LORDS AMENDMENT (Hansard, 28 May 1970)

§ LORD BROWN
My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on Amendment No. 12 to which the Commons have disagreed. This is a matter of who should make provision for maintaining a seaman who has been left behind abroad. The Amendment would relieve the shipowner of liability in cases where the reason was due to the seaman's misconduct in the manner indicated in the Amendment. I think that it is important to bear in mind that Clause 62 imposes a statutory duty to maintain and repatriate. That is one thing. The quite different matter as to the employer's recovering his expenses, in certain circumstances, for so doing is not dealt with by the clause. That is a matter of civil liability under the contract of employment.
The question whether the employer can recover his expenses in the case of a seaman who misconducts himself is a question of the seaman's civil liability to his employer governed by the terms of the contract of employment. If, in the circumstances envisaged, the employer might well have a remedy for breach of contract against the seaman, the damages for which might include expenses such as those for his maintenance and repatriation, that is entirely a matter to be determined under the terms of the contract. I am advised that there is nothing in the clause which would prevent the recovery of such expenses where there were grounds for a civil action for recovery under the contract.
We discussed this Amendment in Committee and it was argued that foreign Governments do not place a similar liability on their shipowners. I understand the desire to place no undue burden on our shipowners in relation to their foreign competitors. However, this is a matter of principle. In our view, on principle these expenses should be a matter for the industry and not for the general taxpayer. The Government see no reason for departing from this principle on the ground that it would impose a financial burden on shipowners. In any case, the additional expense involved will not be large. For these reasons I hope that your Lordships will accept my Motion.

§ LORD SANDFORD
My Lords, the noble Lord says that the amount may 1212 not be large. We had some discussion on that; and at the end of the day it was agreed that nobody could say what the amount would be. The noble Lord said that he had no intention of departing from a principle. The fact of the matter is that this particular clause, in this particular Bill, establishes a new principle, one that is not adopted by or adhered to by any other maritime nation in the world—certainly none of any size. By not insisting on our Amendment we are therefore, in effect, putting our own merchant fleet which is such a good export earner (as I reminded the House on Second Reading, it earns us £250 million net a year in invisible exports) at a disadvantage compared to all our major maritime competitors. We are doing this, so far as I can see (though if the noble Lord can correct me on this that will be so much better) without any steps having been taken to persuade the other maritime nations to move into line on the new principle that we are establishing unilaterally.

§ LORD BROWN
My Lords, for the Record, the principle is that the employer should be responsible for maintenance and repatriation. That is the principle. With great respect, I think that the noble Lord is somewhat exaggerating, in terms of expense, the effect of this Amendment. Without the Amendment there might arise a case where the employer, having paid the cost of maintenance or repatriation for a man, when seeking to reimburse himself from third parties might not receive full co-operation because it was not in the contract of employment. I leave your Lordships to consider the total burden of expense likely to arise in these circumstances. I think it would be small indeed.

§ LORD BROWN
My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Consequential Amendment No. 14. This Amendment is solely a minor consequential Amendment to Clause 93.

§ LORD SANDFORD
My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is quite clear and understandable. Before the Bill leaves 1213 us, I should like, since in defence of our Amendments to which the other place have disagreed I have been rather critical of the Government, to take the opportunity of congratulating the Government on their firmness, during the passing of the Bill, in upholding, against pressure from their own Left Wing, the need for discipline afloat. I would also congratulate them on providing in this Bill a legal basis for negotiating industrial relations in the merchant shipping fleet. This is something that we on this side have advocated over all sectors of industry for a long time. Here, at any rate, "in place of strife" and in place of interference by the Government we have a firm and modern framework of law in which further negotiations can go on. Despite the few blemishes that remain in the Bill, we have this framework; and I think that we can safely rely on the Board of Trade, as they now set about preparing no fewer than 35 different sets of regulations, and the National Maritime Board to build up a fine structure of industrial relations.