, You must have a good discharge. It must be signed by the Board of Trade. And everything exact, Or there will be no month's advance, According to the Act. Later, it goes on: Now when you sign the Articles, You have to hear them read. They tell you of your pork and beef, Your water and your bread, Your coffee, tea and butter, And everything exact, For nothing goes on in a British ship Contrary to the Act. My Lords, must we not all wish that our present, modern legislation were all made so clear and so very memorable?

4.10 p.m.

LORD BROWN

My Lords, it has been a very pleasant experience to listen to the reception which has been given to this Bill by (he House, and I would start by saying how grateful I am to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, for his extremely kind remarks. They were addressed to me, but I shall see that they are conveyed to my right honourable friend the Minister of State, who has had a lot to do with this Bill at the Board of Trade, and to officials and those who drafted this Bill who, I agree, have done a very good job indeed; not only in terms of its content, but also in terms of the type of drafting, which has been simpler than usual.

It is unusual for a Bill that contains 32 opportunities for the Board of Trade to make regulations to be accepted with such acclaim by this House. I have spoken in this House on many occasions and have created great anxiety by unfolding details of a Bill which allowed for far fewer regulations than this one. That only underlines the great difference between the seafaring industry and other realms of our life; where people are far away from home and where there is, perhaps, a greater need for law and order to preserve safety and life.

I noted the words of the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman of Doxford, and I entirely agree with him. The Board of Trade are not avid to introduce these 32 sets of regulations; indeed, it is a work of great labour to do so. I think this is faced with some degree of horror by officials, who know that they are going to have to do a good deal of work, and I am sure that their appetite for doing too much will be curbed by the sheer endeavour that it will cause. So I think I can reassure the noble Viscount on that point. I am sorry that this is not felt to be an appropriate place for introducing legislation on historic wrecks. As the noble Viscount will recognise, this Bill has very specific objectives and it would have been a pity to diversify them by matters of another sort, however important they may be.

Of course, I noted that the main remarks made by all speakers were concerned with what we might refer to as the disciplinary clauses. With great respect, I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, was a little heavy-handed on this subject. That is a pity, because reference to syndicalists running wild on board ship, or whatever it was that he said, is likely to exacerbate feelings rather than to calm them down. What one has to observe about the disciplinary clauses is that they are an outcome of the Pearson Report, and of the deliberations in the National Maritime Board which followed, and they are in this Bill as they stand largely because of the advice received by the Board of Trade from those two sources.

Apart from that advice these are, fundamentally, fairly arbitrary matters. It is not a black and white decision as to whether certain offences should be statutory offences, and certain others should not. It is feeling about the situation in the shipping industry which is largely conditioning the matter. We have seen fit to follow the consensus of opinion coming from the Maritime Board, because we think that they know best. Also, in answer to the very specific question of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, I do not think that modifications should be tied to particular dates or particular events. As my right honourable friend said in the House of Commons, they should follow a change in the consensus of opinion on the Maritime Board. That is where these clauses started and they are the people who have this feeling about the matter, of which we ought to take full cognisance all the time.

I should like to recite the reasons for our attitude on these disciplinary clauses a little more fully. The main reason for the existence of these provisions is to provide a proper atmosphere of discipline, to assist the safe navigation of the ship. I want to get these remarks on the record and if I bore noble Lords a little perhaps they will bear with me. Any ordinary day-to-day offences should be dealt with by the master and by the shipboard committees that I hope will be formed. The way in which the master can exercise his powers will be prescribed in regulations after consultation with both sides of industry, and will only be within the provisions laid down by Clause 35. However, the overwhelming proportion of troubles on board will be covered. The Bill provides for the new experiment of shipboard disciplinary committees in place of the master acting alone. But while I hope that, as this procedure comes into use, it will become both widespread and effective throughout the British merchant fleet, it will not, I am sure, in any way usurp or undermine the power of the master, who we envisage as the chairman of these committees with the authority which that position bestows.

On balance, it appears very necessary that the disciplinary clauses should be retained in the form in which they have emerged from another place, and that is the decision of Her Majesty's Government. The merchant fleets of other countries have similar or more severe disciplinary provisions, and it is essential to maintain sufficient discipline to safe-guard safety at sea. Safety is the basis of these clauses, and that has to be remembered all the time. As the noble Lord, Lord Milford, said, it is possible for these clauses to be interpreted in different ways. It is very difficult to draft in such a way that a clause is directed at safety, but that is the basis for certain offences being made statutory offences. The eye is firmly on safety. There is another reason which I should like to recite. We should not forget that much tonnage under the British flag is owned by international companies which also have ships registered in other countries. It is to the advantage of this country and of our balance of payments that new ships which are building should be registered in Britain and not elsewhere, otherwise we shall lose both income and employment.

These clauses are all in accordance with the recommendations of the Pearson Report which was written after the Court had heard full evidence on this topic from all interested parties. Indeed, where we have departed at all from those recommendations it has been in favour of the seamen. As I have said, the prime reason for such disciplinary provisions is the maintenance of safety, and from past experience we expect that there will be very few prosecutions in court. But the existence of such clauses helps to maintain the atmosphere of discipline which assists the safe navigation of the ship.

The clauses are much less rigorous than those of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894 which they replace. The necessity for them was urged on the Pearson Committee by both the British Shipping Federation and the various officers' associations, such as the Merchant Navy and Air Line Officers' Association, which together represent about 45 per cent. of the British seafarers serving in British ships. In addition, they are supported by the Amalgamated Engineering Federation, which represents a number of engine room staffs.

The noble Lord, Lord Milford, put his points very fairly and very properly but, as I said, this is not entirely a black and white matter. However, there is this consensus in the Maritime Board and we are providing, in the event of the Maritime Board changing its opinion, to consider adaptation of this legislation at some time in the future. In the meantime, it is the Government's wish that these disciplinary clauses should go forward as they are now written into the Bill.

I am grateful to the noble Viscount Lord St. Davids, for giving us a little light amusement on this subject, and I wonder whether it would be a good thing if more of the legislation coming to this House were translated into rhyme for the benefit of the public. I leave that to some genius we may have in our midst to consider as his future work. I am not one of those who feels that it is necessary to pay due respect to this House by insisting that speeches should be fairly lengthy, and I do not want anybody to feel that because I am about to finish my speech, which your Lordships may think has been very short in relation to the length of the Bill and its importance, I am showing any disrespect to the comments made, which have mostly been favourable. This is a very important Bill and I hope that we are going to have a very constructive series of discussions when it reaches the Committee stage.

Before I cease speaking, I must refer to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, on Clause 8, with regard to the penalties arising through delays, or possibly mistakes, regarding wages. I have noted those points. I am not in a position to refer in detail to them now, but I shall have them looked at. It may be that there is a technical fault here which we could correct, because certainly nobody has any intention to penalise a shipowner or the master of a ship for an innocent mistake, to the extent envisaged in the Bill. Fifty-six days' wages would be a heavy penalty for such a mistake. I shall have this matter looked at. I shall also have another look at the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, on the disciplinary committees. I have taken note of those matters.

LORD PEARSON

I thank the noble Lord very much.

LORD BROWN

With that, my Lords, I think I have said all that has to be said in response to this extremely pleasant debate. I am very grateful for the way in which noble Lords have accepted the Second Reading of this Bill.

On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.