House of Commons
Tuesday, February 11, 1936
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock,Mr. SPEAKERin the Chair.
Private Business
Private Bill Petitions [ Lords ] (Standing Orders complied with),
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the Petition for the following Bill, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have been complied with, namely:
Liverpool Corporation Bill [ Lords ].
Provisional Order Bills (No Standing Orders applicable),
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Bury and District Joint Hospital District) Bill.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (South Staffordshire Joint Smallpox Hospital District) Bill.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Chester and Derby) Bill.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (North East Lindsey Joint Hospital District) Bill.
Bills to be read a Second time To-morrow.
Axbridge Rural District Council Bill,
Barnsley Extension Bill,
Brentford and Chiswick Corporation Bill,
Read a Second time, and committed.
Brighton Marine Palace and Pier Bill,
Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
Cheltenham and Gloucester Joint Water Board &c. Bill,
Read a Second time, and committed.
Cleethorpes Trolley Vehicles Bill, Colne Valley and Northwood Electricity Bill,
Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
Coventry Corporation Bill, To be read a Second time To-morrow.
Dalton-in-Furness Urban District Council Bill,
Dewsbury and Heckmondwike Waterworks Board Bill, Read a Second time, and committed.
Gas Light and Coke Company (No. 1) Bill,
Gas Light and Coke Company (No. 2) Bill.
Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills
Great Western Railway (Additional Powers) Bill,
To be read a Second time To-morrow.
Great Western Railway (Ealing and Shepherd's Bush Railway Extension) Bill,
Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
Hereford Corporation Bill, To be read a Second time To-morrow.
Llanelly District Traction Bill,
Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
London and Middlesex (Improvements, &c.) Bill,
London and North Eastern Railway (General Powers) Bill,
To be read a Second time To-morrow.
London and North Eastern Railway (London Transport) Bill,
Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
London Midland and Scottish Railway Bill,
Mersey Docks and Harbour Board Bill, To be read a Second time To-morrow.
Merton and Morden Urban District Council Bill, Read a Second time, and committed.
North Wales Electric Power Bill, Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
Severn Bridge Bill, Solihull Urban District Council Bill, South East Cornwall Water Board Bill, Read a Second time, and committed.
South Essex Waterworks Bill, Southern Railway Bill,
Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills. Stalybridge Hyde Mossley and Dukinfield Transport and Electricity Board Bill.
Read a Second time, and committed.
Surrey County Council Bill, Thornton Cleveleys Improvement Bill, To be read a Second time To-morrow.
Uckfield Water Bill, Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
Warkworth Harbour Bill,
Read a Second time, and committed.
Wolverhampton Corporation Bill, York Gas Bill, To be read a Second time To-morrow.
Oral Answers to Questions
Defence Forces (Meat Supplies)
asked the Secretary of State for War what was the total money value of home-produced meat purchased for the supply of the Army, the Royal Air Force, and the Reserves at home during the latest 12 months recorded; and what would be, approximately, the additional annual cost of supplying these services entirely with home-produced beef in lieu of the frozen and chilled beef at present imported?
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that over £400,000 a year is still being expended by His Majesty's Government in purchasing imported chilled and frozen meat for the feeding of the Forces and that, by an extra expenditure of £50,000 only, the Services could not only be given the advantage of fresh meat but nearly half a million pounds could be directed annually into the British farming industry; and will he make inquiries with a view to taking some action in the matter?
A little over £400,000 a year is expended in the purchase of Dominion frozen meat for the Army and Air Force at home. The purchases of fresh meat, excluding any small quantities which may be purchased locally for hospitals and schools, amount to approximately £2,000. The extra cost of supplying home-killed meat in lieu of frozen meat of Dominion origin is estimated to be about £350,000 a year and, apart from administrative difficulties, would be prohibitive so far as Army Funds are concerned.
Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the frozen meat is bought from Empire sources or foreign sources? If bought from foreign sources, will the right hon. Gentleman buy it from Empire sources?
If the hon. and gallant Member had listened to my answer he would have heard that I said "Dominion sources."
Is the £350,000 a recent estimate?
It is the most recent estimate I have, and I have no reason to think that it is out of date.
As the Government are spending millions of pounds in subsidising British-produced meat for civilians, will they also subsidise British-produced meat for the Army and the Air Force?
Would it not be better for the health of the troops if they were fed on fresh British meat?
asked the Secretary of State for War the total annual money value for the years 1933, 1934, and 1935 of meat (beef, mutton, pork) and bacon for the regiments of His Majesty's Forces stationed at Catterick Camp, Yorkshire; and how much of such supplies are obtained from producers living and producing within a radius of 50 miles of that camp?
The approximate values of beef and mutton purchased for the troops stationed at Catterick Camp during the years in question were: £26,240, £27,240 and £27,250 respectively. Pork does not form part of the soldier's normal ration, and the values for bacon, which is purchased by the troops through the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes, are not readily available. Practically all Army supplies of meat and bacon are of Dominion origin and little, if any, is obtained from local producers living and producing within a radius of 50 miles of the camp.
Is it not a fact that the Dominions are the biggest competitors of our own local farmers?
Cannot we buy this meat locally instead of from the Dominions, so that our local farmers may be able to earn a living?
British Army
Personnel (Reductions)
asked the Secretary of State for War what are the reductions in personnel in the Regular Army, Territorial Army, and Reserves, respectively, at the present time as compared with 1913?
The establishments for 1935 show the following net reductions in personnel as compared with 1913: Regular Army, 48,500; Territorial Army, 137,770; Reserves, 85,736.
Is it not a fact that our military strength in the categories mentioned in 1913 was considered to be the very minimum requirements for the defence of the Empire, and are the Government alive to the present state of our defences?
London Territorial Units
asked the Secretary of State for War the present deficiency of the strength of London Territorial units; and whether any steps are to be taken in the near future to increase the inducements to young men to join the Territorial Army so as to remedy this defect?
The present deficiency is approximately 8,900. As regards the second part of the question I will ask my hon. Friend to await the introduction of the forthcoming Army Estimates.
Will the right hon. Gentleman consider extending the opportunity of wearing uniform in public to the Territorials?
Certainly.
Machine Guns
asked the Secretary of State for War whether the new gun which it was announced would take the place of the Lewis gun has yet been issued to all units; and, if not, how many units are already fully equipped with it?
I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on 17th December last to a question by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Colonel Cruddas) to which I have nothing to add.
Anti-Aircraft Gun
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the fact that the firm of Vickers have invented an anti-aircraft gun claimed to be superior to any other; and upon what grounds the Government still retain an old type in use since 1918?
I am aware of the claims made in respect of this gun. My hon. Friend will, however, appreciate that it would not be in the public interest to disclose the reasons why it has not been adopted, but I can assure him that active consideration is being given to the replacement of existing guns by a new antiaircraft equipment for defence against aircraft of the latest design.
Was one of the reasons that of cost?
Russia (Army Strength)
The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of SIR W. DAVISON:
3. To ask the Secretary of State for War if he can inform the House as to the present strength of the Red Army of Soviet Russia; and what further increases are proposed in the recent Budget for the forthcoming year?
On a point of Order. Reference is made in this question to "the present strength of the Red Army of Soviet Russia." Is it in order to put unnecessary adjectives in a question?
It all depends on what "red" means.
I am informed that the Deputy Commissar for Defence announced in a speech to the Central Executive Committee of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on 15th January, 1936, that the strength of the Red Army—which includes the Navy and Air Force—had reached a total of 1,300,000. The budget estimates for defence for 1936 amount to 14.8 milliard roubles against 6.5 milliard estimated and 8.2 actually expended in 1935, but I have no information as to what further increases in strength are contemplated.
Seeing that Russia is a member of the League of Nations, is not the presence of this army a stabilising force?
Scotland
Governor of Edinburgh Castle
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is now in a position to make a statement as to the proposal to restore the ancient office of Governor of Edinburgh Castle?
It has now been decided that the office of Governor of Edinburgh Castle shall be revived. The appointment is titular and honorary, and will be held by the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Scottish Command, for the time being.
Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House what will be the duties of the Governor in an office which has been so long in abeyance?
I have already informed the House that the appointment is titular and honorary, and the duties therefore may safely be left to the imagination of the hon. Member.
Why not give this post to the Minister for Thought?
Education (Rural Continuation Classes)
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the names of the districts where the full curriculum is given as laid out in publication M 228 dealing with rural continuation classes in Scotland?
The districts in question for the session 1934–35 were Cupar, Brechin, Kirriemuir, Kildrummy, St. Andrews Lhanbryd.
Can the Secretary of State say why, in an important subject like education, only this very small number of these classes have been formed since the issue of the circular in 1913?
We are taking steps to try to encourage these classes.
I want to know why nothing has been done in the past—why it is only now that something is being done?
I should require a little notice of that question.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has had any applications for rural continuation classes; and by what process such classes are established?
For the current session rural continuation classes were approved by the Department at 188 continuation class centres. With regard to the second part of the question, Section 10 of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1908, requires education authorities to make suitable provision of continuation classes for the further instruction of young persons above the age of 14 years with reference to the crafts and industries practised in the district (including agriculture if so practised and the domestic arts), and the Department annually invite the education authorities to submit proposals for the necessary continuation classes. The county staffs of the agricultural colleges co-operate in the work of education in rural subjects. As stated in answer to a previous question by the hon. Member on 4th February, the Department propose to take steps to stimulate the development of rural courses.
May I ask whether it is the duty of the rural schoolmaster or schoolmistress to bring to the notice of the education authorities that such classes are necessary, or whether it is the examining inspectors who report to the Department? By what means is this matter brought to the attention of the authorities?
I am afraid that I cannot answer that question at short notice, but I will communicate with the hon. Member on the point.
Maternal Mortality
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has yet received any replies to his circular to local authorities in Scotland relating to maternal morbidity and mortality; whether he can indicate the nature of such replies; and whether he contemplates any further action in the matter?
The circular asks local authorities to undertake surveys of the extent and quality of existing services and to report by 29th February. No replies have yet been received.
Housing
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction among local authorities in Scotland at the delay in issuing the conditions for rebates of rent referred to in Section 47, Sub-section (5), of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1935; that, if not issued soon, housing authorities claim that it will be impossible to prepare their new scheme of rents to operate from 16th May, 1936; and, if so, when the regulations will be issued and when he proposes to consult representatives of local authorities?
I am aware that local authorities have complained of the delay in issuing the regulations referred to by the hon. Member. The drafting of the regulations has presented considerable difficulty but they are now nearly completed. It is expected that it will be possible to consult representatives of local authorities within the next few weeks.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction of several Scottish housing authorities at the refusal of the Department of Health to approve of the terms these authorities had approved of for acquiring land for housing purposes; that this refusal may cause delay in carrying through their housing programme; and will he, for the power claimed by the Department, have this matter inquired into?
Some local authorities have made representations to the effect stated by the hon. Member. Prices asked for land for housing purposes are frequently in excess of what can be approved. For the convenience of local authorities, however, I have recently made arrangements under which the Valuation Office of the Inland Revenue will undertake negotiations with owners of land, and I understand that considerable advantage will be taken of these arrangements by local authorities who may consider that the prices asked for by owners are too high. I will undertake that no delay will occur if local authorities apply at an early stage.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the reason for the delay in dealing with local authority proposals as to contributions to be paid into the housing pool for houses built under the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924?
I am sending the hon. Member a copy of a circular on this subject which was issued by the Department of Health to local authorities on 8th instant. The Housing (Scotland) Act, 1935, made a number of important changes in the financial relations between local authorities and the Exchequer and time and careful consideration have been necessary for the proper adjustment of the consequential changes in administration.
Hydro-Electric Power Scheme (Glengarry and Glenmoriston)
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has considered the appeal addressed to him on 25th January by the Association for the Preservation of Rural Scotland pressing for an inquiry to be made before a new hydro-electric power scheme involving Glengarry and Glenmoriston is launched; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?
The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The proposed scheme is the subject of a Draft Provisional Order, under the Scottish Private Legislation Procedure. Unless the Lord Chairman of Committees and the Chairman of Ways and Means decide that it should proceed as a Private Bill, an inquiry on the draft Order will in due course be held in Scotland by Commissioners consisting of Members of the two Houses. In view of this statutory inquiry by Commissioners I do not consider it appropriate to appoint a separate Committee to make the inquiry suggested by the association, but in replying to the association I have pointed out that if they decide to submit objections on the ground of injury to scenery the question of affording them a hearing by the Commissioners will be sympathetically considered by me.
Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the issuing of a White Paper giving a summary of the area of the scheme?
I have had no inquiries for such a White Paper, but I will consider the matter.
Parliamentary Elections
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether any action has been taken with regard to the promised inquiry into the alleged irregularities at the counting of votes for the Kelvingrove Division at the last General Election?
I have obtained a report from the returning officer for the Kelvingrove Division which indicates that two mistakes occurred in connection with the first and second counts. The papers contained in one ballot box were omitted from the first count, and the result of counting one lot of 1,000 votes was omitted from the enumeration sheets. This was due to error on the part of a clerk supervising the counting arrangements, and not to any defect in the statutory provisions regulating election procedure. The conduct of elections in Scotland is, under statute, a matter for the sheriffs as returning officers. I have, however, invited the sheriffs collectively to review their experience of the recent General Election and to inform me of any matters to which they think that my attention might usefully be directed.
Is there any truth in the report that there were persons at the counting of the votes in this election who were not entitled to be in the building at all?
I should require notice of that question. No information on the point has been given to me.
If the facts are as stated would it be in the power of the Scottish Office to take action?
These matters are entirely under the jurisdiction of the sheriffs, who are quite capable of looking after these matters.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that many electors in the Ross and Cromarty Division of Scotland are practically deprived of their vote because of the lack of travelling facilities and road difficulties; and will he, therefore, arrange for travelling ballot boxes for the benefit of voters in outlying districts?
In Scotland it is the duty of the Sheriff, as returning officer, to fix polling districts and polling places, and I have no power to intervene in such a matter. I brought the question, however, to the notice of the returning officer for the Ross and Cromarty Division. He states that, in normal weather, not many voters in that constituency are practically deprived of their vote by difficulties of communication; and he doubts if there are many cases where the polling booth is less accessible than the church, doctor, or village shop. As regards travelling ballot boxes, such a system would require legislation and would involve considerable expense, delay, and risk of tampering. As indidated in a previous answer I have asked the sheriffs collectively to furnish me with any observations arising out of their experience of the recent General Election.
Who fixes the candidates?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all candidates during the recent Election said that it was mostly desirable that these travelling boxes should be instituted? Is he also aware that persons in these divisions have to travel 20 miles, 10 miles or 5 miles to ballot?
Juvenile Court (Maryhill)
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of children fined or placed on probation by the juvenile court in the Maryhill Division of Glasgow during 1935?
Fifty children were fined and 18 were placed on probation in 1935 by the Court referred to.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a considerable feeling in the Maryhill Division with regard to the question of juvenile crime and the sentences arising therefrom; and will he make inquiries with regard to that division?
I am afraid that matters pertaining to the courts must be settled by the courts themselves.
Questions
Malta (Defence)
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that two barriers of barbed wire have been constructed all round Malta; and what Department was responsible for this expenditure?
No, Sir; but a certain amount of barbed wire has been erected by the military authorities as part of the precautionary measures for the defence of the island. The expenditure involved is a proper charge against Army funds.
Is it intended to stop aeroplanes getting to Malta.
Coal Industry
Reorganisation Commission
asked the Secretary for Mines the sums received by the chairman and members of the Coal Reorganisation Commission, respectively, since the inception of the committee, and the number of amalgamations effected in the coal industry through the direct efforts of the committee?
From 15th December, 1930, the date of the commission's inception, to 31st January, 1936, the chairman received £31,356 14s. 1d.; three commissioners each received £3,531 6s. 6d., and the fourth member of the commission has served without remuneration. With regard to the second part of the question, since the formation of the commission amalgamations involving 234 pits have been effected, but I cannot say how many of these are directly due to the activities of the commission.
Is it not clear to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the results do not justify the expenditure entailed; and is it not time to bring this commission to an end?
Who appointed these gentlemen?
I thought everybody knew that.
Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman consult his right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council in relation to that matter?
Mining Subsidence
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware of the damage caused by mining subsidence; that Leigh, Atherton and Tyldesley councils are concerned owing to expense arising owing to the dislocation of the water and gas mains; and will he consider setting up an inquiry to look into this matter?
The Royal Commission on Mining Subsidence, which reported in 1927, considered the statutory position of local authorities in this respect, but did not recommend that they should be relieved of their existing financial responsibilities. The Commission's reasons for coming to this conclusion are set out in their Report, notably in paragraph 71, of which I will send the hon. Member a copy.
As it is proposed to bring in a Bill to deal with mining royalties, would it not be desirable to have information on the question of payments out of these mining royalties to the local authorities; and will the hon. and gallant Gentleman consider that point?
Answer.
In view of the reply given, I intend to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.
Eatock Pit, Westhoughton
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware that, owing to the failure of the colliery companies concerned to agree on a co operative pumping scheme, the Eatock Pit, Westhoughton, has recently closed down and that other collieries in the district may soon be threatened with water; and, if so, will he take steps to prevent this disaster spreading any further?
I understand that the closing of this pit is due rather to the exhaustion of the mineral than to pumping difficulties. I am further informed that it is unlikely that water from this pit will affect any other colliery. The position will, however, be carefully watched.
Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the water problem in this area has already made two urban council districts derelict and that it is likely that a subsidence problem will follow?
I do not think the hon. Gentleman can have heard my reply in which I said that the closing of the pit was rather due to the exhaustion of the mineral.
Coal-Oil Distillation, Tipton
asked the Secretary for Mines what is the position with regard to progress in coal-oil distillation at Tipton and the yield in smokeless fuel, petrol, gas, and fuel-oil obtained?
I regret that as no official test has been made no information is available.
Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman consider the advisability of holding an official test, in view of the very interesting work which is now being carried out at this installation?
It is not for me to do so. The company are quite well aware that facilities for official tests are offered by the Fuel Research Board and they have only to apply for one.
Coal Mines Convention
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he has any statement to make with reference to the ratification of the Coal Mines Convention; whether he will consider the advisability of Great Britain ratifying conditionally on a similar action by the other parties; and whether negotiations have taken place with the German Government on the subject of ratification?
I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to a question by the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) on 9th December last.
Will the Minister reply to the second and third parts of the question, which are rather different from the first part and are not covered by his previous reply?
I think the hon. Member will find that they are covered if he studies the reply.
Is it not true to say that the Government have no intention of ratifying this convention?
Statistics
asked the Secretary for Mines the quantity of coal produced in Great Britain and South Wales during 1935, respectively, and the quantity of coal exported from Great Britain and South Wales during 1935, respectively?
The estimated quantity of saleable coal raised at mines in Great Britain during 1935 was 222,940,000 tons and the quantity of coal exported 38,714,134 tons. The corresponding figures for South Wales and Monmouthshire were 35,117,700 tons and 15,635,713 tons, respectively.
Gresford Colliery (Safety Lamps)
asked the Secretary for Mines whether any tests have been undertaken in connection with the flame safety lamps employed at the Gresford Colliery, North Wales, at the time of the explosion; if so, with what results; and, if no test has already been taken, is it the intention of the Department to arrange for such a test or tests?
The six flame safety lamps recovered from the mine after the explosion were examined and tested at the Mines Department Testing Station at Sheffield. The report of the results was put in evidence at the public inquiry, and I will send the hon. Member a copy.
asked the Secretary for Mines the number of safety lamps in use at the Gresford Colliery prior to the explosion in 1934, giving the number and names of the flame safety lamps, together with the number of apertures per square inch in the gauzes and the number of electric safety lamps?
Evidence given at the public inquiry showed that there were 1,848 flame safety lamps and 30 electric cap lamps in use. The flame lamps were of the Marsaut type, with two gauzes and burning spirit. Except for five surveyors' lamps fitted with 28 mesh
Total Salaries charged to the Miners' Welfare Fund from its inception to 31st December, 1935. Financial Year ended 31st March. Secretarial Branch. Advisory or Districts Branch. Baths or Architects Branch. Total. £ s. d. £ s. d. £ s. d. £ s. d. 1923 … … — 1,966 0 0 — 1,966 0 0 1924 … … — 3,000 0 0 — 3,000 0 0 1925 … … — 2,467 11 0 — 2,467 11 0 1926 … … — 2,347 17 0 — 2,347 17 0 1927 … … — 3,371 2 10 — 10 3,371 2 1928 … … — 3,223 10 0 2,069 19 3 5,293 9 3 1929 … … — 3,667 1 9 8,755 2 6 12,422 4 3 1930 … … — 4,181 1 9 12,880 4 0 17,061 6 4 1931 … … 62 1 11 4,853 10 8 14,550 13 9 19,466 6 4 1932 … … 1,444 2 4 4,873 7 7 16,596 5 6 22,913 15 5 1933 … … 2,750 4 5 5,084 11 1 17,703 11 9 25,538 7 3 1934 … … 4,396 11 0 5,194 6 0 18,300 4 8 27,891 1 8 1935 … … 4,788 7 6 5,184 15 1 18,608 14 3 28,581 16 10 1936 (9 months to 31st December, 1935) 4,135 19 1 3,832 14 0 14,774 10 4 22,743 3 5 17,577 6 3 53,247 8 9 124,239 6 7 195,064 1 7 Less— Paid to Industrial Welfare SocietyPaid to Industrial Welfare Society … … 7,433 11 0 187,630 10 7
Notes. —(1) The sums paid during the financial years 1922–3, 1923–4 and 1924–5 represent payments to the Industrial Welfare Society which carried out certain technical advisory work in those years.
(2)The salaries of the administrative staff provided by the Mines Department have been charged to the Miners' Welfare Fund since October, 1931.
(3)Salaries are paid out of the Fund in respect of staff employed by District Miners' Welfare Committees as well as staff employed by the Central Committee, The former are paid by the District Committees and our records do not show the payments made each year, but the total administration expenses of the District Committees to 31st December, 1935, amounted to about £127,000 of which about £85,000 is estimated to be attributable to salaries. The total sum paid out of the Fund up to the same date in respect of the salaries of staff employed by the Central Committee amounted to about £187,500.
gauzes, all the flame lamps were fitted with 20 mesh gauzes—having 400 apertures to the square inch.
Miners' Welfare Fund
32, 33 and 34.
asked the Secretary for Mines (1) what was the total amount of salaries paid by the Miners' Welfare Committee for the years 1924, 1929, and 1934;
(2)what was the amount of salaries charged to the Miners' Welfare Fund for each year separately since its inception;
(3)what are the total sums in expenditure on salaries charged to the Miners' Welfare Fund since its inception?
As the reply involves a number of figures I will circulate a tabular statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Following is the statement:
Explosions
asked the Secretary for Mines the number of colliery explosions that occurred in 1935, giving the number of deaths and injuries in each case, together with the causes of ignition and the explosive mixture ignited?
Following is the statement:
COAL MINES. Explosions or ignitions of firedamp causing death or injury. 1935. Date. Colliery. Persons killed. Persons injured. Cause. Scotland Division. 1935. April 30 … Baads No. 42 … 2 1 Naked light. October 6 … Carriden … 3 3 Electricity. January 11 … Whitrigg … — 2 Naked light. February 6 … Lumphmnans No. 12 … — 2 Naked light. February 12 … Dykehead … — 1 Naked light. March 6 … Mauchline No. 2 … — 1 Attributed to smoking in a safety lamp district. March 16 … Dunbreck No. 2 … — 2 Naked light. April 9 … Rosehall No. 5 … — 1 Naked light. May 3 … Telfer … — 1 Naked light. May 22 … Roslin … — 2 Naked light. July 3 … Blairmuckhill … — 2 Electricity. July 7 … Carberry … — 1 Naked light. September 4 … Whitrigg … — 1 Naked light. September 17 … Ardenrigg No. 6 … — 1 Naked light. October 18 … Roslin … — 1 Naked light. December 30 … Lumpbinnans 11 … — 1 Naked light. Northern Division. January 25 … New Hartley … — 1 Attributed to a match in a safety lamp district. January 25 … Seghill … — 1 Naked light. July 1 … Ravensworth Ann … — 1 Explosives. July 31 … North Skelton … — 1 Naked light. August 27 … Bomarsund … — 1 Naked light. October 14 … North Skelton … 1 1 Naked light. December 1 … Cowpen Mill … — 1 Naked light. December 2 … Cowpen "Bates" … — 3 Naked light. Yorkshire Division. February 10 … Woolley Parkgate … 1 9 Shotfiring. August 23 … South Kirkby … 10 7 Spontaneous combustion. September 9 … North Gawber, Lidgett 19 5 The report of the Public Inquiry has not yet been received. North Midland Division. December 14 … Gedling … — 2 Electricity. North Western Division. Nil. Cardiff and Forest of Dean Division. Nil.
The number of explosions in collieries during 1935 including all reported ignitions of firedamp was 50. With the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a tabular statement covering the 32 cases in which death or injury resulted. In the remaining 18 cases no persons were killed or injured.
Date. Colliery. Persons killed. Persons injured. Cause. Swansea Division. February 21 … North Rhondda No. … — 1 Naked light. February 22 … Felinfran … — 1 Naked light. February 25 … North Rhondda No. 1 … — 1 Naked light. Midland and Southern Division. January 29 … Kingsbury … — 4 Naked light.
asked the Secretary for Mines the amount of inert matter necessary to prevent the propagation of a coal dust explosion in mines where the volatile content of the coals worked is 35 per cent., 37 per cent. and 40 per cent., respectively?
It would not be possible to answer this question categorically. The different amounts of incombustible matter requisite can only be deduced approximately from the data provided by tests in an experimental gallery; and the amount for a coal of given volatile content varies between wide limits according to the conditions of the test, the nature of the incombustible matter, the fineness of the dusts and other factors.
Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that as a result of tests in the past the existing regulation of 50 per cent. inert matter to 50 per cent. coal dust is quite incapable of preventing the propagation of coal dust explosion, and in view of that fact will he review the existing regulations?
As the hon. Gentleman knows, these matters are rather difficult to discuss by way of question and answer, but the Safety in Mines Research Board is at present preparing a report collecting and co-ordinating all available information on this subject.
Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman give the House an assurance that these stone dust regulations will be reviewed by the Royal Commission now sitting, in the light of the experience gained?
I cannot say what the Royal Commission will review, but this is obviously one of the matters which is very closely concerned with their terms of reference.
Has the hon. and gallant Gentleman personally any technical knowledge of coal mining whatsoever?
Wages
asked the Secretary for Mines the total amount paid in wages in the mining industry during 1935; the average weekly wage paid; and the separate figures for Yorkshire?
This information is not yet available for the last quarter of 1935; but during the 12 months ended September, 1935, it is estimated that the total wages bill in the coalmining industry in Great Britain was £88 million, and that the average weekly cash earnings per person employed were £2 5s. The corresponding figures for Yorkshire were £15,724,000 and £2 4s. 7d.
Mine Deputies
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he has seen the report of a meeting held in Barnsley on 25th January, at which the local inspector of mines stated that deputies would be worsened in their occupation and conditions if they were brought under the control of the State; and whether, in view of the undesirability that members of his staff should publicly express opinions on controversial matters, he proposes to take any action in the matter?
Inquiries as to the accuracy of the Press report referred to were instituted promptly on its appearance; the inspector stated that he was not correctly reported, and that he was not responsible for the observations referred to in the question.
Does the Minister not think it would be desirable that these inspectors had better be very careful when they are making statements like this on a Saturday night—
Does not the same apply to everybody?
I have not finished my question. Does the Secretary for Mines know—
Mr. Holland.
Langwith Colliery, Derbyshire
38 and 39.
asked the Secretary for Mines (1) the number of men suspended from employment with the Sheepbridge Coal and Iron Company, Limited, at the Langwith colliery, Derbyshire, on 6th and 7th January of the current year;
(2) how many men suspended from employment with the Sheepbridge Coal and Iron Company, Limited, at the Langwith colliery, Derbyshire, on the 6th and 7th January of this year have since been reinstated; what is the total number of additional men employed since 7th January of this year; and how many of the suspended men referred to have since that date received notice to terminate their employment and the reason?
I have made inquiry, and I understand that the number of men suspended on the days in question was six, all of whom have received notice to terminate their contracts of employment, and that no additional men have been employed Since then. I am not aware of the reason for the termination of these men's employment.
Glapwell Collieries, Derbyshire
asked the Secretary for Mines the number of days during the month of December, 1935, on which overtime was worked by the underground employés of the Sheepbridge Coal and Iron Company, Limited, at the Glapwell collieries, Derbyshire; how many manshifts were involved; and is he satisfied that the reasons given for the abnormal overtime worked at this colliery in November of last year are sound reasons for its continuation covering the month of December?
I am informed that during December the pits worked 23½ days, and on all of these days a certain amount of overtime was worked. The total man-shifts worked was 31,540, and there were 840 man-shifts overtime, equal to 2.66 per cent. as against 3.28 per cent. in November. I understand that the main reason for overtime in December was the same as in November, that is, shortage of railway wagons. As regards the last part of the question, the hon. Member will realise that it is impossible for me to judge how quickly such a difficulty as shortage of wagons can be got over in a particular case; but I am informed that for the month of January the overtime ratio was 1.45 per cent., so that a further substantial reduction has been secured.
Is it not time the hon. and gallant Gentleman dealt with the overtime question, as the law at present does not meet it and something will have to be done?
What means has the hon. and gallant Gentleman of testing such statements as this in relation to overtime?
Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman not think it worth while making a thorough review of the whole of this question, as very grave dissatisfaction exists in the country at the known working of overtime?
I have already said several times in the House that any specific cases brought to my notice will be specifically investigated, and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, various large investigations have already taken place recently, both in Scotland and elsewhere.
Was it not indicated to the coalowners some time ago by the hon. and gallant Gentleman's Department that overtime was not desirable, and can he say whether there has been a reduction in the amount of overtime worked since then and whether they have taken any notice of it?
I could not say, arising out of this question. That is a general question, which I should like to see on the Paper.
Questions
Afforestation (Lake District)
asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advisability of altering the regulations under which the Forestry Commission work in order that they may be permitted to take into consideration the effect any planning undertaken by them may have on the amenities of the district concerned; and whether he is aware that this matter has arisen in an acute form in connection with the Lake. District?
There is nothing in the Forestry Act, 1919, from which the Forestry Commissioners derive their authority, to preclude their giving attention to considerations of amenity. I am assured that the Commissioners are anxious that afforestation shall be conducted with regard to the desirability of preserving and improving the beauty of landscape and the general amenity of the countryside. With this object in view, they have set up an Advisory Committee which includes representatives of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England and similar bodies. I am aware of the discussion which has arisen in connection with planting in the Lake District. The Commissioners have given most careful consideration to the representations which they have received in regard to the planting of their estate in Eskdale and Duddondale. With the agreement of the committee to which I have referred, the Commissioners have now decided on a scheme for planting only 1,660 acres out of the total area of 7,240 acres. Access of the public to the remainder will be maintained, and will be secured by the fact of public ownership. The lay-out of the plantings, which will include hard-wood trees, will be settled in consultation with the committee. I may add that the Commissioners have already arranged for this committee to examine the whole question of future planting in the Lake District so as to ensure that no land is acquired in parts where afforestation may be undesirable.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that another very important body, namely, the Friends of the Lake District, are still very far from being satisfied with the arrangements contemplated?
I doubt if they ever will be satisfied, but I think that the working together and co-ordination, have done a great deal of good, and will do more.
Political Honours Scrutiny Committee
asked the Prime Minister whether the Committee of Honours has been nominated; and, if so, who are the members of the committee?
Yes, Sir. The Members of the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee are:
Can the Prime Minister tell me when the committee meets?
Whenever necessary, of course.
Would it not be a good plan to put a woman on that committee, seeing that there are many women in the country who have given honourable service to the country and are never recognised when it comes to this question of honours?
I think the Noble Lady is mistaken in what is the object of this committee. No woman would be of any use as it is not honourable service so much as dishonourable service that is looked for.
Unemployment
Special Areas (Rates and Ground Rents)
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the high ground rents charged in the cases of unemployed men and widows in some of the special areas in South Wales, from whom the local councils find it almost impossible at present to collect any rates because the first charge against these persons is excessive ground rents; whether he is aware of the numerous cases in which leases expire under which the annual ground rent is considerably in creased before renewal is granted; and whether it is proposed to introduce legislation to deal with these matters?
I have been asked to reply. Ground rent is not a factor which would ordinarily affect the classes of person mentioned. The great majority of such persons rent, and do not own, their houses, and the Rent Restrictions Acts operate to protect them, but even in the case of the relatively few who are owner-occupiers, the incidence of ground rent can hardly be regarded as a primary cause of inability to pay rates. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.
Benefit (Appeals)
asked the Minister of Labour the number of cases dealt with by the umpire during November, December, and January, and the average time taken between the forwarding of a case by a local exchange and the receipt of the result of the appeal by the appellant?
The answer to the first part of the question is 2,081. I regret that the special statistics which would enable me to answer the second part of the question are not available.
Can the right hon. Gentleman say how long a time elapses between a case leaving the officer and reaching the umpire?
The average time is about six weeks.
Assistance Board
asked the Minister of Labour the cost of administration of the Unemployment Assistance Board for last year?
I am having a statement prepared which I will circulate as soon as possible in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Allowances (Expenditure)
asked the Minister of Labour the total amount expended under Part II of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1935, for the last year in allowances for the unemployed?
The expenditure in the year ended 31st January, 1936, on unemployment allowances (including supplementary allowances under the Unemployment Assistance (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1935) was about £42,700,000.
Mead
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the licence and excise duties imposed upon the sale of mead of home manufacture constitute a heavy burden upon this branch of the bee-keeping industry; and whether he will consider the reduction of these duties in his forth coming Budget in order to encourage a home industry and to make this drink available to the public at a reasonable price?
I have noted my hon. Friend's suggestion, but he will not expect me to anticipate my Budget statement.
Will my right hon. Friend also bear in mind that this drink is a cure for both rheumatism and gout?
National Finance
Bank Advances
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the persistent low percentage of bank advances to deposits n the face of expanding production, employment, and trade; and whether he intends to take any steps to ensure that his low level does not defeat the cheap money policy of the Government?
I am aware of the figures to which my hon. Friend draws attention, but it would not be possible within the limits of a reply to a Parliamentary Question to deal with all the considerations affecting this matter. Bank advances have been expanding in the last two years roughly in proportion to the expansion in deposits, and I have no evidence that they have at any time been inadequate to the current needs of industry and trade.
Exchange Equalisation Fund
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the necessity of a sound international exchange policy, he can say what length of time it is proposed to retain the British Equalisation Fund secret, seeing that concealment on matters which are of common concern may do more harm than good?
I am afraid that the only assurance I can give to my hon. Friend is that the Government will not maintain the present policy longer than is judged to be necessary in the public interest.
Does the right hon. Gentleman think there is any possible chance, during the lifetime of this Parliament, of getting a detailed statement about the Equalisation Fund?
I should not think so.
Trade and Commerce
Italian Lemons
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the recent importation into this country of Italian lemons purporting to have been sent from Syria and Palestine; and whether he is satisfied that His Majesty's Customs and Excise have taken adequate steps to prevent such infringement of the law?
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what action has been taken with regard to 400 cases of Italian lemons consigned from Trieste and recently seized in London by Customs officers?
I am aware of the importation referred to. The lemons were seized and sold in accordance with the legal powers vested in the Commissioners of Customs, the proceeds going to the Crown. My hon. Friend may rest assured that the Customs are fully alive to the need for enforcing the prohibition strictly, and I am satisfied that all possible steps are being taken to prevent infringements.
Can my hon. and learned Friend say from where people are going to get their lemonade in future?
The answer to that is not unconnected with the subject matter of the question.
Russia
asked the President of the Board of Trade the total imports of goods from Russia into Great Britain during the past year and the total exports of United Kingdom goods into Russia during the same period?
During the year 1935 the total declared value of merchandise imported into the United Kingdom and consigned from the Soviet Union was £21,733,500. Exports of United Kingdom produce and manufactures to the Soviet Union during the same period amounted to £3,505,000. Complete particulars are not yet available for 1935 of other items entering into the balance of payments prescribed in the temporary Commercial Agreement with the Soviet Union.
Is it not a fact that the large amount of re-exporting of raw materials which has to be included in order to make up the quota from the Soviet Union was not contemplated, and is it not desirable that the trade agremeent should be looked into in that regard?
Yes, Sir, we shall certainly look into it with respect to that aspect of the question.
Fixed Trusts (Departmental Committee)
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that the Stock Ex change Committee has not constructed rules to protect the public against abuses under the system known as Stock Exchange introductions and offers for sale, and has not yet made regulations respecting fixed trust transactions, he will set up a Departmental Committee empowered to suggest safeguards for the public?
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the report of the Stock Exchange Committee on fixed trusts; and whether, with a view to protecting investors in such trusts, he proposes to introduce legislation on the subject?
I have decided to appoint a Departmental Committee to inquire into the subject of fixed trusts in all its aspects. The composition of the committee will be announced as soon as possible. As regards introductions, I am informed that the Committee of the Stock Exchange have to-day posted a notice on this matter.
What information does my right hon. Friend expect to obtain from the proposed committee in addition to the information which is already available in the existing report of the Stock Exchange Committee?
The report of the Stock Exchange Committee is on different aspects of this question. The Board of Trade is charged with a wider duty.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that it will take some months to make this fresh investigation, and that in the meantime the public is denied the protection to which it is entitled in regard to promotions of fixed trusts?
Iron Ore
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now in a position to state the policy of the Government as to the importation of iron ore to this country and the reopening of the iron-ore mines that have been closed owing to the more extensive use of foreign ore?
Imports of iron ore into the United Kingdom are free of duty. The production of iron ore in this country has increased substantially during the past three years; and I understand that arrangements are being made to re-open certain mines which were closed some years ago.
Commercial Agreements
asked the President of the Board of Trade what commercial agreements concluded in recent years are terminable during the present calendar year without notice; and whether it is intended in those cases where notice is required to give notice so that this country may have freedom to arrange its tariffs to suit the ends of agriculture and industry in the United Kingdom?
The only trade agreement in which a specific period of notice of termination is not laid down is that with Denmark which provides that the agreement shall remain in force until the 20th June, 1936, and that the contracting governments shall consult together before that date for the purpose of determining whether it shall be continued in force and if so upon what conditions. Preparations are being made for these consultations. In reply to the second part of the question, each case will be considered on its merits, as occasion arises.
Bacon (Imports)
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any of the countries exporting bacon to this country have yet agreed to the imposition of a levy thereon; and by what date it may be anticipated that such a levy scheme will be brought into operation?
I fear I have at present nothing to add to the answer which was given to a question asked by my hon. Friend on 10th December; and I cannot yet say when the new bacon proposals will be brought into force.
Will my right hon. Friend denounce any of these agreements, where it is necessary, until they do agree with the levy?
I cannot give any undertaking in regard to the agreements.
Denmark
asked the President of the Board of Trade the imports into Denmark on sterling account of oil seeds and of hides and skins in 1934 and 1935, respectively; and to what extent these purchases on the sterling account represented importation direct from the United Kingdom?
I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement showing the particulars asked for in the first part of the question in respect of the year 1934, together with such information in respect of 1935 as is available from the published trade returns of Denmark. The statement also includes particulars of the value of the exports and re-exports from the United Kingdom to Denmark of the commodities mentioned.
Following is the statement:
Statement showing for the years 1934 and 1935:— (A) The Value of the undermentioned commodities imported into Denmark and purchased from the United Kingdom. (Abstracted from the official trade returns of Denmark). — 1934. 1935. Miscellaneous vegetable products … … … 1,000 Kroner. 16,761 (£747,000) 1,000 Kroner. 67,777 (£3,026,000) of which:— Seeds and fruits for oil-pressing … … … 15,572 (£695,000) ( a )) Raw hides and skins, leather and prepared skins, hair and feathers, bone, horn, etc. … … … 6,613 (£295,000) 8,988 (£401,000) of which:— Raw hides and skins … … … 1,885 (£84,000) ( a )) ( a ) Particulars not yet available.) Particulars not yet available.
Notes.
(1)The above particulars relate to general imports, including all goods declared for internal consumption plus goods in transit on Danish account.
(2)The figures in brackets represent the sterling equivalent of the recorded Kroner values, converted at the annual average quoted rates of exchange.
(B) The value of oilseeds and nuts and of hides and skins exported and re-exported from the United Kingdom and consigned to Denmark (including the Faröe Islands').
— 1934. 1935. £ £ Oilseeds and nuts:— Exports … … … … … 168 39 Re exports … … … … … 234 4364 Total … … … … … 402 4,403 Hides and skins, undressed:— Exports … … … … … 16,454 20,589 Re-exports … … … … … 63,662 69,438 Total … … … … … 80,116 90,027
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received many complaints with regard to the operation of the Danish foreign exchange control system; and whether this question will be one of those to be discussed at the forthcoming negotiations for the revision of the trade agreement with Denmark?
The answer to both parts of the question is in the affirmative.
Production and Distribution
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will take steps to ascertain whether there is a shortage in this country of any of the goods required to satisfy the need and comforts of the entire population, with a view to the unemployed workers being organised for the production of such goods; and will he consider, should the investigation reveal that there is no shortage, how the system of distribution, particularly among the working class of this country, can be improved so that it can keep pace with production?
I see no necessity for a general investigation. I am convinced that the well-being of the com- munity generally is best served and improved by the steady development of the social, economic and financial policies of the Government.
Will the right hon. Gentleman look at the last part of the question, which I do not consider he has answered?
I am afraid I cannot give an answer to a question which is so theoretical.
Is it not true that it is impossible to answer the question satisfactorily under Capitalism?
How is it there is so much poverty when there is no shortage of goods?
Government Departments (Ex-Service S-Class Clerks)
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will renew previous undertakings that the introduction of junior recruits from the open competitive examinations for posts in the clerical classes in the Civil Service, now contemplated on a very wide scale, will in no way prejudice the promotion prospects of ex-service S-class clerks to posts in the clerical classes prescribed in paragraph 16 of the Temporary Staffs Report, 1932; and whether he will give an undertaking that no ex-service S-class clerk shall be displaced to make room for an incoming junior entrant?
It was agreed when the S-class was constituted that members thereof should be eligible on their merits for promotion to the general or departmental clerical classes. My hon. and gallant Friend may rest assured that this arrangement will continue to operate, and also that no S-class clerk will be discharged for the purpose of replacing him by a new entrant.
Mercantile Marine
Steamship "Forthbridge."
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the steamship "Forthbridge," recently lost by fire in the Far East, carried a captain and only two navigating officers; and whether, as this apparently contravenes National Maritime Board agreements, the owners of this vessel will receive subsidy payments under the British Shipping Assistance Act for the voyage in question?
Any question whether a vessel has satisfactorily complied with the conditions laid down for payment of subsidy is a matter for the Tramp Shipping Subsidy Committee in the first place. I understand that the vessel to which the hon. Member refers carried three certificated navigating officers in addition to the master since 14th September, 1935.
Steamship "Hindustan."
asked the President of the Board of Trade when last the steamship "Hindustan," was surveyed by his Department prior to her recent enforced call at Falmouth; whether he has had a report relating to the condition of her rod and chain steering gear and as to whether the condition of the deck has been seriously affected by rust; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?
The ship was seen by a Board of Trade surveyor at Cardiff on 4th January, 1936. In consequence of heavy weather damage she was again inspected at Falmouth a few days later by surveyors of the Board and of the Classification Society jointly, when it was found that slight deterioration had taken place in the deck plating below the wood pads supporting the steering chain fair leads. The necessary repairs were effected and the steering gear was refitted and found satisfactory.
In view of the fact that the ship was in a very bad condition, will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to consider the advisability of tightening up the regulations in order to give a measure of safety to those people who go down to the sea in ships?
Lighthouse Steamer "Pharos."
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether inquiry has been made into the explosion of a gas-filled buoy on board the northern lighthouse steamer "Pharos," on 14th December last; what was the cause of the explosion and whether effective steps in the interests of the safety of the crew have been taken to prevent a similar occurrence in future; who is being held responsible for the mishap; and what is the cost of repairing the damage to the vessel?
I am informed by the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses that the closest possible investigation has been made into the bursting of the gas buoy, and that, as far as can be ascertained, the cause of the bursting was a latent defect in the welding of the buoy. They state that effective steps in the interest of the safety of the crew have been taken to prevent a similar occurrence in future, and that no one could reasonably be held responsible for the mishap. I understand that repair of the damage is being carried out in conjunction with the annual overhaul and repair of the vessel and that the contract for the whole of the work is for a lump sum without any separate figure for the repairs necessitated by the mishap.
Will the right hon. Gentleman hold an inquiry on the spot and take the views of the men—not of officials—who regularly handle these buoys?
I will consider that point, but I have no reason to believe that the opinions formed by my surveyors are inaccurate.
Scrap-And-Build Policy
asked the President of the Board of Trade how many ships already built or in the course of building under the scrap-and-build policy are fitted for coal burning and how many for the burning of oil fuel; and how much coal is likely to be displaced annually by the fitting of Diesel engines in these ships?
Of the 42 vessels, for the building of which approval has been given under the scheme, 22 vessels of approximately 82,000 tons gross will be constructed for burning coal. Several of them will be able to use oil fuel as an alternative. The remaining 20 vessels of 73,000 tons gross are motor ships. If the latter were coal burners and if they were fully employed, they might be expected to consume about 60,000 tons of coal annually.
Unemployment
asked the President of the Board of Trade how many officers and seamen in the mercantile marine are at present unemployed and how many lascars and Chinese seamen are employed on British ships?
As the answer is long, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPOET.
Following is the answer:
On 2nd December, 1935, there were 34,159 unemployed seamen aged 18 years and over on the registers of employment exchanges in Great Britain. The latest information available regarding employment of lascars relates to the census of seamen taken on 15th June, 1934. On that date 43,022 lascar seamen were enumerated as employed on sea-trading vessels registered at ports in Great Britain, Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. Under the heading "lascars" are included Asiatics and East Africans employed under agreements for natives of Asia or East Africa, which open and terminate in Asia. No information is available as to the number of Chinese employed on the censal date.
Steamship "Partinga."
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make representations to the Chinese Government with a view to an inquiry being held into the loss of the steamship "Partinga," with a number of British certificated officers, in December last, whilst towing another old vessel from Australia to Japan?
I have no information regarding this matter. If the hon. Member can supply me with particulars, my right hon. Friend will consider whether any action on his part would be proper.
His Majesty's Coastguard
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider increasing the number of coastguards with the dual object of saving life and of preventing smuggling?
His Majesty's Coastguard is entirely a life-saving service. The prevention of smuggling is a matter for the Commissioners of Customs and Excise. The adequacy and efficiency of the coastguard were fully examined in 1931 by a departmental committee under the chairmanship of Admiral Sir George Hope, and its report was published as Command Paper 3918. The present organisation and numbers follow that committee's recommendation, and I have no reason to think that the coastguard as now constituted is not fully adequate to cope with any demands that may be made upon it.
Has my right hon. Friend seen or had his attention called to a report of remarks made at a meeting of master mariners at Southampton recently? If not, may I send him a copy?
Yes, I should be glad to consider any opinions which were expressed in that quarter.
Dangerous Drugs (Losses and Thefts)
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the increasing number of cases where dangerous drugs and poisons have been lost in transit or stolen from unattended vehicles and to the danger caused thereby to the general public; and what action, if any, he proposes to take in the matter?
There is, I think, no reason to suppose that there has been any increase in the number of such cases, though they have had more publicity of late by reason in particular of the fact that broadcasting is now employed when a loss or theft of this kind is reported to the police, and it is thought necessary that the public should be warned by this means. The remedy seems to lie in the exercise of more care and good sense by those concerned, and I hope that the wider publicity will help to achieve that result.
If it does not bring about that result, will the right hon. Gentleman introduce more stringent regulations to prevent these things happening?
My hon. Friend will see that there is a danger, if you are not careful, of restraining people from reporting such losses for fear of the consequences to themselves. It is much better that they should report a loss quickly, because then the police can be helpful.
Dangerous Toys and Fireworks (Imports)
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the large increase in the importation of dangerous cheap foreign toys and parlour fireworks, many of which are likely to cause harm and fire; and will he consider the introduction of regulations which will prohibit the importation of all such dangerous articles?
I have no information to justify any such prohibition as the hon. Member suggests, but I shall be glad to consider any facts which he may care to communicate to me. So far as parlour fireworks are concerned, I understand that the quantities imported have, in fact, greatly decreased in recent years.
Has not the right hon. Gentleman had any complaints about the cheap tin toys which are imported and which cause a deal of damage to children?
I have no instance in mind, but, as I said, if the hon. Gentleman has some information which he would like me to consider, I shall be very glad to have it.
Fire Brigade Services (Committee's Report)
asked the Home Secretary when the findings of the Royal Commission on Fire Brigade Organisation will be made known; and what percentage of the persons called upon to give evidence are members of volunteer fire brigades?
I presume my hon. Friend refers to the Departmental Committee on Fire Brigade Services which I appointed in August last. I understand that the Committee is still engaged in hearing evidence, and it is not yet possible to forecast when its report will be presented. I am informed that the point of view of the volunteer fire brigades has already been expressed before the committee in the evidence given on behalf of the National Fire Brigades Association.
Transport
Speed Limit (Birmingham and Meriden)
asked the Minister of Transport whether he can make any statement as to the restrictions under the 30-mile limit in the city of Birmingham?
As a result of a local inquiry which was held into this matter my right hon. Friend asked the Birmingham City Council whether they were prepared to make an Order removing present restrictions from 12 lengths of road. A definite reply has not yet been received from the Council.
Can my hon. and gallant Friend indicate when that reply is likely to be made?
I think it will be made very shortly—within the next day or two.
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the restriction under the 30-mile limit at Meriden, on the Birmingham-Coventry road; whether he is aware that a long stretch of this road has no street lamps and no houses on either side; and what steps he proposes to take?
Yes, Sir. It does not appear to me that a certain length of this road can properly be regarded as a road in a built-up area for the purpose of Section 1 of the Road Traffic Act, 1934. The Warwickshire County Council have been so informed.
Is the hon. and gallant Member aware that on one day, I think last month, there were over 800 cases in which motorists appeared before the Coleshill Police Court, and does he think it reasonable that motorists should be subjected to these conditions?
That is a matter for the Home Office.
British Legations (Status)
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government are at present considering altering the status of any of His Majesty's legations by raising them to embassies; and will he give particulars?
No, Sir.
Air Armaments (Limitation)
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the present position of negotiations for the conclusion of a western air pact of limitation of size and numbers of first-line aircraft?
I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given by the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton East (Mr. Mander) on 18th December last, to which I have nothing to add.
Germany (Refugees)
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he letter sent by the Refugees' Commissioner to the Secretary-General of the League of Nations, resigning his post and indicting the German Government, has received the consideration of the League; whether it is proposed to appoint another commissioner; whether the Government propose to take any action through the League, or in other fashion, to bring the letter to the notice of the German Government; and whether the views of the Government on the statements contained in the letter from the Refugees' Commissioner have been requested by the League of Nations and, if so, what these views are?
As regards the first part of the question, the Council of the League of Nations has taken note of the resignation of Mr. McDonald and has requested the Secretary-General to place Mr. McDonald's report at the disposal of the League Assembly. As regards the second part of the question, the Council has authorised its President to appoint, with the approval of the members of the Council, a High Commissioner of the League of Nations to deal, until the next session of the Assembly, with questions connected with, refugees coming from Germany. As regards the third part of the question, I would refer to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member on 6th February. I would point out that the letter has been published in the newspapers and it has been commented on in the German Press. The German Government may therefore be assumed to be fully aware of its nature and contents. The answer to the fourth part of the question is in the negative, and the last part does not, therefore, arise.
Business of the House
May I ask the Patronage Secretary whether he has any information to give the House as to the course of business to-day?
Yes, Sir. The Prime Minister asks me to say that he hopes that it will he possible to conclude the debate on the Shipping Subsidy Money Resolution about nine o'clock, so that we can enter on a debate on Import Duties Order No. 34, which relates to linseed oil. Afterwards, we desire to obtain Import Duty Order No. 35, and the Import Duties (General) Order and Import Duties (Exemptions) Order No. 15, as well as the Report stage of the Sugar Industry (Reorganisation) [Money] Resolution. Should there be time before 11 o'clock, we shall take the Second Reading of the Pensions (Governors of Dominions, &c.) Bill. The Money Resolution upon which this Bill was founded was passed before the Christmas Recess.
Members Sworn
Several Members took and subscribed the Oath.
Chairmen's Panel
The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS reported from the Chairmen's Panel; That they had agreed to the following Resolutions, which they had directed him to report to the House:
1. That where, on two successive sittings of a Standing Committee called for the consideration of a particular Bill, the Committee has to be adjourned
2.That it is the undoubted and established right of the Chairman who is appointed to a Standing Committee for the consideration of a particular Bill to name the day and hour on which the consideration of the Bill shall begin.
3.That if, during the consideration of a Bill before one of the Standing Committees, it shall appear that the business would be expedited by postponing the further consideration of the Bill in hand until the Bill next on the list has been reported, and if the Member in charge of the Bill rises and makes a Motion to that effect, the Chairman will be in order in proposing such a question.
Report to lie upon the Table.
Selection (Standing Committees)
Standing Committee A
Sir Henry Cautley reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee A: Sir Gifford Fox and Mr. Alan Herbert; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Maitland and Mr. Turton.
Sir Henry Cautley further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee A (added in respect of the Employment of Women and Young Persons Bill): Captain Loder and Sir John Withers; and had appointed in substitution Mr. Cartland and Brigadier-General Makins.
Standing Committee C
Sir Henry Cautley further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee C: Mr. Assheton, Duchess of Atholl, Lord Balniel, Sir Geoffrey Ellis, and Brigadier-General Makins; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Craven-Ellis, Mr. Hepworth, Mr. Rickards, Mr. Salt, and Lieut.-Colonel Sir Arnold Wilson.
Sir Henry Cautley further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee C (added in respect of the Cotton Spinning Industry Bill): Mr. Denman, Mr. Entwistle, Captain Plugge, and Sir Eugene Ramsden; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Cary, Mr. Cross, Mr. McCorquodale, and Mr. Porritt.
Standing Committees
Sir Henry Cautley further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee D: Mr. Emrys-Evans and Mr. Ross Taylor; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Sandys and Mr. Louis Smith.
Reports to lie upon the Table.
Wood Blocks (Import Duty)
asked the President of the Board of Trade what are the reasons for exempting from additional duty the wooden blocks, as set forth in Cmd. 5067; why the existing duty is to be maintained; how long the added duty has been in operation; what effect it has had on importations; whether blocks of another size are dutiable and, if so, why; whether the flax-spinning industry, in which the blocks are used, desires the continuance
British Shipping [Continuance of Subsidy]
Considered in Committee, under Standing Order No. 69.
[SIR DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That is is expedient—
3.51 p.m.
The Financial Resolution which is now before the Committee has for its object the granting of a subsidy for the year 1936 to British shipping. It is in accordance with an announcement that was made in this House on 10th December last. The amount of the subsidy is to be the same, that is, not exceeding £2,000,000, and the conditions and the method of distribution are intended to be those laid down by the British Shipping (Assistance) Act, 1935, with one or two slight modifications which I will explain at once.
The original subsidy was given for the year only, and no part of the £2,000,000 already allocated by Parliament may be used for paying subsidies for voyages or parts of voyages taking place after 31st December, 1935. The Mercantile Marine is therefore without a tramp shipping subsidy to-day. The Committee will recollect that when a subsidy was first discussed, hopes were expressed that the granting of a subsidy to the tramp shipping section of the British Mercantile Marine would restore confidence to that part of the industry and would increase the employment of British tramp shipping in the world and consequently the employment of British officers and seamen; and it was further hoped that the industry would be encouraged to tackle seriously the problem of organisation and the reduction of domestic competition.
It may safely be said that the subsidy has justified the hopes of the Government in those regards. Let me take as a test of confidence the movement of the freight rates. Parliament was anxious to see that if a subsidy of £2,000,000 were granted to the tramp shipping section of the shipping industry, there should not be a dissipation of that subsidy by domestic competition. Well, the continued decline in the rates of freight obtainable on the main tramp routes has been arrested and an upward movement has been initiated. In February, 1935, before the institution of any freight maintenance scheme, the rate of freight fell to the low level of 69 per cent. of the average level in 1929. Since then, the general tendency has been upwards and, in the last few months of the year, the rates of freight rose to levels not attained since 1929. I think it fair, however, to point out to the Committee that the Chamber of Shipping index for freight in December, 1935, of 90.4 per cent. on the basis of 1929 being 100, is a higher percentage than at any time during the previous years, but the indications point to the conclusion that that high figure is due rather to temporary political factors and economic factors not likely to be fully maintained. It would be wrong if the Committee were to draw the conclusion that the freight rate has risen as high as 90 per cent.; indeed, the experience of the last few weeks has shown that if it were not for the minimum freight schemes organised by the tramp shipping industry, rates of freight would suffer a serious decline.
Apart from the question of freight rates, let us look at another test in order to see whether the hopes expressed by the Government in introducing the first subsidy in 1935 have been realised. If you take as a test the chartering of British and foreign vessels in the principal tramp trades during the past few years, you will find that the increase in 1935 in the number and percentage of British vessels chartered compared with 1934 is especially marked. If I were to pick out one trade as an example, I would take the Plate trade. The percentage of British vessels fixed in the Plate trade rose from 41 per cent. of the total fixtures in the trade in 1934, to 50 per cent. in 1935. That is, 578 vessels fixed out of 1,125 in 1935, as compared with 557 out of 1,343 in 1934. No better proof can be given than the conclusions of the administrative committee which are set out in paragraphs 10 and 11 of the Command Paper which deals with this matter, and which Members have, of course, before them. It is Command Paper 5,004, and I commend the actual words of that report to the Committee.
The task has not been completed. There are still factors which necessitate help being given to this industry, which is vital to the country, for it is the tramp shipping section of the shipping industry which is responsible for bulk movements of cargo. No one will question that the shipping industry is still suffering from the two fundamental difficulties which have been mainly responsible for the depression of the last few years. I refer, of course, to the decline in world sea-borne trade and to the pressure of excess tonnage. [HON. MEMBERS: "And tariffs."] I am making an uncontroversial observation on the decline in world sea-borne trade and the pressure of excess tonnage. The volume of tonnage has certainly declined in the last two or three years, but even to-day it is 40 per cent. greater than the tonnage available in 1914, and while tonnage is greater in volume it is far in excess in efficiency over pre-war tonnage, both as regards speed and cargo capacity.
On the other hand, the volume of world trade although happily slightly increasing, is about the same as in 1914, and it is about three-quarters of the volume of 1929. The shrinkage in the volume of total world trade has probably shown itself in similar proportions in the shrinkage of the volume of goods for transport by sea. Besides, as the Committee will appreciate, not only is tonnage excessive and not only is world trade insufficient, but the baneful effects of subsidies granted by foreign Governments to their shipping industries remain in full effect and vigour. Judged by the test of employment, the shipping industry can hardly be said fully to have recovered when about one-third of those seeking employment in it remain unemployed. By its very nature, the tramp section of the shipping industry is least able to meet without assistance circumstances of such an adverse character as those prevailing in the world to-day. It will be recollected that the Administrative Committee themselves reported that, even with the assistance of the subsidy, the earnings of vessels are not enough to meet normal depreciation.
In the Government's opinion the case for the continuation of the subsidy appears clearly to be made out. The Committee would like to know that apart from monetary assistance the benefits that have arisen from the subsidy are in large part to be found in the measures of co-operation which the industry itself has adopted. Chief among these measures of co-operation have been the minimum freight schemes on the different routes. The Government when granting the subsidy made it clear that there must be a measure of reorganisation, and that the object of the subsidy was to ensure a greater proportion of British shipping being employed in the carrying of tramp cargoes. One of the methods by which this result has been achieved has been the setting on foot of the working of minimum freight rates in certain trades on certain routes. These schemes are made applicable to British shipowners through the power of withholding the subsidy from those who are not prepared to comply. They have been accepted by the shipowners of foreign countries, who have rendered valuable co-operation in formulating the schemes and have voluntarily agreed to abide by the terms. The results could not have been attained withhout the United Kingdom Government subsidy.
The features of the schemes are that rates of freight are prescribed below which a fixture may not be accepted, and ships in ballast are not allowed to proceed unfixed to the loading port. There has been a gratifying increase of employment of seamen on British tramp shipping as a result. On 31st December, 1935, 188,000 tons more of British foreign-going tramp shipping were employed than on 1st April. This represents about 57 ships of normal capacity and employment for some 1,500 additional British officers and seamen. In fact it is found that the committees operating the subsidy possess an extremely valuable lever by which they can insist upon a measure of reorganisation. That is the power to grant or withhold subsidy according to whether the owner is prepared to, and does in fact, accept the minimum freight scheme which is proving of such value. The Committee will also be interested to know that the minimum freight rates have proved of advantage to cargo liners, and the cargo liners no less than tramps have been secured from the previous ruinous cutting operations.
There are only two matters to which I desire to call special attention. These are the slight changes that have been made in the arrangements now under discussion compared with those made for the original £2,000,000 last year. These two alterations relate, first, to making eligible now certain ships which were not eligible before; and, secondly, to allowing time spent by a ship waiting at an intermediate port abroad to count as part of a voyage. The Committee will see that these matters are dealt with in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the White Paper, the memorandum on the present Financial Resolution. Let me take first the question of the ships that are eligible for this subsidy. Under Section 1, Sub-section (2), of the British Shipping (Assistance) Act of 1935 the vessels eligible for subsidy were required, among other things, to have been British ships since 1st January, 1934. That provision was intended to prevent the transfer of vessels to the British flag for the purpose of obtaining subsidy, especially as certain foreign owners had found that there might be a subsidy and certain British owners had hitherto sailed some of their vessels under foreign flags. It was not intended to help either the one or the other.
The date of 1st January, 1934, was chosen to render ineligible vessels which had been transferred to the British register after the date when the subsidy first became known as a possibility. As a matter of fact the majority of the vessels transferred to the British register during the first 11 months of the year 1934 appeared to have been foreign-owned. The fixing of any date like the 1st January, 1934, must produce hard cases. There is a definite advantage in British-owned and British-controlled vessels being eligible for subsidy, and I will tell the Committee why. The committee that advises the Board of Trade has made it a condition of obtaining subsidy that the vessels carry, where possible, British crews and pay National Maritime Board rates of wages. An increase in the number of vessels that are brought within the scope of the subsidy means a prospect of increased employment for an increased number of British seamen. A number of vessels that are at present ineligible for subsidy, but will if this Resolution is passed become eligible, have been trading with a certain number of foreigners among their crew. If the majority of the vessels which would be ineligible were now to qualify for subsidy, there would be employment for some 130 British seamen immediately. There are 22 vessels which would become eligible if the date were altered as is proposed, to 1st January, 1936.
So much for the ships which will become eligible if the date is altered. Let the Committee look at paragraph 6 of the White Paper. They will see that one of the methods of maintaining a minimum freight scheme was to prevent as far as possible large quantities of tramp shipping concentrating at tramp cargo ports without definite engagements. If such a concentration of tramp vessels occurred there would inevitably be a scramble for the available cargo, and such a scramble would mean pressure to reduce the freight rates. Vessels were encouraged to wait at intermediate ports abroad instead of proceeding to the cargo port unfixed. It was found that the working of the scheme would be imperilled unless the time of waiting at an intermediate port abroad were allowed to count for subsidy in the event of the vessels subsequently securing a fixture and proceeding on an eligible voyage. On 18th June last a Press announcement was made. The Government had made a decision under Section 6, Sub-section (3) of the British Shipping (Assistance) Act, 1935, to the effect that subsidies would be payable for the period of waiting at an intermediate port abroad if that period were followed by an eligible voyage. The announcement made it clear that the condition for obtaining the subsidy was that the vessels should, of course, be fully manned, and should not be under repair whilst waiting at the intermediate foreign port.
If a ship in the ordinary course has to put into a foreign port for necessary repairs which cannot wait until her retun to the United Kingdom, would that ship be qualified for the subsidy for the return voyage home?
That is a separate point to be dealt with later in the Debate, It does not arise on paragraph 6 of this Memorandum. Paragraph 6 says that, providing a vessel is fully manned and is not undergoing repairs but is waiting at an intermediate foreign port rather than proceeding to a cargo port, she shall, in the event of subsequently being fixed, be able to add to the period of her voyage the period of waiting while fully manned at the intermediate port. Let me give an example. One of the routes upon which such a scheme of freight rate maintenance is enforced is the River Plate—United Kingdom. A British vessel lying at an intermediate port, say Las Palmas, ultimately becomes fixed for a cargo of grain home. She is allowed, under this decision of June last, to treat that period of waiting as part of the voyage eligible for subsidy.
I hope that with these explanations the Committee will give the necessary authority for this Financial Resolution. The intention is that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will reply later to the Debate and will deal with any questions that may be raised. It is my duty merely to explain to the Committee the terms of the White Paper.
4.12 p.m.
I am frankly disappointed this afternoon. I had hoped that the President of the Board of Trade would himself have introduced afresh his own baby. Exactly a week ago he introduced to this House an adopted child and did not appear to be very enamoured of the prospect of it. I did think that this afternoon he would have introduced again this question of the tramp shipping subsidy, not that we are not all very glad to hear the Parliamentary Secretary; but I am sorry that on this occasion the right hon. Gentleman has put his baby out to nurse, and I understand that to-night he will perform the function of putting the baby to bed.
I do not propose to cover the ground which some of us on these benches covered a year ago, when this matter was first before the House, but I propose to deal with considerations which have affected our attitude towards the continuance of the subsidy. On this side of the Committee we are not necessarily out-and-out opponents of subsidies from the public purse, though I am bound to say that we are not in love with this policy of putting unsuccessful private enterprises on the dole. If subsidies are to be granted they ought to fulfil certain conditions, and our claim, in spite of what the Parliamentary Secretary has said, is that these conditions are not fulfilled in the subsidy for the continuance of which the Government are asking to-day.
In the first place, subsidies must, in our view, be regarded as a means of advancing national interests, and not as a means of—I do not want to use hard words—rewarding incompetence and shortsightedness; not as a means of distributing favours to political supporters, but as something which is in the true national interest. Secondly, any subsidy must be administered with a measure of effective public control, in order to ensure that national money is spent in the national interest. From this there follows a third principle. Where industries are unable to pay their way, and have to rely upon financial support from the public purse, there is something wrong with those industries. An essential condition of the payment of subsidies out of the public purse ought to be the effective reorganisation of the industries profiting by such subsidies. By effective reorganisation I do not mean some kind of general swindle about raising freight rates. That is not reorganising the industry. I mean a reorganisation of the structure of the industry itself to meet new conditions which, under the old organisation, the industry ex hypothesi is not able to face. With that, as an essential part of the reorganisation of an industry receiving public support, should go an improvement of labour conditions, and it is to that side that I wish to address myself specially this afternoon.
We claim a place in the sun for the seamen. They have not got it under the present subsidy, and they will not get it under the extension. The subsidy does not fulfil those essential conditions. But the Parliamentary Secretary tells us, on the basis of the Tramp Shipping Report —and I regret that this Debate has come on before the second report is in the hands of Members—that this subsidy has been a success. If returning profits are a sign, I think it is true that the subsidy has been a success. Deficits are now being turned into balances; profits are beginning to accumulate. In 1934 the cargo boat companies, according to the shipping journal, "Fairplay," made profits on voyages of £88,653. In 1935, with the subsidy running for only nine months, this figure was increased to £499,235—a pretty substantial increase, for which I can understand their wishing to thank the President of the Board of Trade. In addition to that, very substantial increased sums have been allocated to depreciation, on a basis which seems to me to be a method of hiding some of their profits. It is true, therefore, that, judged by returning profits, the industry has profited by the subsidy. Now the Government suggest that it should be carried on for another year.
Apart from the principles which I have laid down, and which would lead us inevitably into the Lobby against the Money Resolution, there are certain immediate considerations and requirements which in our view ought to be fulfilled before this Committee gives its approval to a continuance of the subsidy. We objected to the composition of the Tramp Shipping Board when it was set up. The deficiency in its composition has been proved by the fact that time and again in the last year this great committee, which was assumed to hold within it all knowledge on this question, has had to refer for advice and help to the National Union of Seamen. If their advice and help is needed, the seamen ought to be on the committee.
Our second immediate requirement is the restoration of the cuts in seamen's wages. One of the proudest parts of the National Government's policy is the way in which it has restored wages cuts. Certain private enterprises—Imperial Chemical Industries and others—have also restored those reductions in wages which were enforced in 1931. We claim that, if public money is to be used to resuscitate the tramp shipping industry, wages cuts ought to be restored there. The wages of the seamen are not extravagantly high. I received as a bolt from the blue this morning a letter from a seaman whose boat apparently is down London River now. Referring to the matter of getting back their old wages, he writes:
The matter goes further than that. There are two firms that have asked for subsidies in respect of their ships—the Bank Line and Messrs. H. M. Thomson. I am not complaining about the ships; I am given to understand that, especially in the case of the Bank Line, the ships are first-rate ships, well equipped. But the crews of these ships are for the most part Chinese, and these Chinese seamen are not paid a rate agreed to by the National Maritime Board. In view of the statement of the President of the Board of Trade in this House, the seamen have naturally claimed that ships of that kind ought not to receive a subsidy. The Shipping Subsidy Committee put a question to the National Maritime Board, asking to be informed
I say that, if there are no agreements with regard to Chinese labour made by the National Maritime Board, there ought to be. I say, moreover, that, in the spirit of what the President of the Board of Trade said in the House of Commons, where he was quite definite about this matter, he ought to agree that no company—and the Bank Line is not a company that is making no profits; I can quote its profits if I am challenged in the House—I say that the right hon. Gentleman ought to agree that it should not be possible for companies of this kind to get away with a British subsidy and employ Chinese seamen because they are cheap. They are not employed because they are better seamen; they are employed because they are cheap. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will fulfil what we regard as an obligation. In the Bill last year we wanted something statutory and specific about the payment of wages scales. The right hon. Gentleman said, "Oh, that is all right; you do not want it in the Bill. Leave it to the Advisory Committee and the Maritime Board." Here are two companies asking for the subsidy, and that principle does not apply. I hope still that, when the Bill comes on, we shall have a different reception for an Amendment to that effect when we put it down.
It is not only the seamen who are concerned in the wages question. Officers are, and have been in the past, subjected to indignities, such as the deprivation of certain rights and amenities, and I am told that the officers' organisation has had to take cases to the courts because the companies have done their best to avoid the national agreements. Our submission is that where there are such agreements, and where there is a practice or tradition with regard, for instance, to annual leave or seniority pay, it ought to be a condition of the receipt of the subsidy that the shipping company plays fair by the officers. Unless we can obtain some satisfaction from the President of the Board of Trade, we shall not only oppose this Money Resolution, but shall fight the Bill through all its stages, as we did last year.
A third requirement concerns safety at sea. The Chamber of Shipping, which has been throwing its weight about recently, claims that British vessels are safer than ever. It says—although in the name of commonsense I do not know what it means—that "as measured in losses of vessels our shipping is now two and a half times as safe as before the war." That does not mean anything, but the implication is that to-day the danger to life is not as great as it was. I submit that when it has not bean as great, that has been due to accidental circumstances, and not to anything which the shipowners have done to remedy the situation. The Chamber of Shipping has published statistics in order to prove its case, but the year 1935 was omitted from those statistics. That is the advantage of having a statistician on the staff of the Chamber.
Taking cargo boats which are eligible for subsidy under this scheme, that is to say, cargo boats of medium size—over 1,600 gross tonnage—in the three years 1924 to 1926, 186 lives were lost; in the years 1927–29 the number fell to 96; in the years 1930–32 it fell to one; and in the years 1933–35—I am not sure that 1935 is complete—186 lives were lost, a number which was precisely the same a3 in the three years 1924–26. During the two years November, 1933, to November, 1935, a time during which this question has been under discussion, many ships have been lost with all hands. I would like to draw the attention of the House to those losses. In November, 1933, the "Saxilby," owned by Messrs. Ropner, was lost with 27 hands aboard. In October, 1934, the "Millpool," owned by Messrs. Ropner, was lost with 26 hands abroad. In December, 1934, the "Usworth," owned by Messrs. Dalgleish, was lost with 16 hands aboard. In December, 1934," La Crescenta," owned by Messrs. Harris and Dixon, was lost with 29 hands. In February, 1935, the "Blairgowrie," owned by Messrs. Nisbet and Company, was lost with 26 hands. Four of those ships—the "Millpool," the "Usworth," "La Crescenta" and the "Blairgowrie"—have been the subject of inquiry, after the President of the Board of Trade on more than one occasion had refused inquiries. He had to make these inquiries because he dared not do otherwise, and when they were made they provided the justification of the case we had submitted from these benches.
In October, 1935, the "Vardulia," of Donaldson's Line, was lost with 37 hands. In November, 1935, the "Sheafbrook," owned by Messrs. Souter and Company, was lost with 21 hands. At about the same time the "Joseph Medill," with a complement of 20 hands, was lost. On 27th December last, a small boat, the "Kentbrook," was lost with seven hands. In the case of the last three boats—the "Sheafbrook," the" Joseph Medill" and the" Kentbrook"—the President of the Board of Trade agreed—and I thank him for it—to an inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the losses. [An HON. MEMBER: "After refusing in the case of the Joseph Medill.'"] With regard to the Joseph Medill," the President of the Board of Trade has dirty hands. This was a completely new boat on its first voyage to Canada, where it was to sail on the lakes. In 1932, the right hon. Gentleman implemented an international convention—I had not intended to refer to this, but we had better have the truth now—in which provision was made by the Government that preceded our own to permit ships of that kind built in one country and sailing for service in another not to carry wireless. The" Joseph Medill" did not carry -wireless, which would have cost the company £40 to instal, and 20 lives were lost, nobody knows why, or ever will know why. This will be one of the most futile inquiries, and the right hon. Gentleman ought himself to be in the dock for it.
The question of safety at sea is one of tremendous importance. Boats ought not to be allowed to sail the seas if they are not in a fit condition to carry their cargoes, let alone their crews; and our claim is that no boat ought to receive public money unless it is a well-conditioned boat which can do the work it is designed to do. Every possible step ought to be taken to ensure the safety of the lives of the officers and crews of tramp steamers and cargo boats which are eligible for the subsidy.
Moreover, we are dissatisfied with the conditions of employment of seafaring folk. The right hon. Gentleman gave us an inquiry into manning. Let me say at once that I do not believe in this piecemeal method of dealing with the problem, and the President of the Board of Trade will not be able to fob me off by giving me little bits. I am glad that he undertook inquiries into manning and into steering gear, but that is not sufficient for us. I would add that I had hoped that in opening the Debate he would have told us something about the progress of these inquiries. With regard to the report of the Manning Committee, has the President of the Board of Trade had time to consider it, and does he mean to implement the proposals contained in it? Has he received the report of the Committee on Steering Gear? If so, has he considered it, and does he intend to implement its proposals? Nevertheless, those things do not satisfy us, for we want a complete and drastic overhauling of the Merchant Shipping Act, and nothing less will give us satisfaction. We will take such crumbs as the right hon. Gentleman may give us, but until we have the whole thing on a right basis our agitation will not cease.
The Factory Bill of 1901 is now recognised as being out of date. As long ago as 1924 a new Bill was found to be necessary, and was prepared. It was submitted to the House and would have been on the Statute Book now had it not been for the misfortune of a General Election. We have been promised that that Bill, or a similar one, will be introduced next Session, and I think we have the Prime Minister's promise that we are to know what is in it this Session. I shall certainly not oppose that Bill, for I am only too delighted that at last it has seen the light of day. But if such a Bill is necessary, how much more necessary is a thorough overhaul of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, some of the provisions of which I believe go back as far as the Act of 1856. We are entitled to ask for that. In the meantime, if a subsidy is given to shipping firms, we ought to know that they will fulfil reasonable requirements with regard to conditions of employment.
There is another aspect of this problem to which I would like to refer. Many of the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act are medieval in their harshness towards the seamen. For some sinister reason which I cannot understand, the Shipping Federation appears to have started a vindictive campaign against seamen in all possible circumstances. I will quote one case— it is a bad one and there are probably others not so bad—because I believe that firms which do such things do not deserve to receive public money. This case refers to a man by the name of Clarke, an able-bodied seaman. I do not know whether his boat, a cargo liner named "Napier Star," gets a subsidy, but it is eligible for one. This man was to have been married next week, but he is now serving 28 days' hard labour. I will tell the House why. He was charged with disobeying the lawful command of the master on 16th December last, the day on which the "Napier Star" was due to depart for Melbourne. Prior to this the man had suffered from some form of internal trouble. This came out subsequently. It was not reported in the log book because they said so many things happened at sea that they had not time to put them all in.
This man, whose health was obviously not good, on the day in question commenced work at 6 in the morning. He worked till 8, when he had an hour for breakfast, worked again from 9 till noon and then he had an hour off again for a meal. From one o'clock onwards he was squaring up derricks and helping to get the boat ready to put to sea. He finished at half-past seven, and was due for his four hours watch from 8 o'clock until midnight. Just before the watch was due to commence, Clarke was ordered to take the watch from midnight to four o'clock in the morning below trimming coal. He refused, quite rightly, on the ground that if he had done that he would have been working in one day 18 hours. There was a shortage of firemen—there often is on these boats—due to sickness and other reasons which only emphasises a point we are always making that manning is down to a minimum, there is no real margin, but where there is a shortage it is the practice, I am informed, for available day workers to fill the gaps. There were on this boat two day workers who could have done it. He appeared before the court, and was given 28 days' hard labour. This man is a very good type of seaman. He sails as an able-bodied seaman, but he holds a second mate's certificate. He has excellent references from the City Line, where he served as a quartermaster. The master of the ship said he did not want to penalise this young man at the beginning of a promising career, but he was compelled to carry out the owners' instructions and this boy, who should have been preparing for his marriage, is serving hard labour. The union has put in an appeal. We shall fight the case through to the end and, if we are beaten in the court, we will ask the right hon. Gentleman's Friend the Home Secretary to intercede and see that something is done to alter a punitive, monstrous sentence in a case which could not happen in any organised industry on land.
I will quote a case of another kind of the operation of the Merchant Shipping Acts. I quote it in contra-distinction to the last case, because it is not right that the Merchant Shipping Acts should be administered so harshly against the seamen, especially in boats which are clamouring for Government money. This is an alternative case. At Avonmouth not very long ago the captain of a steamer was fined £150 for breaches of regulations regarding his cargo. By breaking the regulations be earned for his owners an additional £1,000. The owners were not sent to prison for 28 days. They got away with £850 net profit. I do not mind that, but I do mind an administration of the law which inflicts heavy penalties on people in the most unreasonable way and, unless we can be assured that there is to be more reasonable administration of the Merchant Shipping Acts, as far as we are concerned not a pound more will ever go to the tramp ship owners or the cargo line owners.
Now I come to the inquiries which have taken place, which arose directly out of our Debate a year ago. Four public inquiries have been held, and three more are to be held. I think the public are indebted to the National Seamen's Union and the Transport Workers' Union for the way in which they carried those cases through, and to Lord Merrivale, who has shown a fine spirit of impartiality, as one would expect from so distinguished a lawyer. But we have some new truths which were not before the House when this subsidy was originally granted. The President of the Board of Trade himself said less than a year ago: But that is not all. It is not merely that there has been this repeated demand for carrying on the subsidy. It means that other people are wanting to come into the swindle as well. We heard it in the Debate last year. Now the great liners are taking a leaf out of the book of the tramp shipowners and the cargo liners and asking for assistance. We are against it for the reasons that I have tried to put. It was said that I had made unfounded charges against the mercantile marine. I did not. I never charged the mercantile marine. I admit that in heavy gales even the best found ships may come to grief. Let that be admitted. Is there any Member of the House who would say that all the ships, or even a majority, are up to the standard of the best? Would any Member of the House say that there are no boats which, heavily insured, leave port with the odds against their return if they encounter foul weather? No Member would say that was true. Is there a Member of this House who was not shocked by some of the disclosures at the recent inquiry? Does any honest Member of the House—I confine this question to the honest ones—really believe that our manning scale is a model to the world? No Member can believe it. Is it not the case that our manning standards are too low for there to be a reasonable margin of safety for cargo and crew? That is one of the morals which can be drawn from the recent inquiries.
Is there anybody in this House who does not realise the hardships, the dangers, the inconveniences and the special circumstances of the seafarer's life? Is there anybody who could honestly oppose such an alteration of the Merchant Shipping Acts as would make this calling a really honourable profession? The seafarers of this country have had a raw deal, and they are getting nothing out of this new legislation. There are more men at work under the same old conditions, but they would not have been employed if they were not bringing profit to somebody. There has been no improvement in their conditions, though it is true that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade boasted of 1,500 snore employed and the possibility of another 130 in the near future if the Money Resolution is implemented.
Last year we put down Amendments to the Bill which the President of the Board of Trade, with a majority larger than that which he enjoys now, refused to accept. We shall oppose the grant of, further money to these people, some of whom have blood on their hands. We shall oppose the prolongation of this legislation unless statutory conditions are inserted which will ensure a reasonably square deal—I put it no higher than that —for officers and crew alike. We do ~not believe that a subsidy ought to be given merely with the object of raising prices and producing profits for people who have wasted their substance in the last 16 or 17 years. The money given ought to be translated into a more efficient industry* and efficient labour, properly equipped, living and working under proper conditions, is an essential part of an efficient industry. By that we stand. We refuse to regard an industry as spindles or as ships. The country will not continue to tolerate this cynical disregard of the seamen while showing such tender solicitude towards the ship-owners. A year ago when this subject was debated in the House I said that we would not be satisfied until the seamen were rescued from the neglect of a generation. A year has gone. The granting of the subsidy which is again under consideration has provided us with an opportunity of showing that in the mercantile marine, of which this country has been so proud, and in those branches of it which receive the subsidies, there are slums of the sea and sweat shops as bad as have ever existed on land. The task to which we have set our hands is to clean up this great industry, to get rid of these slums and sweat shops and to make it a service of which this nation can rightly be proud. Finally, we want to secure a long overdue charter of justice to the seafarers of our land on whom the lives of our island population literally depend.
Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down may I ask him a question, because I am sure that he does not want to be misinterpreted? In connection with his remarks concerning a certain director of the "La Crescenta" Company he rather gave the Committee to believe that after the inquiry this director disappeared from the country. I am sure that he does not want it to be thought outside that there was anything wrong in the disappearance or going abroad of this director, and I should like him to make clear that the said director went abroad quite openly. His whereabouts are known and the matter has no connection with the inquiry; it was a temporary change, and he is ready to come back if required.
I would not wish in any way to reflect upon the gentleman. All I know is that he was one of those who was held responsible. He is not here now. The time for making an appeal is past, and my question was rather directed to the right hon. Gentleman, to ask him whether he was going to take any further steps to implement the decision which had been reached by the Court.
When is he coming back?
At any time that he may be required.
5.8 p.m.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) accused either this House or shipowners or the country in general—I am not quite sure which—of a cynical disregard for the welfare of the seamen of the British mercantile marine. I know that I am speaking on behalf of the majority of the Members of this House and certainly for shipowners, when I say that in those quarters there is no cynical disregard for the welfare of the seamen. The right hon. Gentleman has just been challenged to add something further to an insinuation which he made with regard to a director of a shipping firm. He made a very definite insinuation —an insinuation which he fully intended to make—and yet when he was challenged he ran away.
I think that I satisfied the hon. Gentleman who put the question, and I do not care for the hon. and gallant Gentleman's insinuation this afternoon.
I am making something a great deal more definite than an insinuation. I am accusing the right hon. Gentleman of having made an insinuation and of having meant the whole House to understand that it was an insinuation, and then of having run away when he was challenged to substantiate the allegation he had made. It was exactly the kind of speech which he made in all the shipping Debates of last year. It is the kind of speech which he has made once again this afternoon; and while, I aim not prepared to deal with the allegations which have been made in definite instances—I cannot refute immediately the facts which have been brought forward and the accusations which have been made in individual cases—at least I can say that where fault is found with individual shipowners, where they have broken the law or where indeed they have shown a simple disregard for seamen, no body of men are more critical than the other shipowners who, if these statements can be proved, are being blacklegged by disreputable colleagues. I am certain that not only the shipping industry but the President of the Board of Trade as well as hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite will be only too ready to examine with meticulous care any allegation or accusation which is made against an individual shipowner. If guilt is found the individual shipowner should be punished, and, if no other way is possible, then punished by the withdrawal of the subsidy, if indeed he has the impertinence to claim it. It is now about a year ago since the Government first announced their intention of subsidising tramp shipping to the extent of £2,000,000 a year. I am sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had great trouble in persuading himself that the subsidising of another industry was a piece of legislation which he could recommend to the Government and to this House. I believe that the President of the Board of Trade is opposed to subsidies in principle. I am sure that if it had been possible to find another way of helping the shipping industry shipowners would have been glad. We do not like to feel that we are on the dole, and we are on the dole at present.
You are not on the means test.
I will deal with that point in a minute. Certain facts of a very unpleasant character had to be faced. I believe that I am quoting the President of the Board of Trade himself when I say that the British mercantile marine was being swept from the sea. It was not only that shipowners were going out of business, and often by way of the bankruptcy court, but that officers and seamen, sailors and firemen were losing their jobs. Shipbuilding was suffering and the difficulties experienced by the depressed areas were being accentuated by depression in the heavy industries, very largely caused by the depression in shipbuilding and shipping. Those were the industrial ills from which large sections of this nation suffered. But there were also national ills and national dangers. Our export trade was diminishing by reason of the fact that our invisible exports in shipping services were being reduced. Even our Empire trade was more and more being carried in foreign ships. The very safety of this nation was threatened. Should we by mischance have to go to war, the size of the British mercantile marine was ever growing less.
Before assistance of any kind was given to the shipping industry the Government asked to be convinced—and quite rightly—that the depression in shipping arose from causes over which those who were engaged in it had no control. It was my experience during the recent General Election to be accused by my political opponent of being in favour of doles for capitalists, and doles without a means test, which was the very question put by the hon. Lady opposite a few moments ago. I will not deal now with the absurdity of trying to compare an industry with an individual, but I can tell hon. and right hon. Members opposite that there has never been a more rigorous application of a means test than the inquiry which was initiated by the President of the Board of Trade into the conditions of the shipping industry before it was agreed to help it by way of a subsidy. I remember almost with amazement the skill with which the Board of Trade conducted the inquiry, and the display of knowledge which the officials of the Board showed.
The result of that inquiry proved that shipowners and managers had not apparently lost that skill by which they had made the British mercantile marine the greatest in the world. It proved that Greek, Dutch and Scandinavian sailors— [An HON. MEMBER: "And Chinese"]—and Chinese sailors were no better than British sailors, but that British sailors and British officers were still the most efficient in the world. The inquiry showed that the ships of the British mercantile marine, taking the general average, were more efficient and more up to date than the fleet of any other country. Yet the British mercantile marine was being swept from the seas. It was being beaten by the subsidised foreigner. The British merchant navy was being ruined by being forced to meet the competition of ships upon which wages were on a vastly lower scale than the wage levels maintained on British ships, and the Red Ensign was suffering from discrimination against British ships, a discrimination in favour of the flags of other countries. It was unfair foreign competition that had to be met, and British shipowners were being asked to fight the full resources of other nations.
I have said that careful inquiry was made into the circumstances of the industry and that numerous methods of assistance were explored. It was ultimately found, such was the international nature of the tramp shipping industry, that a direct subsidy was the only practical method of assistance. Beyond any shadow of doubt the subsidy was justified from the conditions which existed 12 months ago.
The purpose of the Resolution is to continue the subsidy for another year. Hon. Members said a year ago that in a year's time I should be standing in this place asking for a further subsidy. I admitted it at the time. I could not see the remotest possibility of world conditions changing so much that it would not be necessary to ask for a further subsidy, and I do not in the least mind saying now that I think the subsidy would do more good and would bring greater confidence and more employment if on this occasion the Government were to say that the subsidy of £2,00,000 is not for one year only but that it shall be continued until conditions justify its withdrawal. The shipping industry does not build a ship for one year. A ship is built for 20, 25 or 30 years. While the assistance that the subsidy has given has brought renewed confidence in the industry, I have no doubt that it would bring still greater confidence if it could be continued until such time as it was no longer necessary to defend British owners against unfair foreign competition. I can assure the House that when the necessity for the subsidy ceases, it will be the shipowners who will first request that the subsidy should cease.
I believe the House will support the Government in their proposal to extend the subsidy for one year if two conditions are fulfilled. The first of those conditions is that the state of world trade, so far as shipping is concerned, is no better than it was a year ago, when it was agreed that the subsidy was justified. The second condition which will persuade the House to support the extension of the subsidy, if fulfilled, is that the subsidy has saved the British mercantile marine from its rapid approach to disintegration, one might almost say the annihilation, with which it was threatened 12 months ago. The continuation of the subsidy is justified by the condition of world trade, and the House knows that conditions are almost exactly where they were a year ago in so far as shipping is concerned. There is still too much tonnage in the world, there are still too few cargoes, the shipping industry is still open to the competition of subsidised foreigners, and of foreigners working at lower running costs, and other nations are still discriminating against the Red Ensign. So long as these conditions go on, if there were no Government assistance the end of the British mercantile marine as a great merchant navy would be in sight.
With regard to the second condition, as to whether the subsidy has been effective in doing what it was meant to do, I can say from personal experience that it has. From statistics I can prove that the subsidy has been of immense benefit to the shipping industry. I want to make an important qualification and reservation of that statement. I hope that the subsidy is regarded as only a temporary or short-term policy. As administered, the subsidy has not even begun to solve some of the most serious problems which face the British mercantile marine. But employment has increased, old ships are being repaired, old ships are being made more efficient and new ships are being built. The subsidy has stopped the rot. I should like to quote one or two figures, some of which I hope will be of interest to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. Let me deal briefly with the allegation that the subsidy is in any sense a dole to capitalists. I differ entirely from the figures given by the right hon. Gentleman opposite with regard to profits in the shipping industry.
I quoted them from "Fairplay."
I knew the right hon. Gentleman would say that he was quoting from "Fairplay," but he quoted the figures in such a way that he gave an entirely wrong impression of the benefit, if any, which has been brought to the capitalist interests, by which I mean the shareholders in the shipping industry. He tried to give the impression that the whole of the subsidy was being ladled out and that in consequence shareholders were being paid large dividends. If he meant that, it is not true. The figure which I have, and it is an accurate figure, is that on £9,500,000 invested in the tramp section of the shipping industry under one-half per cent. was paid last year in the form of dividends.
Does the hon. and gallant Member suggest that £9,500,000 is the whole of the capital involved in tramp shipping?
No. I am speaking of £9,500,000 invested in tramp ships, and I have selected that particular £9,500,000 —[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Let me tell hon. Members why. I have selected those £9,500,000 because they represent the whole of the companies which publish figures, enabling one to calculate what has been set aside for depreciation. They are all the figures that I could obtain to show what amounts have been paid in dividends, after depreciation. In some cases depreciation was not paid. In those cases where dividends amounting on the average to one-half per cent. have been paid it is because the companies have investments in other industries outside shipping. In no case, it may be safely said, has a firm been able to pay a dividend after allowing for depreciation and after the receipt of the subsidy unless it has had considerable investments outside the industry itself. If hon. Members opposite will not accept those figures from me, I hope that they will get all the information possible on the subject and convince themselves that so far as the capitalist is concerned little or no advantage has yet come to him from the subsidy.
In regard to the depreciation of ships —an important subject both from the capital and labour point of view—until recently the tramp fleets of this country were depreciating at the rate of 3 or 4 per cent. a year. Out of every 100 ships on the seas three or four per year disappeared and were not rebuilt. The British mercantile marine was diminishing at that rate. Here, the subsidy has been effective. It is now true to say that on the average tramp shipping companies are paying depreciation and maintaining their fleets intact, some perhaps rather more than that and some rather less, but on the average the British tramp fleets are being maintained at the present standard. It will be remembered that the Government in introducing the subsidy were anxious to ensure greater employment for British ships. The tonnage on the register of British shipping, less the amount of tonnage laid up, increased on the average by 400,000 gross tons during last year, not a large increase but it is a great deal better than the considerable decrease of previous years. On the average 57 additional tramp ships have been kept running.
The assistance which has been brought to tramp shipping has been reflected or has overflowed into the shipbuilding industry, and I am glad indeed that it is so. A large number of our shipbuilding yards are situated in those very areas which most require assistance. In December, 1935, there were about 750,000 tons more shipping being built in this country than in the previous December, an increase of 24 per cent. I am sorry if I am giving too many figures but they are very important. Ships being built on 31st December of last year were the largest in tonnage of any quarterly figure since 1930. As regards employment, surely that is a matter of interest to all hon. Members opposite, including those who presumably will oppose the subsidy to-night. Even if hon. Members opposite cannot be interested in the safety of the country, or in our export trade, surely they may be presumed to take some interest in the employment which has arisen as a result of this subsidy. The direct additional employment of our seamen has been some 6,000 officers and seamen. The Administrative Committee have received reports showing that there has been a definite shortage of British seamen—
Where?
Cardiff is one town where it is said there was a scarcity of British ratings in December, 1935. Newport is another. The report is that white British ratings are scarce. These are not the reports of shipowners but of officials. At Swansea the demand for seamen is said to be very good and there is a shortage in the supply of carpenters. Those are three towns where, owing to the effect of the subsidy, employment has been growing.
What are the figures for Liverpool and Glasgow?
I have not got the figures for Liverpool or for Glasgow. In any case I do not understand why hon. Members are challenging me. I said that in some ports there had been a shortage of ratings, but that there is still considerable unemployment among the seamen of the country I do not deny for a moment, and, indeed, that is one reason why the subsidy should be continued. But the subsidy has not only led to a considerable increase in employment in shipping; it has also been of material assistance in encouraging employment in other industries. In shipbuilding and ship repairing there has been a reduction of over 20 per cent. in the numbers of unemployed.
Owing to the subsidy?
Certainly, owing to the number of ships which are being built and which could not have been built but for the grant of the subsidy. Surely, that is a perfectly plain argument and self-evident. In marine engineering the numbers of the unemployed have dropped to 9,000 from 13,500, a reduction of 32 per cent., and in dock, harbour, river and canal services there has been a reduction of 8.4 per cent. in unemployment. In steel and iron and coal mining, all heavy industries which depend to a large extent on the prosperity or otherwise of shipping, there has been either a small, a considerable or a great reduction in the numbers of the unemployed. It may be safely said that while shipping is not prosperous it is at least no longer tumbling down to destruction, and that real and material benefits have accrued to those men throughout the country who hope to be employed directly or indirectly in that industry.
In fairness to the shipping industry I should like to say that shipowners have not just leant back and waited for the subsidy to be ladled into their lap. It was a conditional subsidy. Hon. Members will have read the first interim report of the Tramp Shipping Administrative Committee. In the course of a few days they will have in their hands the second report, and if they will read either or both they will realise that wholly new schemes of co-operation and freight regulations, national and international in character, have been introduced into the shipping industry. Before the Government had come to a decision as to the form in which assistance should be given to the industry, tramp shipowners were divided in their views as to what should be done. Liners and tramps appeared to take irreconcilable views as to the solution of the problem. But when the Government arrived at a decision, made an announcement and the necessary legislation had been passed, tramp shipowners immediately closed their ranks and worked in unity. The hostility or suspicion of the liners gave place to neutrality and finally to approval. Now, the tramp section has the support of the liner section.
Can I dare to suggest that another great industry of this country which the Government are trying to help may learn. a lesson from the experience and behaviour of the shipowners of the country? Those interested in cotton may fight before the Bill becomes an Act, but once the Act has been passed they should consider the best means of reorganising the industry. Then, as in the shipping industry, we shall get the whole-hearted co-operation of all those engaged in the cotton industry. The Administrative Committee have received surprising support from shipowners of other countries, and I take this opportunity of paying a public tribute to the skill and patience with which Sir Vernon Thomson, chairman of the Administrative Committee and the Subsidy Committee, has conducted the negotiations which have resulted in such friendly arrangements being arrived at between liner and tramp owners in this country and shipowners throughout the world.
It only remains for me to remind the House of two pledges given by the British shipping industry when the subsidy was given a year ago. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman opposite that there should have been included in the Act a statutory condition that the National Maritime Board's scale of wages should be maintained and that where possible British seamen should always be employed. The Government could not then, and perhaps cannot now, see their way to include a clause to that effect, and indeed it is not necessary now for the Government to do anything of the sort. Shipowners themselves have done it. The Subsidy Committee informed shipowners 12 months ago that it would be a condition for the receipt of the subsidy that the scale of wages should be maintained and that British seamen should be employed. In spite of what I have heard from the right hon. Member for Wakefield this afternoon, I am not aware of any instance that has been brought to the attention of the committee of any concrete case where a tramp shipowner desiring the subsidy has refused to pay or has attempted to get behind the National Maritime Board's scale of wages.
On the question of British seamen I should like to say one word. Shipowners have not forgotten the wild and irresponsible statements made by the right hon. Member for Wakefield and Dr. Addison and other hon. Members opposite in the Debates last year with regard to the employment of foreign labour. Hon. Members opposite are rather quiet about that to-day. I wonder whether the right hon. Member for Wakefield has got into trouble with the Seamen's Union in pressing for the employment of British seamen. Has he been rapped over the knuckles for what he said? I read:
1,500 seamen dismissed; alien ban causes hardship; strong protests are being made at the ports. Hundreds of the discharged men are British in all but name. The union suggests that where owners have employed a number of alien seamen and desire to retain some, a maximum, of 20 per cent. might be permitted to any one individual owner.
I pointed out last year that the proportion of foreign seamen employed on British boats was about 2 per cent., but now I understand that the union concerned are pressing for foreign labour to be increased to the extent of 20 per cent. in certain circumstances. It would appear that shipowners and not hon. Members opposite are now more keen to employ British seamen. I can only say that the instructions of the Subsidy Committee, that British seamen, shall be employed, has been and will be adhered to and that now as always owners are most anxious to employ British labour rather than foreign. Other speakers no doubt will deal with the question of safety. I should like to have dealt with it but my speech would have been inordinately long. The right hon. Member opposite said that no one knew why one ship had sunk, and one of his colleagues near him said, "And no one cares." Was he speaking for his party when he said that? He certainly was not speaking for shipowners. If shipowners are forced to refute and disprove some of the wild statements which are made they are not going to be driven into the position of defending some of the conditions which exist. They are perhaps more anxious than anyone else to see conditions arrive which will enable them to provide better accommodation and wages for the men they employ. But if you have a derelict industry those who depend upon it are faced with starvation.
Niggardly economy, cuts and hard bargains are the order of the day. These things have to be, in order to keep the ships running, in order to pay some wages rather than none, in order to give some employment rather than none. But the relations between employers and employed in the shipping industry are perhaps better than the relations between employers and employed in any other industry. We owe a great debt of gratitude to the National Maritime Board, the Shipping Federation, the Chamber of Shipping and the Seamen's Union, and others, for the fact that in most difficult times, when there has been so little to distribute as reward, either in wages, or dividends or anything else, the relations in the industry have remained so good. At this very moment negotiations of a most friendly character are taking place on manning scales, wages, accommodation, hours, safety, and many other matters.
Whatever improvements are being discussed, whatever improvements are being contemplated or even anticipated, perhaps even made possible, in the conditions of our seamen depend entirely on the continuation of the subsidy. Already we have seen an improvement in wages in the shipbuilding industry. Already indirect benefits have been enjoyed by the wage-earners of the country as a result of this subsidy which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite opposed last year. If to-day they are defending their opposition on that occasion, they can plead ignorance then. They can say that they did not know then what benefits would accrue from the subsidy to those whom they claim to represent. But they can say that no longer. Certain definite, even startling benefits have accrued to the workers in more than one industry and I, for one, shall do my best to support the continuation of the subsidy. I shall not vote for it. I never have done so in case I should be accused of voting for something which affects myself. But I will leave to the party opposite the responsibility of attempting to deny to the workers in so many industries that help which will make possible an improvement in the conditions of their labour.
5.49 p.m.
The famous seaport which I represent has many claims to fame and one to notoriety. The latter is that it is the birthplace of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. I found there during the General Election the opinion that it was due to the bad company in which he now sits that the right hon. Gentleman had deserted the principles which he learned in that great Radical stronghold, and had brought the shipping industry to the plight from which this Measure is supposed to be some sort of rescue. The people there were quite certain in view of his early education and his family connection with them and their industry, that if he were only a free agent he would restore that freedom of trade and international communication which, more than any shipping subsidy, would bring prosperity to their industry.
There is a strong feeling among the men employed in the industry that more conditions with regard to the benefits to accrue to the workers ought to have been attached to this grant. If there was one thing which impressed me more than another in the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Ropner) it was his certainty that this was only the second occasion on which he was supporting a subsidy and that the last occasion would be a great many years hence if he had his way. I saw no indication that he had any suggestion to offer which meant finality in this matter. The right of the shipowners to put their hands into the public pocket having once been secured it is evident that it will be a long time before they agree to give up that right.
I am sure the hon. Member does not wish to misrepresent me. This is not the time to make alternative suggestions. I am prepared, on the right occasion, to make suggestions, which I sincerely hope will lead to a termination of the subsidy, but that is not what we are discussing this afternoon.
No, I gather that it is a great deal too far away to be relevant to this Debate. Among the things which the workers in this industry think ought to be taken in hand by the Minister now that he is providing funds for the industry is the overhaul of the Merchant Shipping Act. The Act which now governs conditions at sea was passed at a time when shipping was dominated by the sail mind. Now we have a continually decreasing amount of sailing tonnage and an increasing amount of steam and oil tonnage, and the Merchant Shipping Act, which may have been suitable to the sail age, is quite unsuitable to an age in which conditions are so different. It represents the standard of life of the late Victorian period. Is there any other class of the community which would be asked, in the reign of Edward VIII, to accept conditions of life which were regarded as a minimum in the late Victorian period? This great industry upon which the standard of life of the rest of the community depends ought to be modernised. The opportunity afforded by the subsidy ought to be taken to enforce on the industry a modernisation of its conditions. I was sorry that the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash had nothing to say about the result of the four inquiries. There has undoubtedly been created in the minds, not merely of the seagoing community but of the land community, an impression as to the dangers faced by these men— and orphans are in the town, constant reminders to those on shore of the dangers which confront seamen under modern conditions. I was glad to hear the Parliamentary Secretary's announcement the other day that it was the right hon. Gentleman's intention when he had the results of these various inquiries to introduce legislation on the subject. I hope that the inquiries will not be unduly prolonged. There is an unholy suspicion, which I should never have thought the right hon. Gentleman's fellow-townsmen would entertain of him, that possibly these inquiries provide an opportunity rather for delay than for legislation. But I gather from the Parliamentary Secretary that as soon as the reports have come to hand legislation to improve the conditions will be attempted. I only hope that strict compliance with the amended regulations will be made a condition of any future payment of subsidy.
There is a feeling that certain conditions are not as rigidly administered in some ports as in others. One of these conditions is that relating to British seamen. There are in some ports, like Cardiff and South Shields, many coloured seamen of British nationality. There are various ways in which a coloured seaman can prove his nationality. There are cards of various colours which, apparently, have to be produced and it is suggested that the rigidity of these requirements is not the same in all ports. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the regulations on that matter are the same in all the ports, or whether they vary according to the requirements of particular ports at particular times. I take it that if a coloured seaman establishes his position as a British national there is no further discrimination against him as far as the right hon. Gentleman and his regulations are concerned. There is also a strong feeling that the workers in the tramp shipping industry during the past few years have made tremendous sacrifices. They have still to endure cuts which have been removed in most other industries. I hope that pressure will be brought to bear on the shipowners to ensure for the officers and men of the mercantile marine a restoration of cuts such as has been made by the Government in the Civil Service.
With the great amount of unemployment still existing in the industry, we must look to something more than this Measure for a restoration of its full employment and prosperity. I believe that this £2,000,000 will be very badly spent if it merely means that we are going to put off for another year consideration of those great world causes of diminished trade which constitute the right hon. Gentleman's real problem. One cannot hear the figures given by the Parliamentary Secretary without realising how we and all the other nations of the world are attempting to restrict and confine the interchange of goods as if it were a curse rather than a blessing to mankind to exchange the products of one country for those of another.
One cannot hear those figures without realising how far we are from those truths with which the right hon. Gentleman's name was associated in this House in earlier and happier days. I recollect hearing him say in 1931 that he thought himself the most fanatical free trader in the House. During recent years he appears to have managed very successfully to conceal his fanaticism. I am sure however that one in whom Free Trade principles were so thoroughly ingrained must still realise that in this and similar Measures with which the Government are associated, he is pursuing will o'-the-wisps which are leading the country further and further away from a return to real prosperity. It is only by giving the great shipping industry of this country opportunities to trade with every other nation in the world, as it did in the old days, that he will restore its prosperity.
6.0 p.m.
I am intervening in the Debate, but, unlike the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Ropner), as a shipowner who will receive nothing at all under the proposed subsidy. The only benefit which cargo liners and liners will receive will be indirectly from the minimum rates schemes put forward by the Tramp Subsidy Committee and only brought into operation owing to the subsidy being there. The right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) described this scheme as a general swindle, but T cannot understand why he should have said that, as minimum rates schemes have nothing of the nature of a general swindle. He made also great play regarding the wages of seamen. I think everyone on this side of the House will agree that at the present time those wages are not high, and we would all of us wish to see them higher. While they are still among the highest wages paid by any maritime nation in the world, and while they are far above the average, at the same time we think they should be raised and that the cuts should be restored, and many of us hope that very shortly that will be the case.
There seems to be some confusion in the mind of the right hon. Member for Wakefield. Nobody gets the subsidy at present unless the Maritime Board wages are being paid, and one has to produce a portage bill before any subsidy is paid. The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned one firm, in which I am not in any way interested, the firm of H. M. Thomson and Company, as being a particularly scandalous instance of the subsidy being received by a firm that employs Chinese firemen. As I have said, I have no interest in that firm, but I do know that no subsidy has been received by them. It is unnecessary to emphasise the fact that any good shipowner knows that it is impossible to run a fleet satisfactorily with wages low and conditions bad. Hon. Members know that relations between the Shipping Federation and the Union are most cordial and extremely good, and I am very much afraid lest anything be said in this House from any side in any way to impair their relationship, which has always been so cordial. If there are isolated instances of shipowners breaking their National Maritime Board agreements, the other shipowners are the first people who will complain, and it is a perfectly simple matter to see that if one shipowner is cutting anything, it is to the direct detriment of the other shipowners, who, as I say, are the most certain people to object immediately and to see that that defaulting, dishonest shipowner carries through his obligations. If any evidence of this nature is brought forward, it will be handed to the Shipping Federation to be dealt with.
As far as the question of safety is concerned, exactly the same observations apply. If the overloading rules are ignored, either in foreign ports or by British or foreign ship masters, it means again that the dishonest or careless—it may be only careless—shipowner benefits, and that is exactly to the detriment of the honest shipowner. I do not think the present rules are so much in need of revision as that it is essential to see that the rules at present in force are carried out in all the ports of the world. If care were taken in foreign ports to see that ships were not able to sail which were in any way overloaded, the honest shipowners would be the first to gain.
A question was raised regarding the carriage of grain in bulk, and many of us feel that the Merchant Shipping Act is definitely in need of revision in that respect. It is absurd that a boat coming from the River Plate to the United Kingdow should be under different and more stringent regulations than a boat going from the River Plate to Antwerp. It is also felt to be absurd that a vessel coming here should be able, by disregarding its obligations to make a profit. It is possible to save money by not putting up shifting boards and by paying a small fine. The right hon. Member for Wake-field mentioned the question of a large amount of money, £850, to be saved, but while this is too much, it simply means that the shipowner with a reputation that counts for nothing will do this thing, whereas a reputable, decent shipowner will not.
Last year and this year the subsidy was discussed at this time of the year, in January or February, and from the shipowners' point of view that is a little unfortunate, because it is at this time of the year, in the deep sea trade at any rate, that rates are better, partly due to the crops coming along from Australia and Vancouver, and partly due to the fact that merchant ships carry much less than in summer at the lower freeboard marks, about one-thirtieth less or thereabouts. This is the time of year in which shipowners least feel the need of a subsidy.
There are this year, as compared with last year, further changes, and that is due to the Italian situation. Hon. Members will know that practically the entire Italian Fleet is withdrawn from ordinary commerce to deal with the special trade between Italy and Eritrea. English shipowners who have not been laid up have received no benefit, because the place of the Italian tonnage has been taken by British and foreign tonnage that was laid up, so that the amount of tonnage is practically the same now as it was before this trouble began. At Massowah dispatch is becoming better, and already one can see Italian ships coming on the market. When this unhappy affair in Abyssinia is over, the entire Italian merchant fleet will be released on the freight markets of the world, and the position will be Very serious, in my opinion, for shipping in the other countries. If the Italian tonnage is thrust on the market by the Italian Government, determined to get foreign exchange, that will be a type of competition in which the ordinary shipping firms cannot compete. If tonnage either comes on the market backed by a subsidy or thrust on the market by a Government like the Italian Government in want of foreign exchange, it is impossible for private shipping firms to stand up against it.
6.8 p.m.
I think it ought to be emphasised, as mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wake-field (Mr. Greenwood), that this party is not necessarily opposed to subsidies of a proper character, and I do so because I have long felt and known that the shipping industry has suffered perhaps more than any other industry in the country over a considerable period of years, almost since the termination of the war. That industry was subjected to the insanity which pursued the Government of the day in the introduction to this country of the German reparation tonnage, which shattered the freight market and the shipowning and shipbuilding trade of the world. As no one will know better than the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, the value of tonnage fell at that time, about 1920, when Lord Inch-cape was entrusted with the sale of German reparation tonnage, from about £34 per dead weight ton to about £8 10s. per dead weight ton, and from that time onward it has been quite impossible for the shipowning and indeed the shipbuilding trade to recover its ancient prestige. Following that, we have had the prohibition of the sale of goods between one country and another, the diminution of the carrying trade of the world on a deliberate and organised scale by various Governments since the War, and following that again, and perhaps as important a factor as these two, has been the introduction by foreign Governments of very heavy subsidies to their liner and tramp shipping companies.
No one on this side, I think, will deny that an efficient and modernised mercantile marine is an imperative necessity for this country. We depend upon that for our normal peace purposes, and in a world which we observe possesses the dictator, who is also the international thug, it is essential that our mercantile marine should be kept in a state of efficiency for defensive purposes in the event of hostilities against this country. The position of Great Britain in the ship-owning world has steadily declined. Whereas in 1914 the British owned 41 per cent. of the total tonnage afloat, in 1935 we only held 27 per cent., the British owning 17,000,000 tons gross as against the foreign ownership of 48,000,000 tons. That, of course, has its detrimental effect, not only upon the shipowning, but upon the shipbuilding and upon the coal, steel, and iron trades. It is a natural thing that under this Government and the last Government, which introduced tariffs, quotas, and restrictions, and other methods of restraining trade—and the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade boasted in this House that our imports were down by so many millions and our exports were down by so many more millions—it is in the nature of things that the carrying trade of this country should suffer, and perhaps it is some slight redress that this subsidy should be continued under proper conditions for a few years to come, because it seems to me that the handicaps inflicted upon the industry from these causes cannot be eradicated short of protection from Government sources, but that protection, as the right hon. Member for Wakefield said, cannot and must not be afforded to this or any other industry except under proper conditions.
Coming from the North-East Coast, we have looked with some hope—those of us who know something of the industry—to a revival of shipbuilding as a result of the scrap-and-build policy embodied in this grant, thinking perhaps that it would provide a certain amount of assistance— and it is doing so—to the shipbuilding industry of this country. On the Tyne-side, as elsewhere, no less than 41 per cent. of the total engaged in the shipbuilding industry are unemployed, and the anticipation is that with the improvement in the shipping industry by this artificial method under proper conditions it may be possible steadily to improve the shipbuilding industry. If that can be done the steel works in the North of England, which are working far below capacity, the iron producing industry and the coal trade, in which we from Durham are more particularly interested, will have a greater stimulus than they have had for many years.
It is a melancholy situation that in the shipbuilding trade of the country at the end of 1935, 64,000 of the workers were out of employment. That is 41 per cent. of the total, or three times the average of all industries in the country. In addition, there has been a substantial fall in the number of those who have registered themselves during the last year as being in the shipbuilding trade. These to-day reach a total of only 157,000, as against 1923, when there were 358,000 registered. Again, we are ceasing to build for the foreigner, whereas in the year previous to the War we built 385,000 gross tons for foreign owners, while in 1934 the total tonnage was only 38,000, or one-tenth of the pre-War figure.
We on this side of the Committee will vote against this Resolution unless we have the guarantees for which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wake-field asked. They are reasonable propositions; they are fair and equitable. They are necessary for the self-defence of the State, for no industry can be looked upon as efficient if the labour in it is either sweated or underpaid, or where undermanning can be demonstrated, or where the victualling is not what it ought to be. The Committee is fortunate in having as President of the Board of Trade the right hon. Gentleman, who knows the shipping industry completely. He is a lexicon of shipping in all its branches and forms. He has occupied some of the highest positions in the shipping industry. We are fortunate, therefore, in having one who can, if he wills, lend a listening ear to the requests from this side of the Committee. I am certain that if we can have his assurances, Members on this side will be glad to vote in favour of the Resolution. The Committee must demand, and the Government must assent to, Government supervision in return for Government aid, not only over construction, maintenance and classification, but over manning, victualling and cognate questions.
The right hon. Gentleman might, I think, of his own volition, assent to the setting up of a permanent shipping commission with representatives of the Government, the owners and employés in the shipowning industry. In that way there would be a continuous conciliation committee sitting to deal with the problems of the hour which are so closely connected with the other industries of the country. If the relationship between owners and men is good, and has been good for many years, that relationship could be improved. A supervisory oversight on the part of those who know shipping from actual practical working is a necessity at the present time. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield presented a very melancholy picture of certain things that had undoubtedly happened in the shipowning world. These need not recur. I believe that a permanent commission or committee on the lines I have indicated would present a solution of the disabilities under which the industry has suffered and enable that degree of confidence to be restored to the industry which, not only this House, but in the country, to-day is undoubtedly lacking.
6.22 p.m.
I would like to welcome the tone in which the last speaker expressed his attitude towards the shipping industry rather than the tone of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), who, I think, antagonises this side of the Committee by picking out special black cases in an industry and applying them to the industry as a whole. By doing that he does his own side no good whatever. If this country wishes to keep up the present level of British tramp tonnage, some assistance in present world circumstances has to be given. It is a question for the Government to decide whether they wish the present amount of tramp tonnage to be maintained. Certain owners have stated that they do not need a subsidy and are content without it, but the Government, wisely or otherwise have decided that the present level should be maintained and that the subsidy is the only way in which to do it. It is the only way, no matter how efficient you make the tramp industry, now that there are not sufficient bulk cargoes moving in the world to give a remunerative return to the most efficient organisation. It is for that reason that the industry is receiving financial assistance.
There is one point above all which I rose to stress. It is an obvious point which has been little mentioned to-day. It is that we shall require to go on subsidising the tramp industry, if we are to keep the present number of ships, until world trade moves again. The key to the whole position is, therefore, world trade and the President of the Board of Trade knows as well as anybody that that is the key. We cannot repeat too often that the whole question of getting bulk trade moving again is the key to the tramp industry, and that it is only a waste of time to talk about the merits or demerits of subsidies while the big question remains unsettled. Every country is in the grip of that problem, and the Government are alive to it, but that is no reason why we should not continue pointing out to them the importance of it to every industry.
The other point which I rose to stress was in regard to currency. I would ask the President to keep in mind the fact that it affects shipping in every direction. In Germany there are frozen credits and people are building ships there. They are not allowed to take the money out of the country and they are building unwanted ships as a way of getting their money out. It is depriving our shipyards of work and putting ships on the sea that are not wanted, and adding other complications to the present troubles. The shipping industry is grateful for the subsidy, and the vast majority of shipowners welcome any remarks from the Opposition as to making the subsidy an opportunity for improving and bringing up to date the general working conditions as to safety at sea. Hon. Members opposite have spoken as if such remarks were resented. They are not; they are welcomed, and I think that the shipowning industry has great faith in the President of the Board of Trade seeing that that opportunity is taken. I think we will hear from him that various committees are working and will bring in recommendations in regard to safety at sea. Anyone who reads the inquiries into losses will see that there was reason for tightening up the regulations. We admit it, but what we object to is the right hon. Member for Wakefield picking out one or two cases from the thousands of ships at sea and blackguarding the whole industry because of one or two. His whole speech was an insinuation against the mercantile marine.
Is it not a fact that when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) pressed this point last year an inquiry was definitely refused?
I leave that question to the President of the Board of Trade for reply. Inquiries have taken place. What I was objecting to was the personal attitude of the right hon. Gentleman to the whole question. I got up specifically to welcome the last speech, which showed the way in which an industrial matter should be debated. It is a preferable way to debating it than by making insinuations. When it was stated that a ship was lost because there was no wireless, an hon. Member opposite remarked for everybody to hear, "Little do the owners care." Although that does not represent the view of the Labour party, it gives the Debate a wrong atmosphere.
At the present time there is a shortage of British white seamen in this country. They are difficult to obtain because a great many owners, in order to get the subsidy, have had to stop using foreign labour. I would ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he does not think there is room for further consultation between the Board, the Shipping Federation and the Ministry of Labour on this point. Two or three weeks ago nine or 10 ships which signed on in Bristol over the week-end had a definite shortage, yet in Newcastle a number of men were left over. If there had been a system of co-ordination those men would have got jobs more quickly and there would not have been a shortage.
One last point regarding the actual Bill. The object of the shipping subsidy was to enable tramp ships to compete successfully against foreigners and at the same time not to do British lines out of the trade, and the expression "tramp voyage" was put into the Act to mean a voyage in the course of which all cargo carried was carried under charter party. Last year I stated that I thought that was too hard and fast a rule, and that it tied the hands of the Subsidy Committee and the Board of Trade. There are times when British tramp ships are up against foreign tramp ships competing for—I apologise for being so technical— what is called "berth business." There are no British liners on the horizon, and yet the British tramp is not allowed to get the subsidy because it is not working under a charter party. I shall be told at once that there has to be some definition, and I agree, but I think some loophole should be left whereby those who are administering this scheme should be able to use their judgment in a case where it is clear that it was the intention that the ship should get the subsidy even though the technical wording of the law might seem to bar the way. We welcome the subsidy as tiding us over for the time being, but the subsidy will remain for ever if world trade does not improve, and for that reason I hope the Government, in their broad-scheme policy, will make every effort to assist the expansion of world trade.
May I ask the hon. Member whether he is prepared to use his influence to see that during the next 12 months shipowners restore the cuts which have been suffered by the seamen of this country?
I am in no position to speak for British shipowners. I can speak for myself only. The question put to me cannot be divorced from the other question of how much the industry can pay. At the present moment we say the men at sea are being paid low wages, though not shameful wages, but can we press shipowners, irrespective of where the money is to come from, to increase wages? Personally I have advocated the restoration of the cuts, and will continue to do so, but I would not disapprove if an owner who has no reserves left, has nothing in the bank and does not know how, to-morrow, he can send his ship to sea, should object to paying more.
6.33 p.m.
I agreed with the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) when he said that we on these benches might, perhaps, have felt safe in the hands of the President of the Board of Trade, but some of us on this side of the Committee, and perhaps for differing reasons, do feel very strongly on this question of the subsidy, and are not content to allow public money to be given to private interests unless a case for it has been fully made out and unless, also, it is to bring full advantages to the whole of the industry and not only to a few people in it. I myself was rather disappointed at the speech which introduced this Resolution. We were told nothing to show whether there is any difference between conditions this year and last year, told nothing of the state of the tramp shipping industry at the present time; and it became quite clear that this subsidy, like so many others, will be a hardy annual, reintroduced time after time, with Members making exactly the same speeches for and against it and the public purse being mulcted of, probably, increasing amounts, and that is wrong. Even though a case may have been put up for tramp shipping last year, that case ought to be made out again to-day, and each time an application for the renewal of the subsidy comes before this House.
We were not told by the Government what difference there is in the position of the tramp shipping industry to-day, although we have heard it from the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Ropner) and from the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Maclay). Nothing was said, either, as to how the position is affected by the war between Italy and Abyssinia, which has a very important bearing on this industry. Anyone who lives near a port or has anything to do with shipping knows how much it has affected the industry. That question was only casually referred to. We were told "It will be the same after the war is over." But will the position be the same, and is the position the same to-day as when this subsidy was first asked for? Obviously there are different conditions, and we make the strongest possible protest against public money being handed out without the House having full information as to why it should be necessary. It was said also by the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash, who speaks for the side of this industry which he represents as much, per is, as anyone else in the Committee, that they wanted not just yearly subsidies, because the age of a ship was 20 years, and when a shipowner was laying down a ship he had a right to expect the subsidy during the life of that ship.
I think the hon. Member has misquoted the hon. and gallant Member. What he said was that he desired the subsidy to continue so long as the conditions which render it necessary exist, and that as soon as those conditions were at an end shipowners would be only too anxious to get rid of it.
I agree, but the hon. and gallant Member mentioned that 20 years was the life of the ship and also said, and I agree with him, that if a shipowner is to build during the period when there is a subsidy he would like to know how long that subsidy is to be continued. That question must be in the mind of the man who is building. It is a point of view which gets into every industry once the dead hand of subsidy is laid on it. As soon as an industry touches money from the public purse all in it begin to want more and not less, and even though greater prosperity attend the industry we shall never have, people saying they want less subsidy. For that reason we wish to know what is the view of the President of the Board of Trade on how long this subsidy is to continue, to know the method by which this figure of £2,000,000 is arrived at, and to know exactly where the tramp shipping industry stands to-day by comparison with its position when first the subsidy was sought.
I agree largely with what the hon. Member for Paisley said about the element of bitterness which appears in the speeches of the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) when talking of safety and the conditions of the men in the ships—an element which only does harm. That question can be brought forward without such bitterness, but we must insist on its being brought very much to the fore if public money is to be paid out to private interests. When public money is given to an industry it is the duty of every Member here to see that the conditions of work and the safety of the people employed receive the serious attention of Parliament.
6.39 p.m.
Shipowners, whom we either praise or blame as though they were all under one hat, are, in fact, so widely different from each other in their business and their outlook that it is very often difficult for any one person to express their views. In their approach to this House they have found it desirable to bring together all their different organisations in one committee, and as I have been for some years the chairman of that committee I hope hon. Members will allow me to present to them what I believe is the view of most shipowners who are not personally in receipt of this subsidy. I will say something first about the continuation of the subsidy, the immediate question before the Committee, and then something about the question of safety at sea in particular and in general. On the question of the subsidy, last year there were many critics who put forward exactly the same points as we have heard from different sections of the Committee this afternoon. There is the view, still held widely among us, that this is, after all, a short-range form of relief, and that the long-range policy must be to restore trade and stable currencies. There is no weakening in that belief, even though we find it necessary, or believe it is necessary, to support our Government in interim measures.
Last year there were many who were half-hearted about the subsidy; they were critical, they were doubting Thomases. The more critical among them have, I believe, all been converted to the belief that this subsidy really has done good and has been worth the cost. The tramp section of the industry has been passing through an extremely bad time and the subsidy has restored confidence. Shipowners have succeeded in bringing about quite notable reforms in the rationalising of tonnage in certain trades, and undoubtedly they have done very much better, because, I believe, of the subsidy. It was suggested by at least one speaker that tramp shipowners were making large profits. That view appears to me to be entirely false. There are just a few shipowners in a special position who pay dividends, but the great majority are making far less than the depreciation on the ships. So, if I may be allowed to give that view to the Committee, the view of the shipowners who have been critical and are not sharing in the subsidy, there it is.
I pass from that question to the other subject, safety at sea, which is one of tremendous importance. Lately there have been several distressing losses—ships overwhelmed at sea and great loss of life. Every shipowner views these losses with great distress and has read the proceedings at the courts of inquiry presided over by Lord Merrivale with anxious care. We owe a great debt to Lord Merrivale for the work he has done for our industry, and he has added to the debt under which we lay by the wise and sympathetic judgments he has given in these cases. One case, that of the La Crescenta, was different from the rest. As it is still under review it is not for me to say anything about it; but I may say this: that overloading, wilful, insistent overloading, apart from the question of the safety of the lives of the men and of the ship, is unfair competition of the most venomous kind against other shipowners. The Committee may rely upon shipowners, when they sit in judgment on one of their own who is guilty of this offence, not being lenient judges.
In the other cases, several ships overwhelmed, in storms of peculiar violence, shipowners have taken to heart the lessons of disaster and they have already been at work with representatives of officers and men, through the Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee, upon recommendations for manning from the point of view of safety which they are submitting to the Board of Trade. In that they are acting on the suggestions in Lord Merrivale's findings. The other point that has been raised about steering gear has been taken up in the same way by the appropriate organisations.
Apart from these particular losses—I entirely join with one of my hon. Friends in regretting that the particular losses should have been made the occasion for any general attack—the opinion is evidently held rather widely on the other side of the House that the Merchant Shipping Acts are out of date and ripe for revision. I do not agree with that. The Title of the Acts may perhaps explain the feeling that the Acts are hopelessly out of date. An hon. Member who said that a little while ago has repeated it to-day. The fact as I see it is that the Merchant Shipping Acts lay down principles. The principles were laid down a long time ago, and within them the Board of Trade are free to regulate, and do regulate, as new conditions arise. That does not, in my view, make the Merchant Shipping Acts out of date, even though they date from the beginning of the last century. The Ten Commandments were principles laid down longer ago than the Merchant Shipping Acts, and within that law the regulation and conduct of life continue to be brought up to date.
The first of the Merchant Shipping Acts was in the middle of the last century, about 1854 or 1855. The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) said that the Merchant Shipping Acts were conceived with the sail mind. I think he was going by the date. There followed a long time, up to 1894, in which the Merchant Shipping Acts were laid down to stereotyped conditions. They did not move with the times. The ships did. There was the rapid change from sail to steam and from wood to iron and steel, and the Merchant Shipping Acts were a strait-waistcoat to a young, growing and active industry. In 1894 that position was changed. The strait-waistcoat was found to be tight; the child wanted more room and the waistcoat was let out. Our legislators took till 1906 to lay down in full form the Act under which the President of the Board of Trade has since then been enabled to regulate.
I do not think that anyone who examines the facts can merely hold that since 1906 the Merchant Shipping Act is out of date. You may criticise the regulations—or lack of regulations—which the President of the Board of Trade has been pleased to put into force, but the power is there. We can move with the times. It is not necessary to come back to Parliament to have the Act altered when something new happens. The President works through machinery which is permanent and national machinery, and which is the Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee. On that he has the advice of all, I think, of the bodies who could be called in to help him, seamen, officers, masters and shipowners, and many others. He has also the help of international bodies and conferences—the Safety of Life at Sea Conference in 1929, the Load Line Conference in 1930 and many other conferences. By those he is brought up to date, and he alters his rules as may be required. Can anyone doubt how much need there is? The enormous improvements in safety at sea have not come from regulations, but regulations have not held them back. The improvement of safety at sea is almost entirely through invention and science. We, Great Britain, with America, as pioneers of the steam engine, brought in the greatest life-saver the world has seen. There have been enormous changes in the structure of ships—bulk heading, and one change after another. Perhaps the greatest single change for the safety of life in my time, wireless telegraphy, comes from Italy, and we are only at the beginning of that. We cannot yet talk with ease and precision to one another when we approach each other in a fog. We are still left groping; but that will come. I beg the Committee not to be misled by the fact that the title of the Merchant Shipping Acts is of the time of sail and is Victorian. A part of it is changed from day to day to meet the changing needs of the sea. With what result? We have heard from at least one hon. Member that British ships are not safe, and that the supposed improvement is merely a fiction. He said that the Chamber of Shipping were throwing their weight about. I do not know upon what figures he is going, but they must be entirely different from mine, which come from the Board of Trade. If you take the three years' average of losses of British ships of 1,600 tons gross register and upwards, and compare 1922 with 1934, it will be seen that one ship in 156 was lost in the former year as against one ship in 242 in the later year. A very big improvement comes steadily year by year, and the chance of a ship being lost has fallen. Take another point. We, the United Kingdom, own just one-third of the world's tons of shipping; we lose only one-quarter of the world's losses. The world is improving rapidly, but we are improving faster than the world.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) said that we avoided bringing in the year 1935 when we used figures, and in that he saw a sinister intention. The fact is that we had not the figures for 1935, but we have them now. The average of lives, lost for 10 years, passengers and crew, shows, for the 10 years immediately preceding the War, that 658 lives were lost in each year. For the last 10 years, including 1935, 106 lives were lost; less than one-sixth of the number of lives lost on the average before the War are lost now, including that year which was notably bad. The figures are not quite fair, because they include the two spectacular losses of the "Titanic" and the "Empress of Ireland." Cut them out from the earlier period, and the average for the 10 years before the War shows that we lost 406 lives in each year. Now we are losing 106. We have cut out three-quarters of the loss since the beginning of the War.
I beg the Committee therefore to agree with me that the Merchant Shipping Acts are not out-of-date, that they are not a straitwaistcoat and that they are no more strait and restrictive than the administrator who is put in charge. He can make them as effective or as conservative as he thinks, and that is what we need. We need the principles laid down by this House, and we need an active Board of Trade to watch, like a Father O'Flynn:
I do not want to end on that note. If one deals with the sea one is conscious of the great danger of being complacent. The evil eye is always on the watch for people who go down to the sea in ships, and if they feel themselves secure, then indeed they are in danger. In case any hon. Members are in doubt about that need and that danger, let me read one paragraph from that most dramatic and distressing judgment on the loss of the "Usworth" which describes that need and what such ships have to face:
Do hon. Members realise what that means, "14 or 15 feet above the truck of the foremast"? The truck of the foremast is 80 feet in height. I suppose that our Reporters' Gallery is 25 feet high and that the Ladies' Gallery is about 40 feet high. That wave was much higher than this room, and from the way in which a storm travels in relation to the water, the wave would be moving over the face of the earth at more than 20 knots. The height of a building in London, according to the Building Act, is 80 feet, and a mountain of water of the height of a London building was moving rapidly upon the ship. As the ship was out of control she got into the way of the wave and, as hon. Members who follow the sea all know, if you allow a wave to know that you are there and you disturb its form, it curls over and falls upon you. That one wave would be quite enough to crush any ship. We are constantly at work among ourselves, and with our colleagues of other nations, to try to conquer these dangers. I submit that the way we are following under the guidance of the Board of Trade has had very excellent results.
7.0 p.m.
Some hon. Members seem to have resented what they have taken to be criticism of the shipping industry, but we are under no delusion that shipping, any more than any other industry, has attained the last degree of perfection. We should be failing in our duty unless we called attention to those who let down the standard of the whole. We are opposed to this Resolution, not because it grants a subsidy, but largely because the Government have no comprehensive, intelligent and consistent approach to the problem we are tackling. This problem is not one peculiar to the merchant Service, but it is one affecting the whole of our system of society and the whole of industry. The Parliamentary Secretary referred to this problem as being the comprehensive, vast problem of world trade. Quite so, but it is not only the shipping industry that is affected. All industry is.
This dole is only one of a number of devices which I do not suppose even the most optimistic Member of the Government would say is a cure. Last year among the applicants for a dole we had the tramp shippers. The system of doles to competitive enterprise is only a palliative, and we say that it is one of the palliatives which increase and aggravate the nature of the disease, and holds out no hope of remedy for our social ailments. It has been suggested that the problem has been aggravated by war—that is the inevitable result of our competitive system. What are tariffs but a scheme to try to cure some of the ills of competition? Instead of curing the ills, the tariffs have aggravated them. Restrictions have also aggravated the disease. We have had doles to the beet sugar industry, and now it is doles for tramp shipping. The argument has been used that because other countries try by a system of doles to keep alive a specific industry, we should adopt a like method. Then you get further aggravation of the problem by a competition in the size of doles.
If it is agreed that it is necessary in the present stage to have doles, may we not make some suggestions to the Government? Why should not these contributions be considered to rank as instalments for purchase? The hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Ropner) was very indignant at the suggestion that this £2,000,000 had increased the profits of the shipowners. It is probably true what he has said, that the £2,000,000 does not even cover legitimate requirements for depreciation. But if the shipowners or any other industry has to raise money, whether there is any interest on that capital for the time being or not, when the day arrives that some interest can be paid, the Government should be in the same position as every other investor. If we are going to subsidise the tramp shipping industry, a regular account should be kept of the sums invested, and they should either be paid back or should rank as capital for purchase. Our efforts to bolster up an industry should rank as capital investment, and should not go for good and all.
I noticed when the Parliamentary Secretary was introducing this Resolution he claimed that the object of this subsidy had been achieved to some extent. I think he will agree that those objects were better organisation and reduced competition. A year ago: it was a matter of speculation how the responsible board appointed would administer this scheme. We have had only one gleam of light in the discussion this afternoon, and that was of particular interest to us on these benches because it showed that at last, in the administration of this scheme, the Government, apparently agreeing with the action of the board, are beginning to apply a principle with which we are in entire agreement. That is the elimination of competition, the fixing of a standard rate—in this case it is called a freight; in our case it is mostly called wages—the fixing of a minimum rate for a certain service, and asking all those engaged in it, including not only our own but foreign ships as well, to comply with that standard. Hon. Members opposite tell us that one way in which they have usefully applied this £2,000,000 is to bring pressure on the blackleg by bribing him with the promise of sharing in it to fix his rates at this minimum and to stop undercutting.
If they have once acted on that system, I appeal to them to apply it all round. It is our system in the trade union movement. If it is right that there should be minimum standards for freight, why should that not apply to wages? What is our experience when we find ourselves as employés fighting to secure a minimum standard? What happens when there is a revolt against men undercutting their fellows? Whenever the workers revolt, the attitude of the Government has been that every ounce of pressure that the State can bring, even to the calling out of the military, shall be used to safeguard the blackleg and make it possible for him to get to his job without any interference. I am only asking hon. Members to be consistent. In this matter of tramp shipping, when you have, a blackleg, instead of saying, "Let us break him because he is cutting prices," you say, "Let us freeze him out; he shall not share in this bounty. If he will he a respectable tramp and says that he will not carry goods below the fixed minimum freight, he can share in the advantage."
If that is good for the tramp ship, it is good for the sailors and for the workers in the factories. This means that hon. Members opposite are realising at last that competition leads nowhere, and that only by co-operation to maintain standards shall we make progress. In so far as this £2,000,000 is being used to maintain standards, we have no objection, as long as those who are engaged in the. industry are recognised as human beings with a claim to a minimum standard of life. We do not suggest that hon. Gentlemen opposite are callous and contemptuous about this. Any decent shipowner must be heartily ashamed of the wage rates that operate. Some of them, I am sure, object personally to the conditions which prevail in some of the ships that they own. The answer given is that they cannot pay higher wages because the industry will not stand it. Our reply is that that is so because of the competitive system, and because they are being forced down by those who undercut. Now that hon. Members have recognised that, and the necessity for eliminating competition, they should recognise also that it should apply all round.
Let me take as an illustration the voyage of a tramp ship and see how absurd it is to try to solve this problem as a thing apart from our social system. The ship I have in mind left a North-East Coast port in ballast for the Crimea. It arrived in the Black Sea and loaded up with Russian grain. It took that cargo to Vladivostok so that the Russians would have sufficient food in the event of trouble with Japan. I had the privilege of chatting with some of the seamen who had been there, and I got their opinions on what they had seen. I asked them where they went when they left Vladivostok. They said they left Vladivostok empty and ran across to Japan, called on a few Japanese ports and picked up a scrap cargo of Japanese goods. Undoubtedly most of that would be textiles. This ship came back to England with a cargo of Japanese textiles and other scrap goods. We subsidise that ship to enable it to do that trade, but, when it comes to our native industries, like the Lancashire textile industries, the most that the Government can do is a guaranteed loan for the scrapping of the industry—for that is what it amounts to. I appeal to the Government to take a more comprehensive view of the problem, and, instead of following this piecemeal method of a dole here and a dole there, to face up to the necessity of scrapping, not our Lancashire cotton industry, not tramp ships, but of scrapping the competitive system and applying a new system of co-operation to the raising and the maintenance of a higher standard of life for the whole community.
7.16 p.m.
I feel very conscious indeed of my need for that indulgence, which, as I have seen already, the House is so generous in granting to those who speak here for the first time. I feel particularly conscious of the need in which I stand of that indulgence in venturing to speak here upon an industry which is, I think, of all British industries, the most intricate and the most diverse in its interests. I feel that so many hon. Members have already spoken this afternoon who possess what I do not possess, namely, a personal and intimate knowledge of the industry, that perhaps I am venturing rather too far in speaking this evening, but I have the great honour of representing in this House a constituency which, I think, more than any other constituency here represented, is vitally affected by the well-being of the British mercantile marine. In that constituency there are more shipbuilding berths than in any other constituency in this country, and it is a most tragic thing for anybody who has the responsibility of trying to represent that constituency to know that, of an insurable population of some 55,000, there are over 23,000 out of work, of whom the majority, directly or indirectly, are shipyard workers.
The first thought that strikes me about the Bill is that in the old days, when the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade first occupied that position, it would have seemed a most astounding thing to those Members of this House who were then connected with shipping that the shipping industry of this country should ever have had to come to the Government for assistance. Twenty years ago it would have been laughable to mention that. It would have been a humiliation, and in many senses it is a humiliation, for shipowners and their families to think of having to make that application. That application was made last year, and it is renewed to-day.
Before any industry can rightly ask the 'Government of this country—that is, the taxpayers and the general body of working people in this country—for assistance, certain very definite reasons have to be established. The first is that the industry asking for assistance should be an industry of primary national importance. I have heard this afternoon in this House certain speeches which seemed to indicate doubt on that point, but I really cannot understand people who think in that way. I was brought up in a district in which the shipping industry is the very foundation of the life of the working people. All over the North East Coast our welfare depends, in the end, upon British shipping, and I should have thought that even hon. Members sitting for other places far removed from the sea would have appreciated that a great Empire like ours cannot be maintained for a moment unless we have under our flag the ships which can carry our people and our goods. I do not think you will ever find a country maintaining an efficient navy unless that country also maintains an efficient merchant service. Although I believe it is sometimes disputed, in this country the Merchant Navy is really older than the Navy itself, and it is the mother of the Fleet. I need not, however, labour that point, because it is really unnecessary to argue whether British shipping is a primary British industry.
The second reason to be established is that the industry is in need of assistance, and that its plight is not due to any cause within its own control. The causes of the present condition of British shipping are really extraordinarily simple. The first is that, taking the level of world trade in 1913 at 100, the level of world trade to-day is only 77 per cent. With that big fall in world trade, there has been an enormous growth in the tonnage available for carriage. The world tonnage has risen from 49,000,000 tons gross in 1914 to a little over 65,000,000 tons gross in 1935. Of that tonnage the British total in 1914 was 21,000,000 tons, and in 1935 just over 20,000,000 tons. There has, therefore, been a fall in the tonnage under the British flag as compared with 1914, and there has been a growth in the tonnage under foreign flags from 28,000,000 tons gross to 45,000,000 tons gross in 1935. With these conditions it is inevitable that there should be a serious decline in shipping earnings. And those who know more about shipowning than I do—in fact, anybody who knows anything about it—will say that these figures do not represent the whole of the truth, because the tonnage afloat to-day is much faster than the tonnage that was afloat in 1914.
A decline in the volume of cargoes available for carriage, and a growth in the facilities for carrying those cargoes, has produced, inevitably, a serious fall in the level of freights. Taking the freight level in 1913 as 100, you have in 1936 the index standing at only something over 76 per cent. It is not the case in many industries in this country that the receipts of the industries are down as compared with pre-war days, although, as everybody knows, the expenses of the industry have risen enormously. In every other industry prices are up, bcause all other expenses have risen, and money to-day is not worth in purchasing power what it was before the War. That being so, it is inevitable that shipping as a world industry must be in a serious condition.
Why is it, then, that British shipowners have been hit more hardly, taking a general view, than foreign shipowners? It is not because their ships are less efficient; the British Mercantile Marine is the, most modern of all the mercantile marines of the world. It is true, firstly, to the enormous extent to which some foreign Governments subsidise their shipping industries. In the Debate in this House on the Cotton Spinning Industry Bill, an hon. Member remarked that the cotton industry was the first of all industries that a nation-conscious Government tried to establish. I rather think that that is not quite true, but that the first industry which a Government becoming conscious of its own nationality seems in these days to seek to establish is a merchant fleet under its own flag. We have seen that happening to an enormous extent in the last few years. It is very interesting to compare the fleets under certain foreign flags to-day with the fleets under those flags before the War. The effect of this was illustrated in a speech, which will be within the knowledge of most Members of this House, by the chairman of the Peninsular and Oriental Company at its last annual meeting, and what he then so strikingly instanced in a particular trade has been happening just as surely, though perhaps less strikingly, in every trade where ships are trying to find cargoes.
The second cause of the present condition of British shipping is this: I appreciate, and I am sure every responsible shipowner appreciates, that the wages paid to men in British ships are far below what those men deserve. It would be necessary to have very high wages indeed to recompense our seamen for the hardships which they undergo and the work which they do for this country. But the wages are high as compared with the present level of freights. Moreover, the wages which we pay to our seamen, whatever we may individually think about them, are very much higher than the wages which certain other nations pay their seamen; and we impose upon our ships, and quite rightly impose upon our ships, certain regulations which perhaps should be more stringent than they are. We impose certain regulations about which other nations are not in the least scrupulous. That being so, it is inevitable that the British Merchant Service should have suffered as it has suffered.
When the industry of one country is being undercut by poorly paid labour or bad conditions in a similar industry in another country, it is obvious that the best remedy is a general levelling up. That is a condition which we have seen in every industry in this country in recent years. The ideal is that we should endeavour to get other nations to come up to the standards which we set for ourselves, and I personally think there is something more that we might do in this direction. I think we might well consider whether there is not a degree of over-subsidy and a degree of underpayment which would entitle the Government of this country, and the Governments of the Dominions, to say that ships worked under those conditions should not enter or load at our ports. There is, I understand, quite a number of cases in which ships have come to this country complying with the laws of this country, but under such conditions that people have had more than a shrewd suspicion that, when those ships sailed from their ports of loading, they did not comply with the regulations which British ships would have had to observe. I think there is something more that we may endeavour to do in that direction, but whether we can do it or not, and at least until we can do it, it is inevitable that this subsidy should be given. If the subsidy had been used to indulge in a reckless war in the freight market, we might well have considered whether it was being properly employed, but it has been used, and that very widely indeed, to get foreigners to enter into agreements with ourselves for the fixing of a minimum rate of freight for the purpose of maintaining a standard of earnings which would at least prevent a loss.
An hon. Gentleman on the other side of the Committee said that depreciation is being used as a means of covering up profits. Now, in the shipowning or in any other industry in this country, depreciation is the thing on which the working people most depend. Unless ample sums are put aside for depreciation, there is no security for the continuance of the industry. The working people will be the first to suffer if somebody goes in for shipowning at a boom period, makes a big profit, sells out and retires, thus leaving the company derelict, with no money with which to replace the ships when they wear out. I think that from the point of view of the interests of the country and of the working people, although not perhaps from the point of view of shareholders, the more money that is set aside for depreciation the better. Depreciation at the rate of 5 per cent. is not generous as things are to-day, and in certain industries the progress of invention is so rapid that that rate is not nearly adequate. An examination of the accounts of any company owning cargo ships during the last two years will show that in nearly every case nothing has been taken from voyage profits for depreciation, and that in very few cases has depreciation been taken at five per cent. Unless that depreciation can be earned and set aside, British shipping is a wasting and dying industry, and it is not very pleasant to contemplate the consequences of that.
Unless this subsidy is granted, the industry will be left in a condition in which, I think, certain people would not mind seeing it, that is to say, a condition in which there will be a fierce struggle for existence. In that struggle it is inevit able that some will survive, but the cost to the country as a whole, and especially to the seamen and the shipyard workers, it is impossible to foretell. Whether at the end of that struggle our nation would remain supreme, or whether some other nation would be, we cannot now judge, but I think every responsible Member of the House will hesitate long before embarking upon struggle of that kind.
7.35 p.m.
It is my duty, as it is my privilege, to do what, I am sure, the whole Committee would have me do, to pay a very sincere compliment to the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. I am sure we all feel that he has spoken with a lucidity and an intelligence which will make him a very welcome speaker in the Debates of this House. He almost persuaded me.
If I venture to take part in this Debate, it is not because I have any connection with shipping interests or because I represent any constituency directly concerned with shipping industries. It is because I was born and brought up, lived and am still living in a city which has depended on shipping for the very great contribution which it has made to the prosperity of this country in the past. In my boyhood Liverpool was a fairy city of ships. I can remember the time when our river was full of all kinds of vessels and when our docks were a veritable wonderland of romance for the schoolboys who wandered around them and, with or without permission, wandered over the ships that came to them from all parts of the world and sailed from them to all parts of the world, bringing all kinds of goods and taking away all kinds of goods. In those days Liverpool was, if not a completely happy city, at any rate a city with a larger measure of happiness and prosperity than it has today. For to-day Liverpool is a distressed area, and almost a special area.
One looks in vain for anything in this Bill which will in any way improve the condition of the shipping industry so far as seaports are concerned. I do not suppose that is the object of the Measure. But I would like to observe that one speaker after another has said with truth that the reasons why the shipping industry is in the humiliating position of having to come cap in hand to this House for relief are to be found, at any rate in part, in world causes and the shrinkage of world trade. The policy of this Government has been to accept that state of affairs and to regard it as something which will endure. The Government has based its policy upon the expectation that this situation will endure. Its policy of tariffs was intended to secure —and I grant that in a measure that policy has secured—that this country shall get an ever-increasing proportion of an ever-dwindling quantity of world trade, but it cannot—and I think no one will claim that it can—confer any benefits either upon seaports or upon the shipping industry. I suppose the real reason the Government felt impelled last year to begin the subsidy and this year to continue it, is that the shipping industry and their friends in it, may well have said, "Your policy may confer benefits upon some, but it only adds to our difficulties, and you ought to compensate us for the difficulties which you have placed in our way." No one on these benches can, in principle, resist that argument.
It has been said that in the attitude which we are adopting this afternoon towards this Financial Resolution we are not influenced mainly by any objection to a subsidy in these particular circumstances. It may well be that if a policy is introduced which causes hardship to one of the industries which has brought most prosperity to this country in the past, that industry ought to have something given back to it; but we are entitled to demand of the Government that, when rescuing an industry by allowing that industry to put its hand into the public purse, it shall speak of the industry as a whole and divest itself of its unfortunate habit of speaking of an industry as being the owners of the industry and those with money invested in it. The owners of the ships in this case, or the owners of the spindles in the case we were discussing last week, are not the industry at all. They may be a part of the industry, and opinions may well differ as to how important a part, but there can be no difference of opinion when I say that at any rate an important part of the industry is that part which is represented by the workers, without whom the industry could not be carried on at all.
Our complaint is that in the Measure last year and apparently, so far as we are given to understand, in the Measure now before us, there is not a single word of protection for the workers in the industry. I see the hon. Gentleman is smiling. If I am mistaken, and there is some word of protection for them, perhaps he will tell us of it when he replies to this Debate. I heard one hon. Gentleman opposite say, if I understood him correctly, that the safety of seamen ought to be left to the protection of the Ten Commandments and that all subsequent legislation ought to be scrapped. Other hon. Members opposite say that, of course, wages are very low. No one has attempted to controvert the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Wake-field (Mr. Greenwood), who said that frequently the wages of seamen are below the level of what they would get in unemployment benefit if they were ashore and not working at all. In face of that fact, which has so far not been controverted, another hon. Member opposite said that wages are not shameful. Surely, if it be true that people work in this very dangerous occupation for wages that are lower than the sum which an unemployed industrial worker would get for no work at all, no other epithet is possible than that of "shameful." Other hon. Members recognise that wages ought to be higher, and that there ought to be a, strengthening of regulations regarding safety at sea.
Personally, I would invite the Government to treat the slums of the sea in the same way that the Minister of Health is beginning to invite local authorities to treat slums ashore. When a ship becomes unfit for human habitation, it ought to be scrapped, it ought to be taken away from its owner and no compensation ought to be paid at all. If the Government is not prepared to go as far as that, and if it does recognise that there are parts of the industry which need attention, why can it not, as an earnest of its good faith, say to us, "You demand this only as a condition of your support. We will make the granting of the subsidy conditional upon these matters being attended to." I am putting it in very mild and moderate terms. People have complained of bitterness, but how do you expect that we shall not be bitter if, when we complain of these things, you say, "Yes, wages are too low, safety measures are not all that they might be and tramp ships are not as well found as they might be, but you must wait for all those things to be corrected in the fullness of time." We say, Not at all. If the industry is entitled to say that because of circumstances connected with world trade or with the policy of the Government it is entitled to something to tide it over the difficult years, and if we on this side say, "We recognise your claim. You are entitled to some help to tide over the difficult years," surely it ought not to be difficult for the Government to say, "As an earnest of our good faith we will see that assistance is granted only conditionally, and that the conditions shall be such as shall render more safe the worker in the industry and shall grant to him a standard of living which shall not fall below what the Government are already granting to unemployed industrial workers." If the Government are obstinate about that, if they refuse to give guarantees of that sort, if they say it has nothing to do with this subsidy, we are entitled, and it is our duty, to express the utmost bitterness and opposition.
7.48 p.m.
I want to speak on this subject from an entirely different point of view from that of the hon. Member who last spoke, the point of view of national and Imperial defence. In my opinion that viewpoint far and away transcends any other that can be put forward. All these questions about conditions of pay and safety and all the rest of it are most important, but they have been adequately dealt with. The outstanding point of importance is whether the mercantile marine is to continue or not, and from the point of view of national defence there can be only one answer to that question. The House yesterday gave a Second Reading to the continuance of a subsidy for sugar-beet, a very important part of the agricultural industry, but only one part and, if we compare the national and Imperial importance of sugar-beet and the mercantile marine, we are making a comparison between the light of a candle and the heat and light of the sun. The light of the candle may be of some assistance to the community, but the light and heat of the sun are the community's lifeblood, just as the mercantile marine is the lifeblood of the people of this country. The necessity of sea communications for an island power such as we are, with our far-flung Empire, is obvious to us all, and these communications are the foundation upon which the whole of our Imperial defence depends. If we are to continue as a great Power, we are forced in one way or another to maintain our mercantile marine in such strength and efficiency that we shall be quite sure that it will be at our disposal in time of war not only for the transport of goods but also for the transport of all troops and munitions of war.
To carry out these essential services we cannot and must not rely upon the foreigner. If we do, assistance in shipping will most probably not be forthcoming from the foreigner at the critical moment. After the War Acts of Parliament were passed to safeguard vital key industries which prior to the War were not safeguarded, and we were dependent upon the foreigner for our supplies. These Acts were passed so that never again should we have such a degree of dependence upon the foreigner. Neither can we depend upon the foreigner in the case of the mercantile marine. It is an essential link in the Imperial chain of defence. Practically our only justification for naval strength is our possession of a mercantile marine. These two great sister sea services are inseparably bound together in Imperial defence. In the War, had it not been for the strength in numbers of the mercantile marine, we should undoubtedly have been defeated. The nation and the Empire owe an unpayable debt to the mercantile marine for the magnificent way in which they played their part in the War. But the assurance of a sufficiency of British ships in time of war can only be possible if those ships are in being in time of peace. It is well to remember that in the War from a fourth to a fifth of the mercantile marine was utilised by the Government exclusively for war purposes. Ships were diverted from their ordinary function of carrying trade about the world and devoted exclusively to the business of the war, and that fact points to the necessity for maintaining their numbers. Again, the powers of attack are greater and more effective than they were, but the power of defence of a merchant ship is extremely limited, both as to its construction and as to its defence so far as guns are concerned.
We have, in addition to the menaces of the last war, the air menace, and that is a very important point. Whatever agreement may be come to internationally with regard to attacks on merchant shipping by aircraft, whatever limitations may be agreed to, I do not believe there is any great Power which, with its back to the wall in conflict with this country, would not utilise that power of air attack to the full against our merchant shipping in order to weaken our position. That, again, is from my point of view an argument for the necessity of numbers in the mercantile marine. As long as bulk cargoes have to be transported by sea, tramp shipping will maintain its national importance. As far as anyone can foresee, it will not be for a very long time to come, if ever, that bulk cargo can be transported in anything but ships. There is to-day not only a menace, there is a certainty that, unless the Government continue this subsidy, the mercantile marine will be so reduced in strength that our position as a sea Power will no longer be maintained. It is not a question of the failure of private enterprise at all. The history of British shipping, especially since the iron and steel era, shows how efficient private enterprise has been in meeting the demand for efficient, safe, certain and cheap means of transport across the sea.
Quite apart from the factor of shrinkage in the total volume of goods to be transported in world trade to-day, the real factor that is sweeping our merchant shipping off the seas is the direct and indirect policy of subsidies by foreign countries, and there is no possibility of meeting this menace unless we are prepared to utilise to the full the same weapon against them. Everyone dislikes subsidies. They are uneconomic and they are having a very detrimental effect on the future interests of the shipping industry of the world. We did our very utmost to get them abandoned at the World Economic Conference in 1933, but we completely failed. The nations would not listen to us, and it was not until we adopted the subsidy a year ago that we were able to get even the degree of international agreement which we have been told exists at present. The introduction of the tariff policy has been the direct means of bringing about trade between this country and foreign countries which would never have been possible otherwise. When we utilised the same tariff weapon that they did, they began to sit up and take notice, and were only too thankful to come to agreements with us. I am certain that the results will be the same in this question of shipping subsidies. If the Government will continue their determination to utilise the subsidy weapon against foreigners we are bound to beat them, but, if they do not, there is not the slightest doubt that it is only a question of time before our merchant shipping will be swept off the seas. The necessity for the continuance of this subsidy is every bit as great as was the necessity for its introduction a year ago. From this point of view of national defence and the maintenance of an adequate mercantile marine I welcome wholeheartedly the determination of the Government to continue the subsidy, meagre as it unfortunately is.
8.0 p.m.
Although many points of difference occur between myself and the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman), there is one point from which we both start, and that is, whether the proposal which we are discussing to-night is going to bring a ray of hope to those in difficulties on the line of docks in Liverpool. I felt that in the attack which has been made on the proposal by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) and those who have followed him, it must be clearly apparent that there was no other message for that kind of docks than one of desolation and despair. I have tried to follow the principles on which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite base their opposition to this subsidy, and I find that on one point, at any rate, there is no difference between us. They say that it must be shown that a subsidy should only be given in a matter of grave national interest, but no hon. or right hon. Member opposite has dared to say that the preservation of the tramp shipping of this industry is not a matter of grave national interest to-day. When one comes to consider not merely the position of tramp shipping on routes concerned with our Empire, but in preserving our share of trade between foreign countries, that point becomes even more crystal clear.
But it is for two other reasons that the necessity for this subsidy is clearly shown. In my view there ought to be two other principles. It ought to be shown that there is some foreign competition which is unfair and which presses unfairly on the industry. I have tried to appreciate all the arguments of hon. Gentlemen, but not one of them has shown that the conduct of other nations in giving either building or running subsidies during these years after the War was directed to the greatest benefit of the industry, nor have they shown that when the Preparatory Commission of the World Economic Conference condemned these subsidies, it was wrong in so doing. If these points are admitted, how can they show that we were wrong in making our reply to a course of action which was not merely apparently wrong but which had been Condemned by so authoritative a body?
Hon. Members passed from that to the financial position, and there I noted that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield was quoting from "Fair-play" for the 9th January, which gave the same, number as that given by the right hon. Gentleman. It was shown that the voyage profits of the 31 companies concerned with tramp shipping which had published their figures were £300,000, whereas the amount required to provide for even a 5 per cent. depreciation was £800,000, and the amount required to provide for payment of interest, apart altogether from any question of ordinary shares or interest on borrowed capital that went beyond the subscribed capital, amounted to £200,000. In other words, these 31 companies which had shown their results made it clear that in order to provide for interest on borrowed money and for depreciation of 5 per cent., they would have had to find some £700,000 beyond their voyage profits. They related only to between 1,000,000 and 2,000,000 tons of tramp shipping, and if the whole of the tramp shipping is taken, the figure would be, beyond any question, in excess of the subsidy which is given in order to provide for these two points—interest on-borrowed money and depreciation at; 5 per cent.
Is the hon. and learned Gentleman saying that the subsidy is necessary in order to pay interest on borrowed money, and that, on the other point he mentioned, it ought to be used exclusively for that purpose, no matter how low the wages of the workers in the industry?
I am not saying that, but that, in dealing with the present working, in order to keep the industry going and to get these payments made, the interest on borrowed money and depreciation at 5 per cent. would take more than this subsidy. Therefore, I say clearly—and here is the line of demarcation between the hon. Member opposite and myself—that it is better that the industry should be kept going and that we should give it an opportunity to pull through till the times of world trade are better, than that we should feel that the industry was being crushed and that British tramp shipping was disappearing. That would be a catastrophic result.
I apologise to the hon. and learned Member for interrupting him again, but I want to get this matter clear. Does he mean that the depreciation and the interest on borrowed money must be provided by the State subsidy, and that then the industry so rescued should carry on at the expense of the underpaid worker?
My hon. Friend really must leave the cross-examination to a more appropriate moment, but of course I shall answer his point as well as I can with the opportunity and the short time that I have before me now. The subsidy will be paid into a general working account, but it is necessary that the subsidy should be given at a rate which will keep going the payments which are necessary and without which the companies could not go on. I say frankly that it is more important to keep tramp shipping going than to raise wages at the present time. I want to make this point: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wake-field, having these figures before him, put them in the form as if depreciation were being used for a locking up of profit. It is clear from the figures which I have given that the depreciation which has been provided for is short of 5 per cent. for renewal of the ships.
There are one or two other aspects which hon. Members have mentioned in their attack. One is that the owners have not provided any improvements with regard to safety appliances, and that the framework of legislation is out of date. The hon. Member for the City of London (Sir A. Anderson) made it perfectly clear that the Act of 1894 was supplemented by the Act of 1896 and by that Act the power was given to make rules. The important point is that on all important questions of shipping to-day, of loadline, depth, cargo, safety measures, steering provisions—on all these matters regulations have been made within the last five years, and, thanks to the activities of the Government and of the shipowners of this country, working with the employés in the industry, international agreement has been obtained with regard to a great many of these matters.
The right hon. Gentleman, in order to show that this legislation pressed heavily, quoted a case which occurred a short time ago and which is now under appeal. One might deprecate the discussion of a matter which is under appeal, but one certainly must deprecate a picture given of a case without one vital point being brought to the attention of hon. Members of this Committee. The man to whom the right hon. Gentleman referred had not merely sought overtime, but had been paid £10 for overtime up to the date that he refused to obey the order for which he was convicted. That is the sort of picture which is distorted.
When we come back to realities we have to decide, first of all, whether we think that there is a chance of world trade coming back to normal again. If we think that there is no chance, then the policy of hon. Gentlemen opposite might be supported. If there is a chance, and we believe that reason will come and world trade will be restored, is it not right to give an industry like this, where people work under such difficulties as those in the shipping industry, its chance also? If we believe that world trade will come back to normal, I suggest that during the interim some assistance should be given to an industry which has suffered patiently and waited patiently through the unexampled difficulties of the past few years. It is for that reason that I ask the Committee to approve of the subsidy and of the action of the Government thereon.
8.13 p.m.
This Debate on the question of continuing the subsidy has proceeded upon much the same lines as the Debate when the subsidy was first granted. There does not seem to have been very much added to-day to the information given to the House a year ago. They have told us in varying tones and in different accents how much good the subsidy has done for the shipping industry. The speakers have warned us how little effect the subsidy has had upon them, because the amount is not sufficient to cover the rate of interest and depreciation of the tramp shipping industry itself. First of all, the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Ropner) told us that the subsidy has kept the tramp shipping of the country intact, and then we have been told that the sum of £2,000,000 is not sufficient to pay the interest upon capital and of 5 per cent. depreciation. The hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash also appealed to us to carry on the subsidy—in effect this was his argument—for the lifetime of the ship. The subsidy is not considered sufficient to cover one year of the life of the ship, and so it goes on. Once a subsidy is given to a vested interest in this House that vested interest comes back year after year and asks not merely for a repetition of the subsidy, but for an increase of the subsidy given in previous years.
I am sorry that the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash is not in his place. He knows that I would not desire to refer to him unless he were here but I thought that he would be back in time for the close of the Debate. The hon. and gallant Member became very indignant because of the statements that have been made by the right hon. Member for Wakefield, and he accused my right hon. Friend of having made insinuations, allegations and challenges very much on the lines of those challenges and statements which he made a year ago. I would say this on behalf of the right hon. Member for Wake-field, that practically every statement he made from this Box a year ago has been borne out. The fact that there have been four inquiries into the losses of four ships during the past year is sufficient to vindicate the statements made by the right hon. Gentleman during the previous Debates, and the fact that three inquiries are pending in regard to other ships that have gone down, two with all hands, is another vindication of the attitude adopted and the language used by the right hon. Member. Some hon. Members may think that I am as vehement as the right hon. Member for Wakefield. Perhaps I have personal cause to be so. When I was a boy of two years my father went down in a ship, with all hands, and I know the struggle that my mother had to bring up four orphan children, three girls, and myself the youngest of the family. That is one of the reasons why so long as I am in this House I shall claim the right to speak and shall speak for the seamen on deck and the seamen below deck. I do not care a flick of the finger for any shipowner so long as I safeguard the lives of those who are manning the ships.
The hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash is very concerned for the tramp shipowners. He always has been. I do not say that he is voicing his opinions because of any personal profit that either he or his company are likely to make out of it. I give him every possible credit for believing he is sincere, but there is no man who spends a lifetime in a particular industry or occupation who, when the time comes for him to speak on its behalf, does not visualise himself as the personification of the industry. When he speaks of the industry he subconsciously voices his own interests at the same time. It is the most difficult thing in the world, we all know it, to take our own personal feelings, views and interests away from the subject in which we are personally interested. The shipowners of this House, like the railway directors, and like the representatives of every interest that comes to this House for a subsidy, can never have sufficient. To-day it is the President of the Board of Trade. Yesterday it was the Minister of Agriculture. To-morrow it will be the Chancellor of the Exchequer. So it goes on, going round and round the Departments, knocking at the doors and ringing the bells in Whitehall until we wonder whether there is any money left for any other interest in the country.
The hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash is always very indignant as a personification of the tramp shipowner. To-day he has been left very much to himself. The others seem to have neglected him and to have run away from supporting him. They have left him to voice the whole position. The hon. and gallant Member has just entered the House. I am sorry I have had to reply in his absence to certain things that he said, but we cannot always wait. Time is the essence of debate, and as it is generally understood that the debate is to conclude at nine o'clock, I have had to say things which I need not repeat, except to say that the hon. and gallant Member waxed very indignant and made a very unfair allegation against the right hon. Member for Wakefield. I have pointed out that the four inquiries that have taken place and the three inquiries still to take place with regard to lost ships are not merely a, justification of the attitude and language used by the right hon. Member for Wakefield but a vindication of his attitude in this House. Therefore, the indignation of the hon. and gallant Member and his vehemence in attacking the right hon. Member for Wakefield were unjustified. I am repeating that statement because I do not wish the hon. and gallant Member to think that I was not prepared to repeat what I have said in his absence.
The Parliamentary Secretary pointed out several things in regard to the situation which has arisen in the tramp shipping industry. He claimed a wonderful success for the Government's policy in giving the subsidy. Curiously enough, the figures with which he supplied the House have been contradicted by the figures given by the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash. The Parliamentary Secretary said that the subsidy in its operation during the past year had given employment to 1,500 men, but the hon. and gallant Member said it had given employment to 6,000. Which figure is correct?
The Parliamentary Secretary is not here, otherwise I have no doubt he would justify his own figures. My recollection of the speech made by the Parliamentary Secretary was that he said it was within his knowledge that if the subsidy were continued there would be, almost immediately, employment given to an additional 1,500 men, that is, in addition to the 6,000 who have been employed because of the working of the subsidy during the past 12 months. I do not think that there is any discrepancy in the figures.
We shall see who is correct when the figures appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow. I have stated what I understood to be the figures quoted by the Parliamentary Secretary, and the President of the Board of Trade, who heard the speech and is now present, has not made any attempt to correct me. Therefore, I conclude that my recollection of the figures is correct. The hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash said that 6,000 had been found employment. A year ago it was stated that 40,000 seamen were unemployed. The hon. and gallant Member stated that there was a shortage of employment in a number of ports, and he quoted Cardiff and Newport. Six thousand from 40,000 leaves 34,000 seamen unemployed. There is not very much improvement there. The hon. and gallant Member told us about the improvement in shipbuilding, engineering and the heavy industries, as if that was all the result of the subsidy, that a subsidy of £2,000,000 to tramp shipping had caused the wheels of every class of heavy industry to revolve. The hon. and gallant Member is asking us to be over-credulous in regard to the effects of the subsidy. I am confident that if the President of the Board of Trade and the Chancellor of the Exchequer believed that the wheels of industry could be turned by a subsidy of £2,000,000 in their desire to see industry flourish they would not hesitate to grant more subsidies of £2,000,000.
We know that the effect has not been what the hon. and gallant Member maintains. He also referred to the competition of vessels of foreign countries subsidised by their Governments. But British shipowners have also given subsidies to foreign vessels, though in a different form. They have been selling what are called redundant ships to foreign shipowners at almost scrap prices, and foreign shipowners are manning them with dago crews, who work at cheap rates, and are running them in competition with our own ships. What is that but giving a subsidy to the foreigner; and then the shipowners come to this House and bleat about foreign competition, which they themselves have created, and appeal to the Government to make up a loss in their trade which they themselves have brought about. The Government, always, looking after the interests of employers and vested interests in this country, after a pretended delay and a pretended opposition have, finally, like the lady in one of Byron's poems, consented. They gave £2,000,000 last year and now come forward with a proposal for a continuance of the subsidy. Really the matter becomes every day more absurb.
Is the hon. Member representing that his party are definitely against any form of subsidy? He is arguing against subsidies.
I am pointing out that the situation has not arisen entirely out of world conditions of industry and trade, but that the shipowners who have been partly responsible for increasing the competition of foreign shipping now come forward and ask the House of Commons to give them a subsidy in order to lift them out of the difficulties which they themselves have partly created. Surely that is a legitimate objection to the subsidy, but it does not imply an objection to all subsidies. I am in favour of a subsidy being given but it should be given with conditions attached to it. Those conditions ought to be better accommodation for the men and efficient manning of the ships, better quarters for the crews and better methods of arranging the watch and the men who are to take part in the watch. There should be effective control and efficient working of the ship by the necessary crew which is required as well as the maintenance of a standard of crew which will be a credit to the British mercantile marine. That is what we stand for. I am glad to know that some steps are being taken in that direction, but they are not long enough. The President of the Board of Trade and his officials will have to take longer strides if they wish to meet the difficulties which confront the seamen of this country.
The same applies to the officers. We are asking that they shall also be considered. The President of the Board of Trade must not think that we are going to be content to see public money voted and the people who are really necessary, and without whom not a single ship could leave docks, remain unconsidered. A higher standard of life on board ship must be provided before the subsidy is granted to shipowners to utilise as they think fit. Even these conditions are not sufficient to satisfy us. They must be made better, and must apply to both seamen and officers. We intend to oppose the subsidy because effective safeguards are not provided for the crews. I am glad to know that since the Debate commenced a conference has been in being between representatives of the seamen and representatives of the shipowners and that a satisfactory agreement has been arrived at. The House will be glad to hear that. We hope that it will lead to satisfactory agreements also being arrived at in regard to other matters concerning the seamen. I also understand that next week there is to be a further conference between the officers and the owners. I hope it will be as satisfactory to all concerned as the conference of today seems to have been. But when all is said and done, after all the eulogies which have been expressed by hon. and gallant Members of the mercantile marine and the great things it performed during the War, it is scandalous that the men and officers who manned those ships should be treated in the way they have been during the last few years. If we can gain some degree of satisfaction for them and a higher status than they had previously we shall have done our duty in continuing to oppose a subsidy which is without any satisfactory safeguards.
8.35 p.m.
This Debate has covered a much wider field than that of the subsidy which has been under discussion. The Motion before the Committee is to authorise a subsidy of £2,000,000 on the same terms as last year, with one or two exceptions. The extent of the discussion, however, has not been restricted to the Motion immediately before the Committee. The Committee was invited very early in the Debate to discuss the whole field of merchant shipping, the administration of the Merchant Shipping Acts, the methods by which a greater degree of safety in that difficult and dangerous industry can be secured and a number of questions like that to which the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean) has just referred, namely, the remuneration of those who sail in these ships. That is a question which has at the moment no direct bearing on the question of subsidy.
No consideration for the men.
The hon. Member is not entitled to say that. I am administering the work that has been given to me with due regard to its responsible nature, and to the lives of the men engaged in the industry. I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman, without repudiation, to make the reckless statement he has just made, to the effect that I apparently care very little for the state of those who are employed in these ships.
I find nothing in these proposals which shows any consideration for the men in the ships.
Let me proceed, and I will tell the hon. Gentleman that which he does not know. This subsidy last year was granted to British tramp shipping under certain conditions. Those conditions covered, for instance, the elimination of internal competition. They provided for the whole scheme of minimum freight regulations which has since grown up out of the subsidy of last year and which has been administered by a committee composed entirely of those engaged in the shipping industry. There were however attached to it one or two other conditions of which the hon. Member opposite apparently does not know. He does not know, apparently, that one of the conditions under which subsidies could only be granted was that the shipowner who claimed the subsidy in respect of his ship, should be paying in that ship the wages arrived at by the National Maritime Board and no less than those wages. That was out of consideration for those employed in the ships. The hon. Member did not know that and I am glad to observe that he seems to modify his views as the information reaches him. The case that was put to the Committee by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) was of a much more violent nature. The right hon. Gentleman enjoys himself most in the House when he is doing knockabout tricks, and this afternoon he was at the top of his form. He accused the shipowners, who are engaged in the ordinary avocation to which they have devoted their lives, of being guilty of a general swindle. He spoke of depreciation as the hiding of profits. He said that the inquiries had been piecemeal inquiries without realising that Lord Merrivale was dealing with a group of inquiries all at once.
No, I was referring to your inquiries—manning and steering-gear.
If the right hon. Gentleman is going to suggest that we ought to put the Manning Committee's work under the Steering-Gear Committee and the Steering-Gear Committee's work under the Manning Committee, I venture to say he is not making a recommendation which would commend itself to any well-found department. He ended up an enjoyable speech by talking about the blood on the shipowners' hands. I wonder how far he thinks he is carrying good administration by saying a thing of that kind.
The Minister is evading the issues raised by the case of "La Crescenta" and the sinking of the Ropner ships.
I am not referring to the hon. Lady, but to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield. I only want to point out, if the Committee will allow me, the exact lines on which the right hon. Gentleman would lead us. He would lead us to suppose that the grant of further subsidy is contrary to the national interest. But he ended his speech by saying that there were some conditions under which he would agree to and approve of such a thing. He did not tell us exactly what those conditions were. Perhaps he will do so on some future occasion when we are discussing this subject. He made some statements with regard to Liverpool lines which were not strictly accurate and he made a mistake in informing the Committee that subsidies were paid to those engaged in what are known as cargo lines. The subsidy applies only to tramp ships and does not apply to cargo liners at all, so that much of what he said on that head may be crossed out at once. He made some reference to the "Napier Star." I am not sure of the general deduction which he drew from that case but he may be interested to learn that the "Napier Star" is not qualified to draw subsidy and has not been registered for that purpose.
Let me point out exactly what has been done during the last 12, months. The subsidy has now been distributed for the voyages of 1935. During 1935 we insisted, as one of the conditions of the subsidy, that an effort should be made to prevent internecine competition, and that every attempt should be made to rationalise the amount of shipping available for the carriage of goods under the British flag. We suggested that there should be a much closer relationship in the regulation of freights between British and foreign shipowners and we laid down as a further condition, that there were to be certain obligations imposed upon those who apply for the subsidy and that they should be covered by the conditions issued by the Board of Trade and the agreements reached before the National Maritime Board. In the case of every one of these conditions the shipowners have complied with our request and have carried out that which was imposed upon them as conditions of the grant of subsidy.
The right hon. Gentleman appears to have overlooked the fact, in discussing these matters, that the ordinary administration of the law must go on whether there are subsidies or not. He spoke of the necessity of providing for safety conditions in those ships in respect of which subsidy is being paid. I venture to say that he does not go far enough. It is essential that we ought to provide safety conditions for all merchant ships whether they are subsidised or not.
Hear, hear.
But the right hon. Gentleman fell short of his own ideal. Let us see how far we have gone in order to provide for these various matters of wages, manning, equipment, regulations with regard to overloading, and the like. I take, first, the case of manning. That question was raised in the findings of the inquiries previous to that into the loss of the "La Crescenta" and was referred to the Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee. When the report of that committe is ready it will be published in due course and such action will be taken as is necessary.
Is it true that this report has been at the Board of Trade for some time and is not yet published?
No, that is not the case. The report is expected very shortly. We know more or less what the lines of 'the recommendations are likely to be but the report has not yet reached us. Immediately it does reach us we shall take the necessary action. On the subject of steering-gear, the suitability of the type used on some of the vessels recently lost is under examination by an expert committee set up in July of last year. We are awaiting their report which I understand is in draft and will be received very shortly. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman cannot mean to suggest that both of these topics should be put under one committee. Nothing would be gained by that proposal either in speed or efficiency. Next comes the subject of ship surveys and seaworthiness. This subject is under discussion between the Board of Trade and the Classification Societies and the result of their discussions will be made public in due course. The discussions are likely to be long and that being so, the board in August last, recommended the shipowners, through the shipowners' organisations, to take certain precautions. The principal officers of the board report that in most districts these recommendations, coupled with the public inquiries, have improved matters considerably.
Under the heading of "Overloading," the 1932 Act provides statutory penalties for breaches of the Loadline Rules drawn up in accordance with the provisions of the International Loadline Convention, 1930. The board are satisfied that, in general, the supervision exercised in this country is satisfactory, but the arrangements at a few ports are being reconsidered, as indeed they must be from time to time. The overloading of "La Crescenta" occurred abroad, and the board are communicating with all Load-line Convention countries about the steps which they take to implement the Convention within their own borders. These communications to the Convention countries are just being despatched, and the countries concerned have not yet had time to reply.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the accommodation aboard some ships flying the British flag, and he made use, not for the first time, of the phrase "slums of the sea." Perhaps he will be interested to know what has been done with regard to the improvement of accommodation for crews. The question has been taken up with the Shipping Federation, who have appointed a committee to consult with the representatives of shipbuilders in order to make recommendations. In such a matter as this we cannot afford to have any second class. When the result of this consultation is known, the Board of Trade will revise their present instructions as to new ships and will also try to get improved accommodation on existing ships. This is not an easy problem to solve, and we are awaiting the recommendations of that committee as well. When we receive them, we shall take the necessary steps. The only criticism that may be offered with regard to these inquiries is that they are but inquiries and also that they are by a number of committees. I have deliberately chosen that way of dealing with these, problems, because they are by no means simple.
Oh!
The hon. Lady probably does not know how difficult they are.
It is all very well to tell me how committee after committee has to report, but the right hon. Gentleman knows everything there is to be known about shipping, and if he wanted to give decent conditions for these men, he could do it without a single inquiry, and he knows it. He is simply wasting time.
I wish that testimonial were justified, but, if I may say so in answer to the hon. Lady, this is too big a subject to be dealt with by any one individual.
Why this modesty?
Perhaps I may be allowed to continue.
Some years ago a discussion took place in this House with regard to the health of those who go down to the sea in ships—a discussion with regard to consumption, tuberculosis. I want to know whether his committee is dealing with this point. The point was that people who slept within walls made of non-breathing materials developed tuberculosis, as borne out some years ago in Debate in this House. Has the committee been instructed to deal with that point?
No, I cannot say that the subject referred to by the hon. Member has been specifically referred to this committee or to any committee, but the general heading of the accommodation which is provided for in the forecastle and mess-rooms, of course, comes within the range of these inquiries. I can say emphatically that, so far as we at the Board of Trade are concerned, we cannot allow the standard of the older and less well equipped ships to be the standard applied to shipping as a whole. We must insist that new ships shall be provided with better accommodation than their predecessors, and from time to time, as and when opportunity offers, I hope we shall be able to deal with the older ships piecemeal. Everybody knows that these ships are moving about all over the world, and that some of them only come back to this country after years of trading elsewhere. One of our great difficulties is that when they are here we are not able to interfere with their construction to any very great degree, but we are certainly pressing on in that direction, and the subject raised by my hon. Friend no doubt will be one of those which will come under the attention of the committee.
Now let me return to the inquiries. I was asked what was likely to be done with regard to the "La Crescenta" inquiry. I can inform the Committee that the papers in this case have gone to the Director of Public Prosecutions and, I have no doubt, will be dealt with in the ordinary course by him. The "La Crescenta" case was, of course, one which could give no satisfaction to anybody concerned with it, and I prefer to say nothing on the subject at the present moment, as the matter will shortly be dealt with in the courts.
Another very difficult subject has been discussed, and that is the manning of the mercantile marine. Some instances have been quoted here in the Committee of the manning of tramp vessels in receipt of subsidies and the shipping of Chinese crews. There is, of course, a certain number of British subjects of Chinese origin, and we are quite as entitled to protect their interests as those of any other British subjects. The committee have recently had under their special consideration, however, the problem of British tramp ships which customarily employ Chinese crews. There is, no doubt, a number of vessels which engaged Chinese crews before the committee's views on the subject were generally known, and in these cases it would be impracticable to require any changes to be made until an opportunity arises to secure a crew of British subjects. In the case of vessels engaging crews subsequently, however, the employment of foreign Chinese when British subjects were available has not been sanctioned on vessels qualifying for subsidy, and this position will hold good also in respect of the 1936 subsidy. I hope that is satisfactory to the Committee.
May I now come to the question of wages? Just before sitting down, the hon. Gentleman referred to the discussions which have been proceeding even to-day. I have received the following statement as to what has happened in the discussion before the Maritime Board. The Sailors' and Firemen's and Catering Department panels of the National Maritime Board held a further meeting in London to-day to consider the application by the National Union of Seamen for restoration of the balance of the 1932 cuts in seamen's wages. A cut of 10 per cent. was agreed in January, 1932, and a restoration of one quarter, that is 2½ per cent. was made in March of last year. At the meeting to-day it was decided by agreement to restore a further quarter on 24th February and a third quarter on the 1st July, 1936. The restoration of the fourth quarter was left over for discussion at a later date. The panels also agreed that a committee be set up forthwith to examine speedily whether a national settlement on hours and manning could be arranged on a practical basis.
I have great satisfaction in quoting that to the Committee for this reason: I have throughout the whole of these discussions pointed out that our way of dealing with these disputes as to wages and conditions of employment was the better way, that it was better under our system, with a National Maritime Board, than it was in pre-war days before the National Maritime Board functioned at all. I believe that this arrangement, by which all sides are represented, and every class of those who sail in ships participate, is much the best way of arriving at just and reasonable decisions: and I am very glad that the good feeling which has grown up between the various members of the National Maritime Board has culminated in such an agreement as they have reached to-day, which I am sure will not be the last word on the subject.
The right hon. Gentleman has quoted the agreement entered into. Are we to take it that that is for all classes, including officers, or is it the case that there is to be a further conference next week with regard to the situation and wages of the officers—a settlement of their particular point of view?
This arrangement does not apply to officers. I understand that that is likely to come up for discussion later, and I have no doubt that it will be dealt with in exactly the same spirit. What is the general claim that has been made during this discussion in the House? It is that this subsidy should not be granted without conditions. I have stated the conditions which were applied last year and which have been extended to this year. The second thing was that every effort should be made to deal with the safety of our crews, and that, I take it, should be done irrespective of whether a ship receives a subsidy or not. That is being undertaken. There is the further fact that the general condition of the mercantile marine has been the subject of discussion in to-day's Debate.
The demand made, first, I think, by the right hon. Gentleman, and then by others following in his footsteps, was that the Merchant Shipping Acts should be scrapped and that we should start afresh with an entirely new and more modern code. I take it that that is what the right hon. Gentleman really wanted. I have no doubt that we shall be able to satisfy him on that score without going through the long process of producing a large new mercantile code such as the Merchant Shipping Act of 1894. That Act is thought in some quarters to be out-of-date. Let us see what the Act is still capable of before we arrive at that decision. There is the question of the load line. The safety regulations with regard to the load line resulted in the publication of the Load Line Rules of 1932 which were based upon the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894. The Load Line (Amendment) Rules of 1934 also sprang from the same source. The Load Line (Particulars of Depth of Loading, etc.) Regulations of 1932 found their origin in that great measure; and the Merchant Shipping (Load Line Convention Certificates Validity) Regulations of 1932 were also based upon the Act of 1894. With regard to timber deck cargoes, the Timber Cargo Regulations, 1932, were also based upon that Act; while the trimming of coal cargoes circular issued in September, 1927, and the Merchant Shipping (Fire Appliances) Rules of 1932, which related to the construction of passenger vessels, were from the same source. Life Saving Appliances have also been the subject of regulations and rules in 1932, and these again were based upon the 1894 Act.
I could go through one Order after another, and I mention these because the 1894 Act is not a Measure dealing with one solitary subject, but is the basis for a complete code. It is suggested that that code is out of date. When other people in the world intend to build up new mercantile codes, they take the 1894 Act as their chief model and they build on them the rules and regulations which exist from time to time and of which I have read samples to the House. The fact is that, although every now and again we receive some rude shocks with regard to vessels which are accounted seaworthy but have never reached port, or have foundered, or have been burned without assistance coming to them in time, and although that is undoubtedly
our prime consideration and anxiety, there is one thing that is certain; that is that under our code and under our regulations we have succeeded in reducing the risks of loss of life at sea.
I deprecate the continual exaggeration as to the risks of sailing in British ships. It does no good to the business of the British Mercantile Marine and ill service to the men who are employed in the ship. I beg the House, in allowing this Motion to pass through, to remember that we are dealing not only with the financial interests of a great industry, but with the employment of a very large number of highly skilled technical men. It is an easy thing to do damage to their interests. The object in providing them with a subsidy has been to see that the ships and the men who man tern are fully employed, and to save the British tramp shipping industry from destruction. The subsidy has enabled us to keep our ships afloat, although the results at the present time do not show themselves in financial return to those who own the ships, but they have shown themselves already in the employment of our people. A small number of vessels are still laid up, and I hope that the co-operation with foreign shipowners and foreign shipping organisations will enable us to rationalise shipping as a whole.
Question put.
The Committee divided: Ayes, 205; Noes, 134.
Division No. 33.] AYES. [9.2 p.m. Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J. Carver, Major W. H. Dunglass, Lord Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.) Cary, R. A. Dunne, P. R. R. Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G. Channon, H. Eales, J. F. Albery, I. J. Chapman, A. (Rutherglen) Edge, Sir W. Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh) Christie, J. A. Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E. Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.) Clarry, Sir R. G. Ellis, Sir G. Anstruther-Gray, W. J. Clydesdale, Marquess of Errington, E. Apsley, Lord Cobb, Sir C. S. Erskine Hill, A. G. Aske, Sir R. W. Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J. Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.) Assheton, R. Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.) Fildes, Sir H. Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh. W.) Findlay, Sir E. Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet) Craddock, Sir R. H. Fremantle, Sir F. E. Baxter, A. Beverley Critchley, A. Furness, S. N. Beauchamp, Sir B. C. Crooke, J. S. Ganzoni, Sir J. Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h) Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C. Gibson, C. G. Bernays, R. H. Cross, R. H. Gluckstein, L. H. Bird, Sir R. B. Crowder, J. F. E. Goodman, Col. A. W. Blaker, Sir R. Davies, C. (Montgomery) Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral) Blindell, Sir J. Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil) Gridley, Sir A. B. Bossom, A. C. Dawson, Sir P. Grimston, R. V. Bower, Comdr. R. T. De Chair, S. S. Gritten, W. G. Howard Braithwaite, Major A. N. De la B ère, R. Guest, Maj. Hon. O.(C'mb'rw'll, N. W.) Brass, Sir W. Denman, Hon. R. D. Guy, J. C. M. Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham) Dixon, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. Hanbury, Sir C. Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury) Dorman-Smith, Major R. H. Hannon, Sir P. J. H. Bull, B. B. Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop) Harbord, A. Burgin, Dr. E. L. Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side) Hellgers, Captain F. F. A. Campbell, Sir E. T. Duggan, H. J. Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P. Cartland, J. R. H. Duncan, J. A. L. Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan- Hepworth, J. Mitcheson, Sir G. G. Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney) Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.) Morgan, R. H. Sandys, E. D. Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth) Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.) Savery, Servington Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon) Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. Scott, Lord William Holmes, J. S. Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.) Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree) Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J. Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester; Shepperton, Sir E. W. Hopkinson, A. Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J. Shute, Colonel Sir J. J. Horsbrugh, Florence Munro, P. M. Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U. B'lf'st), Howitt, Dr. A. B. Nail, Sir J. Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D. Hume, Sir G. H. Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H. Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen) Hunter, T. Nicolson, Hon. H. G. Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe) James, Wing-Commander A. W. Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G. Spender-Clay, Lt.-Cl. Rt. Hn. H. H. Joel, D. J. B. Orr-Ewing, I. L. Spens, W. P. Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n) Peat, C. U. Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde) Keeling, E. H. Penny, Sir G. Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.) Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose) Percy, Rt. Hon. Lord E. Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.) Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.) Perkins, W. R. D. Strauss, H. G. (Norwich) Kimball, L. Petherick, M. Strickland, Captain W. F. Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F. Pilkington, R. Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn) Lamb, Sir J. Q. Ponsonby, Col. C. E. Sutcliffe, H. Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.) Procter, Major H. A. Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.) Leckie, J. A. Purbrick, R. Thomson, Sir J. D. W. Lees-Jones, J. Radford, E. A. Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L. Levy, T. Raikes, H. V. A. M. Turton, R. H. Little, Sir E. Graham- Ramsay, Captain A. H. M. Wallace, Captain Euan Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J. Rankin, R. Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull) Lumley, Capt. L. R. Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin) Wedderburn, H. J. S. MacAndrew, Lt.-Col. Sir C. G. Rayner, Major R. H. Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R. McCorquodale, M. S. Reed, A. C. (Exeter) Williams, H. G. (Croydon. S.) MacDonald. Rt. Hn. J. R. (Scot. U.) Reid, Sir D. D. (Down) Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin) McEwen, Capt. H. J. F. Renter, J. R. Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G. Maclay, Hon. J. P. Rickards, G. W. (Skipton) Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl Magnay, T. Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool) Wise, A. R. Makins, Brig.-Gen. E. Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge) Withers, Sir J. J. Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. Rowlands, G. Womersley, Sir W. J. Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M. Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A. Wragg, H. Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J. Runciman. Rt. Hon. W. Young, A. S. L. (Partick) Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth) Russell, A. West (Tynemouth) Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) Salmon, Sir I. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) Salt, E. W. Commander Southby and Captain Waterhouse.
NOES. Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke Groves, T. E. Oliver, G. H. Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple) Hall, G. H. (Aberdare) Paling, W. Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.) Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) Parker, H. J. H. Adamson, W. M. Hardie, G. D. Parkinson, J. A. Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.) Henderson, A. (Kingswinford) Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. Ammon, C. G. Henderson, J. (Ardwick) Potts, J. Anderson, F. (Whitehaven) Henderson, T. (Tradeston) Price, M. P. Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R. Holdsworth, H. Pritt, D. N. Banfield, J. W. Holland, A. Quibell, J. D. Batey, J. Hopkin, D. Richards, R. (Wrexham) Bellenger, F. Jagger, J. Riley, B. Benson, G. Jones, A. C. (Shipley) Ritson, J. Broad, F. A. Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.) Bromfield, W. Jones, J. J. (Silvertown) Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.) Brown, C. (Mansfield) Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens) Buchanan, G. Kelly, W. T. Rowson, G. Burke, W. A. Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T. Salter, Dr. A. Cluse, W. S. Kirby, B. V. Seely, Sir H. M. Compton, J. Kirkwood, D. Sexton, T. M. Cove, W. G. Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G. Shinwell, E. Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford Lawson, J. J. Short, A. Daggar, G. Lee, F. Silverman, S. S. Dalton, H. Leslie, J. R. Simpson, F. B. Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill) Logan, D. G. Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's) Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd) Lunn, W. Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe) Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Macdonald, G. (Ince) Smith, E. (Stoke) Dobbie, W. McEntee, V. La T. Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly) Dunn, E. (Rother Valley) McGhee, H. G. Smith, T. (Normanton) Ede, J. C. McGovern, J. Stephen, C. Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.) Maclean, N. Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng) Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty) Mander, G. le M. Taylor. R. J. (Morpeth) Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H. Marklew, E. Thorne, W. Foot, D. M. Marshall, F. Thurtle, E. Frankel, D. Mathers, G. Tinker, J. J. Gardner, B. W. Maxton, J. Viant, S. P. Garro-Jones, G. M. Messer, F. Walkden, A. G. George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) Milner, Major J. Walker, J. Green, W. H. (Deptford) Montague, F. Watkins. F. C. Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Ha'kn'y, S) Watson, W. McL. Grenfell, D. R. Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham. N.) Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C. Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.) Muff, G. Welsh, J. C. Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth) Naylor, T. E. Westwood, J. White, H. Graham Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe) Wilkinson, Ellen Windsor, W. (Hull, C.) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— Williams, E. J. (Ogmore) Woods, G. S. (Finsbury) Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Charleton. Williams, T. (Don valley) Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Resolution to be reported To-morrow.
Import Duties (Import Duties Act, 1932)
9.12 p.m.
I beg to move,
"That the Additional Import Duties (No. 34) Order, 1935, dated the tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the said tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, be approved."
There are also on the Order Paper-Import Duties Order, No. 35, the Import Duties (General) Order and the Import Duties (Exemptions) (No. 15) Order. It has been the practice hitherto, and it has been for the convenience of the House, to make one speech on these Orders, taking them all together, and that then they should be debated and an opportunity given for a reply to any questions that arose. Unless any objection is taken to that course, I propose to follow that procedure on this occasion, and to make one introductory speech, leaving it to hon. Members to raise their points later in the Debate. There are four Orders which I am inviting the House to consider.
I think before we start it would be better to get the position quite clear. I am always in the hands of the House on these occasions, and it is for the House to say whether they will consider all these Orders together or take them separately. These particular Orders do not appear to me to be so suitable for consideration together as has been the case with groups of Orders on other occasions. The first Order deals with linseed oil and the second with needles, and the other two Orders are in a different category altogether. I think we had better take the first Order by itself.
Then I will deal with Order No. 34, which concerns linseed oil. The effect of the Order is to increase the specific duty chargeable on linseed oil from £3 10s. a ton to £5 a ton. Let me explain, quite shortly, the position with regard to linseed oil and linseed. When the Import Duties Act, 1932, first came into force linseed was free of duty and linseed oil was subject to the general ad valorem duty of 10 per cent. In consequence of the trade agreement with India, one of the Ottawa Agreements, and one which confers substantial benefit upon United Kingdom trade as a whole, a 10 per cent. duty was imposed on foreign linseed as from 1st January, 1933, and at the same time the duty on foreign linseed oil was increased to 15 per cent. The net effect of these changes was to reduce the protection given to the United Kingdom crushing industry, and in May, 1933, the duty on foreign linseed oil was, on the recommendation of the Import Duties Advisory Committee, raised to £3 10s. per ton.
When the existing duty of £3 10s. per ton was imposed on linseed oil, the import value of the oil was about £13 2s. a ton, and that duty was the equivalent of 26 per cent. ad valorem. The import value of linseed oil is now about £20 15s. per ton, so that the existing duty is the equivalent of some 17 per cent. ad valorem. The proposed duty would bring it up to 24 per cent. The increase in the price of oil arises from the increased efficacy of Argentine linseed. The Committee calculate that the crushers' protective margin under this proposal will return to the 10 per cent. at which it stood immediately prior to the Ottawa Agreements. A given quantity of foreign linseed yields about three-tenths of its weight in oil and seven-tenths in oil cake. The cake is sold as cattle food, and competes with a wide range of feeding stuffs. The Committee's view that any increase in the cost of linseed, due to the duty on the seed, would be borne by the oil, seems to be a natural consequence.
The Committee are watching these imports and market positions with the closest attention. For about a year after the imposition of the new duty, imports of oil were at a low level, but they have since increased very much. They rose in 1934 very considerably, and they now exceed the high level of 1930. I have here a statement of imports from foreign countries, British countries and all countries for each of the years, with the monthly averages, in case any hon. Member feels particularly interested in them. The linseed oil comes almost entirely from foreign countries and very little from British countries. The foreign country which is the principal exporter is Holland. The Committee feel satisfied that the production of linseed oil in this country will be seriously endangered unless assistance is given to the home crushing industry. It is to assist the home crushing industry that the duty is recommended to be increased, as a specific duty, from £3 10s. per ton to £5, and it is intended that that increase in duty shall give back the 10 per cent. protection equivalent.
Hon. Members will naturally be concerned with the position of the consuming industries. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Oh yes, but I want to meet in advance a point which I know will be made. A number of trades are concerned, and hon. Members will be interested in trades which use linseed oil. The linoleum trade, which is the principal one, has important export interests. It may be pointed out at once that there are drawback schemes, at present in operation in connection with linseed oil, in order to assist those consuming trades, and that under the provisions of those schemes, which are reviewed from time to time and are now under further review, a refund can be claimed of a substantial portion of the duty paid in respect of the oil contained in various manufactured goods that are sent abroad. [HON. MEMBERS: "What is it?"] I will give the figures, but in my own time. Up to the present, these drawback schemes have achieved their purpose, for in all the principal products, paint, printers' ink, linoleum said oilcloth, exports were higher in quantity and in value in 1934 and 1935 than they were in 1932.
I have obtained for the benefit of the House a complete statement showing the exports in quantity and value in each of the seven or eight classes of exports in which linseed oil is included, and some of the figures are very striking indeed. The House may fasten on linoleum, and I will take the linoleum figures merely as an example. In 1932 the exports were 2,300,000 square yards, in 1933 2,500,000, in 1934 over 3,000,000, and in 1935 over 3,250,000. The same figures in terms of value are: £300,000 odd in 1932, £400,000 odd in 1934, and £433,000 in 1935.
Would the Minister give the figures for paint?
Yes, I will give the figures for paint. In 1932, the exports were, speaking in hundredweights, 63,000; in 1934, 69,000; and in 1935, 75,000; or, in terms of money, £120,000 in 1932, £218,000 in 1934 and £142,000 in 1935.
What happened in 1933?
I will give the 1933 figure, but if I were able to give my own figures in my own way it would be so much more helpful. In 1933, the value of paint exported was £114,570 1½d.
Would the Minister tell the House how the exports compare with, say, a normal export year like 1929?
I will, if that is relevant, but what I am comparing now are the figures for 1932, before this duty was put into force, and the figures since the duty was imposed. The case which I am making to-night is an argument not as to whether there should be a duty or not; the House has already decided that in previous Debates. I am asking the House to decide the rate of duty. In other words, this is a quantum discussion and not a discussion as to whether we should have free trade in linseed oil. It is a Debate as to whether we should have a duty of one particular figure or another. Some crushers in 1933, when there was a question of increasing the duty, gave certain undertakings. I will not weary the House with details of them, except to say that those undertakings by home crushers hold good, and that no consuming or using industry has ever criticised either the validity or the efficacy of the undertakings.
When the House is invited to put a higher duty on an article coming from abroad, it is incumbent upon the Minister who moves the adoption of the Order to see that the home industry is capable of supplying the demand. I should imagine that that was one of the criteria upon which the House would want to be satisfied before legislating. The output of unrefined linseed oil, which is the great bulk, was 68,300 tons in 1930 and 88,100 tons in 1933. The productive capacity in this country appears to be sufficient to meet home and export requirements. In case any hon. Member wishes to know, I have a long list of the crushing mills and where they are situated. As to employment, it is another relevant inquiry whether the industry to be protected is a good one and a large one. In the seed crushing trade, according to the census of production for 1933, the average numbers employed, exclusive of administration, were 822 females and 9,849 males, making a total of 10,671.
What proportion were engaged in crushing linseed?
I cannot tell without more inquiry, because the seed crushing trade is grouped as a whole. It is a little difficult to get new headings for these employment figures in the Ministry of Labour Gazette. It is said that the increased duty might interfere with the consumers of linseed oil in the home market. I would point out that the consumers of linseed oil enjoy 100 per cent. of the whole home market. Their complaint is not that their sales will be interfered with. Their fear is apparently a question of smaller consumption. Although they have the entire market they imagine that the incidence of the duty on the finished product may mean that there will be a smaller total consumption. I have taken the trouble to have calculations made with regard both to linoleum and to paint, and I will give the House the figures in order that the House may see for itself whether the fear that the user of linseed oil is likely to be affected or not.
One of the largest firms of manufacturers of linoleum tell me that the increase of duty is the equivalent of one-tenth of a penny per square yard. I cannot believe that a duty of one-tenth of a penny is seriously going to alter the consumption of linoleum in this country. It seems to me an entirely untenable proposition. With regard to paint, if the duty on the whole of the linseed oil coming into this country were borne by the paint trade it would be £66,000. What is the size of the paint trade in this country? Twelve million pounds in value. Assuming that every liquid ounce is going into paint, which is ex hypothesi nonsense, the duty would be £66,000, whereas the volume of the trade is £12,000,000. It seems to me that the incidence of this extra duty either on linoleum or paint can only be infinitesimal, and cannot possibly produce any legitimate fears.
What is the volume of the export trade?
In 1933, £114,570 in paints, pigments and extenders in paint form, with oil and other media.
Will the hon. Gentleman put that figure along with the figure that he gave of the amount of this duty?
Yes, I will. But what I am concerned to point out is that here is an internal trade using a foreign article. I am meeting, perhaps excessively cautiously, the possible argument that it may be said that the consumer would suffer, and I am showing that the output of the paint trade alone is £12,000,000 a year, and on a volume of that character £66,000 will be nothing at all. The home crushers have given an assurance as to prices and I do not think that can be seriously questioned. It may be said that under the Ottawa bargain, this 10 per cent. linseed duty was given to India with the idea that Indian trade should nourish. Has the result been that the trade with India has shown such a corresponding increase as to warrant the continuance of the 10 per cent.? The duty on foreign linseed oil has led to increased trade with India, not necessarily in linseed, because the Ottawa Agreement was a composite agreement. The duty on linseed was part of the price that we paid for the Ottawa Agreement with India, and in making 0that agreement His Majesty's Government have regard to the interest of the United Kingdom trade as a whole. They are quite satisfied that among the Ottawa Agreements one of the most valuable to this country was the Agreement with that great Indian Empire. For these reasons I ask the House to give an affirmative Resolution for Order No. 34.
The hon. Gentleman promised to give us figures with regard to the substantial proportions in connection with the drawback.
I did not necessarily promise to give them in my first speech rather than in my reply.
Can you give us them now?
Yes, I will get them calculated.
9.33 p.m.
We oppose this Order on the same grounds that we have opposed it and similar Orders in the past. The House knows of course that the object of this Order is already an accomplished fact. I have no hope that following our Debate we shall convert a majority of this House to our point of view. But we are going to maintain our opposition to the general principles embodied in this Order because we believe the principle to be wrong and the method of legislation embodied in the Resolution to be likewise wrong. It would not be in order to enter the field of fiscal controversy, and if I had permission I am not sure that I should ask the House to waste time discussing the rival merits of Imperial Preference, Free Trade, Protection, Empire goods and foreign goods, in so far as they affect our market in this country. I believe that discussion of that sort would involve the House in an endless and a futile controversy. I am going to confine myself to dealing with the effects this Order will have on the industries affected by it.
The House has been told that the chief industries using linseed oil are the industries of paint, oil, varnish, linoleum and floorcloth—and it is in the linoleum and floorcloth industry that my interest mainly lies to-night—printing ink and white lead. The Parliamentary Secretary has told us that the number of workers involved in the other industry affected by the Order is something like 10,000, but at least 40,000 are employed in the industries I have just mentioned, and those industries' exports of manufactured goods run into many millions per annum. I say without hesitation, and I do not think it will be denied on the other side of the House, that the oil-using industries without exception view with very grave concern the effect which this new duty will have on their export trade as well as on their sales in the home market. They have come to the conclusion, and I think it is a sound conclusion, that the general effect of the Order on those industries will be to increase unemployment.
We have been told to-night the history of the duty on linseed oil, and I would ask the House to notice what has hap- pened in this connection. Until March, 1932, linseed oil came into our market free of duty. Then came the Ottawa Agreement, and I think every Member on this side of the House will agree that it is in the Ottawa Agreement that the whole mischief lies. In March, 1932, a 10 per cent. duty was imposed. During 1932 the imports were almost 344,000 tons from the Argentine, and only 9,217 tons from India. The duty was increased from 10 per cent. to 15 per cent., and then from 15 per cent. to 20 per cent. or £3 10s. per ton, whichever was the higher. The duty was further increased in December last to a minimum of £5 per ton under the present Order. This Order is in effect a subsidy to the linseed crushing industry by the users of linseed oil—a most objectionable principle, in my opinion.
The general effect of the Order will be to penalise all users of linseed oil for the benefit of the seed crushing industry, and that is my basic objection to it. We are told that drawback schemes in respect of linseed oil are at present in operation to assist the consuming trades so far as their export interests are concerned. Under the provisions of that scheme a refund can be claimed, and I emphasise the word "claimed," because claiming a rebate does not necessarily mean that it will be given. I desire to emphasise the fact that users of linseed oil are placed at a serious disadvantage as compared with their foreign competitors by reason of the drawback not being allowed to the full extent of the duty paid, and the objection of the floorcloth and linoleum industry, which is my main concern in this matter, would be very largely removed if we could get from the Minister to-night an undertaking that, when the extra levy of 30s. on linseed oil coming into this country is imposed and in operation, they will be able to get a rebate equivalent to the amount of the increased levy imposed upon them.
I only want to say further that I think this matter might well be recommitted to the Import Duties Advisory Committee for further consideration, with the object of providing, if the duty is to be increased to £5 per ton, a corresponding increase in the drawback allowed on goods manufactured from such oil when they are exported. If such an undertaking could be given, then, so far as the manufacturers in my constituency are concerned, I can assure the House that their present strong objection to the Order would be very materially reduced. If the Order stands as it is now, and if we can get no such undertaking from the Minister, we shall be forced to put the issue involved in the Order to a Division and vote against it.
9.42 p.m.
My hon. Friend stated the case with his usual clarity, and with a good many of his facts and figures I entirely agree, but I differ from his conclusion. I shall endeavour, in the short time for which I shall detain the House, to show what I believe to be a better way. I believe that there is a way of helping the seed crushing industry, of making the home-produced feeding cake cheaper, and at the same time of giving cheaper linseed oil to the very many users who at present are paying a high price for it, and will, if this new duty is passed, have to pay a still higher price. My hon. Friend said truly that, of the seed, three-tenths is oil and seven-tenths is cake. But, owing to circumstances which he knows very well, the whole of the increased duty has come on the oil and none has come on the cake. That was the intention of the Government. They wished to keep feeding stuffs cheap for the farmers of this country, and so they imposed no duty on foreign cake. Therefore, a large amount of foreign cake has come here, and that has kept down the price of the home-produced cake. The consequence has been that the crushers of seed have been compelled to recoup themselves, and the whole of the extra duty has fallen on the oil. About half the value of the crushed seed comes out in oil and half in cake, so that the whole of the duty falls on half the value of the product.
I would now ask the House to consider the seed from which the oil is produced. The seed comes mainly from the Argentine or from India, other countries sending us small amounts which can be disregarded. When the Ottawa Agreements were made it was assumed and hoped that India, getting a 10 per cent. preference over the Argentine, would supply the whole, or nearly the whole, of the home demand for seed, and for two years, after the Ottawa Agreements that seemed very like being the case. In 1932, for example, India sent us only 9,000 ton compared with 343,000 tons from the Argentine, whereas in 1933 India sent us 131,000 tons, and in 1934 139,000 tons, in which year the Argentine import had fallen to 43,000 tons. Consequently, this, looked very much like being a successful application of preference, for we had shifted the British supply from a foreign country to a part of the Empire by the imposition of a 10 per cent. duty on foreign seeds.
If one looks behind the figures, however, the facts are quite different. Although Indian exports to this country increased from 9,000 to 139,000 tons, her total production remained fairly constant, and she simply sent more to this country and less to other countries. But at the present time the reverse is the case. In 1935 the export of Indian seed to this country fell from 139,000 tons to 58,000 tons, and the Argentine export rose from 43,000 tons to 195,000 tons. It therefore looks very much as though we are getting back to the position as it was prior to the Ottawa Agreements, a position in which the bulk of our supply came from the Argentine. It also seems that the preference is not valued by India. I take it that the Indian merchants are as able business men as any in the world, and if they find that while their production remains constant it does not pay them to send the same amount here, even with the advantage of a 10 per cent. preference, I suppose this means that they can sell it profitably elsewhere. So far as I know, that state of affairs will continue.
Bearing those facts in mind, let me turn to the reasons given in the Report of the Import Duties Advisory Committee. First of all, the Report says. quite truly that
I would respectfully suggest to the Government that if it is the case that India does not want the preference, and if in spite of the preference she is not sending seed here, is there any use in retaining the preference? I agree that that is not a matter which we can decide unilaterally, since it is a bargain between ourselves and India, but does not my hon. Friend think that it may be a very good means of avoiding an increase of duty which, in itself, I am sure he does not like? If, as appears, it is the case that India regards the preference as useless, why should we not allow seed from the Argentine to come to this country free of duty? This would have advantages in that it would cause the home-produced seedstuffs to be cheaper for the farmers, since the 10 per cent. duty would not be charged on the linseed. It would also give my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture a bargaining counter with the Argentine which he might find very useful in the negotiations which will be entered into for the supply of Argentine beef to this country. It would no doubt be very useful for him to have something to offer to the Argentine. The whole basis for the duty on foreign seed was assistance to the Empire and the part of the Empire concerned has shown that it does not want to be helped. There seems to be no sense whatever in retaining a duty that is borne by our own people, because no linseed whatever is produced here. It constitutes a burden on the linoleum, floor-cloth, paint, colour, varnishing, printing and white lead trades. The seed crushing industry is only a fraction of the big trades concerned and no one knows better than my hon. Friend that only a small part of the activity of the seed crushing industry is devoted to linseed, a far larger part being devoted to monkey nuts and similar products. Consequently, so far as employment is concerned, by far the greater case rests with the linoleum industry.
With regard to prices, before the Ottawa agreements in 1931, linseed oil came to this country at £19 11s. 2d. a ton. In 1933, after the imposition of the 10 per cent. ad valorem duty, the price rose by £3 a ton. In 1934 it went up a further £l. When the £3 10s. duty was imposed, it rose by £4 a ton. The price is now £27 10s. a ton, compared with £19 11s. 2d. a ton in 1931, or a rise, within a shilling, of £8 a ton. I am for a policy of protection, but I do not want protection of that sort that raises the price unless someone benefits by it. If my suggestion were carried out, it would take 10 per cent. off a large amount of the seed that is used by the crushers and it would exactly meet the reason why the Import Trades Advisory Committee recommend as much as £5 a ton. They say that, after allowing for the duty that the crushing industry pay on the seed, they ought to have protection equivalent at recent prices to about 10 per cent. ad valorem. By taking the duty off the Argentine seed you will give them an advantage of 10 per cent. ad valorem, you will, I believe, reduce the price of linseed oil, you will benefit the linoleum and paint and varnish and other industries, you will give cheaper seed to make cheaper cake for agriculturists and I do not see that anyone will be hurt, because the crushing industry will be put in exactly the position in which the Import Advisory Committee meant to put them. I am sure my hon. Friend does not want the existing protective duty, which has largely raised the price on a necessary article which we do not produce here. I have given my best attention to the subject and I have arrived at this decision by my own unaided intelligence, for as much as that small amount is worth. If my hon. Friend could possibly adjourn the discussion until these matters are considered, I believe he would be doing a benefit to the consuming industries and no harm to any other industry.
9.59 p.m.
Those who have given their mind to this subject for the first time to-night will have gathered, from the three speeches that have been made, that this matter is not a simple one like many of the Orders that come before us. Those who are familiar with the discussions that have-taken place since linseed oil was first made the subject of a duty under the Import Orders Act will realise that the Import Duties Advisory Committee, in trying to equalise the value of different types and qualities of linseed and linseed oil coming from different countries having different physical qualities, and being faced with problems of rapid fluctuation in the amount available for export in the countries of origin, are indeed up against an exceedingly difficult, if not an impossible task, and we shall be very optimistic if we think we are reaching finality in the matter. Conditions change so rapidly that in a comparatively short space of time the Advisory Committee may have to come along with another of these dodges and devices. Indeed at this moment new conditions may be arising which may have a profound influence in the next 18 months. For the first time in history the supply of maize has outstripped the demand. At first sight the connection between maize and linseed may not seem very close, but maize is such an all-pervading feeding material and is so abundant and cheap that it conditions the price of feeding stuffs of a somewhat different character. In the circumstances that are now arising it may very well be that the effect of that on the price of linseed may again upset the equilibrium between the cake and the oil. These difficulties which arise from the different qualities of linseed from different sources are no more amenable to Orders of the Advisory Committee than the tides were to King Canute.
In this very important matter we get very little help from the Import Duties Advisory Committee to enable us to make up our minds. Until we had the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary we did not know whether the Committee had taken any account whatever of the users. Any impartial member reading this document would say it was drawn up in the interest of seed crushers only. I believe that consultations took place, but there is nothing whatever to indicate the fact in this document. We are told that these are always matters of the balance of advantage and that some- one nearly always scores and someone else loses, but we have to estimate where the balance of advantage lies. There is no attempt to give the House the advantage of any such consideration here. There is no attempt to strike a balance, and the Import Duties Advisory Committee must not object if they are told that on the evidence of this document there is nothing to show the House of Commons that they have not taken a partial, parochial, and a very limited view of their task. They may not have done themselves justice, but, at all events, that is the conclusion to which any impartial reader of this document would be led. In fact, they seem to go out of their way to avoid any reference to the users—the linoleum manufacturers, the ship repairers and builders and others involved in the matter. When they come to describe the difficulty in which they are and say that any increase in the cost of crushing due to the duty on the seed will in practice have to be borne by the oil, it would have made the document less one-sided if they had said that the extra cost of the burden would have to be borne by the linoleum industry and the house builders and painters, and others.
The Parliamentary Secretary rather deprecated the matter and put it in a small way, but my right hon. Friend restored the balance somewhat by pointing out that these matters are giving great anxiety to the users. The Import Duties Advisory Committee, in describing the increase in the importation of oil in 1934–35, say they have watched the imports and market position very closely. Did they watch anything but the market position and the imports? They do not say they did. We must believe they did, but they do not say so. They say that in the second part of the year the position became rapidly worse. For whom did it become rapidly worse? They did not say that the industry was being crushed, because they said that it is only now that the industry is likely to be in danger. It certainly did not become worse for the people who were importing and using oil. It was no worse in the case of the linoleum, paint manufacturer or printing ink manufacturer. They were not any worse off. The only conclusion at which we can come, looking at the document, is whether they have done themselves justice or not, that it is a partial document and it would appear that they have only given a superficial examination to the matter.
I will turn for a moment to the very important suggestion made by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Major Hills). The duty on linseed oil, as the House knows, was first imposed in the interests of India under the Ottawa Agreements. The matter was the subject of a long debate in this House, and there was a considerable divergence of view as to whether it was for the benefit of India or not. The hon. Member for Ealing, who spoke with great authority and experience in this matter, thought that it could not possibly help India. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade took a very much more optimistic view of the situation, and told the House that there was no reason why the industry should not be enormously increased. He said that linseed was something which the Indians could grow almost anywhere, that there was no climatic difficulty or any question of fertilisation, and asked the House to accept the assurance from him that the crop from India, if India was so minded, could be enormously increased.
This is in the nature of an experiment. The duty was imposed in the interests of India. The House to-night should ask for a little more information as to how the experiment is proceeding. It may be precluded from taking action on the Ottawa Agreements. I do not think that we are, but we are entitled to know whether the Parliamentary Secretary can be as optimistic to-night as he was on the occasion when the matter was debated at length in the House. The right hon. Member mentioned that at first it seemed that the importation of linseed was being transferred from Argentina to India. But in 1935 the importation from India bad fallen off to the extent of £58,000, whereas imports from the Argentine had risen by £198,000, so that the position is becoming reversed. If this duty was proposed for the benefit of India and manufacturers have to be put to uncertainty, inconvenience and loss for the benefit of India, it is important that they should be assured that there is a benefit to India. If there is no benefit to India the whole of this business and inconvenience and the taking up of the time of Parliament on these matters falls to the ground.
I understand, according to the best information I have been able to get during recent months, that in India rape seed, ground nuts, and linseed are interchangeable, and that there has been no appreciable increase in the supply of linseed available from India. I should like to have confirmation from the Parliamentary Secretary of that fact. Rape seed and ground nuts have risen in price and linseed has fallen or remains stationary in price. India naturally exports those products, for which she obtains most money by selling them abroad and keeps at home that for which she gets less. As a matter of convenience India sells the things which are expensive and keeps those which are cheap for use herself.
There is a way out of this difficulty which would suit not only the importers, crushers and everybody concerned and put them into the position in which they were before the Ottawa Agreements were made. There have been, though perhaps not on all fours with this case, cases where the Ottawa Agreements have been varied. There was the case of a voluntary arrangement with which the New Zealand Government was concerned, in the alteration of the incidence of the Ottawa arrangement in respect of copal gums. There was an arrangement made which was advantageous to this country and Australia, made between ourselves and the Australian Government in regard to lead. That seems to point the way to an accommodation which might meet the case here. Hon. Members who have preceded me in the Debate have appealed for further consideration, and it must be evident to the whole House that this is a matter which calls for further consideration before the House is asked to make up its mind on such a very important matter. I hope that the House will not agree to this proposal until we have had a further and better opportunity of going into the matter with all the facts—it is indeed a complicated affair—clearly made out, so that we can come to a proper decision, which we certainly cannot do by a consideration of this lop-sided document.
The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. T. Kennedy) made reference to the drawback scheme, and I should like to reinforce the appeal which he made that it should be dealt with in a business-like way. When the duty on linseed and linseed oil was first imposed there was no drawback, and it took a long time before it could be hammered out. It should be of the essence of these transactions that when a duty of this kind is put on and a drawback is involved, the drawback should operate simultaneously with the duty. The drawback is the subject of very serious complaint from the users of linseed oil to-day. It fell short by 10s. a ton of the duty before the Order was brought in, and I gather that it will be something like 30s. short of the amount of duty. [An HON. MEMBER: £2."] That makes it so much more urgent that we should have an assurance that the matter will be dealt with promptly, and that there shall be no delay; and further, that the amount of drawback shall be fully equal to the amount of duty. This is essential if the matter is to be dealt with on a fair basis.
I turn to another page of this document, and I am led to inquire as to how diligently the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury have been pursuing their duties on this question. They referred the matter to the appropriate Department. Is there only one Department of State interested in this transaction? I suppose that it is the Board of Trade who may presume to advise upon any effect a duty might have on the export trade. But what about the Minister of Agriculture, who comes into this to a very large degree? His advice on this matter would be very valuable for the Import Duties Advisory Committee. I am not sure that there are other Departments who are concerned. I submit to the House that the case for this duty has not been made out upon any evidence which has been submitted to us this evening. I hope the House will not confirm the Order tonight, but will wait until we have a better and fairer opportunity of going into the matter in greater detail.
10.15 p.m.
I am sorry that we have not the hon. Baronet the Member for Ealing (Sir F. Sanderson) with us to-night. I am a little to blame in that connection, because it was partly as a result of the representation that I made to the Patronage Secretary that the Debate was postponed from just before the Christmas Adjournment, three or four days after the Order was made. The hon. Member for Ealing has gone abroad for very good and important business reasons and is not here to guide us. His knowledge on this subject is perhaps greater than that of any other hon. Member, and I very much regret his absence, and that I was the cause of it. In the ordinary way I am a supporter of Orders under the Import Duties Act, because I am a Protectionist, but a protective duty or a preferential duty has to satisfy certain conditions. It is no part of the protective case to put a duty on all imports or to give a pereference on all imports. The condition that has always existed in my mind is that there must be a tax free sufficient and efficient supply. If that condition is not fulfilled, then all the things which the Free Traders predict will come about. The mistake that they make is that they predict them in the wrong cases.
I was one of those, together with the hon. Member for Ealing, the hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White) and others who in the autumn of 1932 criticised this particular item of the Ottawa Agreements Act. I took a very active part in pressing my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, who certainly had no responsibility for the Ottawa Agreements, although he has had the job of asking the House to approve them. When they were drawn up he was not a Minister, but he was a Minister by the time the Bill was presented to Parliament. Unfortunately, at that time the Cabinet were so preoccupied that he was left, and my right hon. Friend who is now Minister of Transport was left to deal with a Bill for which neither of them had any responsibility so far as the Ottawa negotiations were concerned. We tried at that time to show the very grave reasons involved in this Linseed Duty. I forget who took part in the Debate but I know that the hon. Member for Birkenhead, East, the hon. Member for Ealing and others took part. We tried to point out that this was a case where a preference was being given, and where it was exceedingly doubtful whether the Empire country that was to some extent the producer of these goods could, in fact, supply what this country needed. It was one night, I think, during November, 1932, that a most animated debate took place, in which we pressed my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade in the strongest possible way to give us an undertaking that there would be a satisfactory drawback scheme. There was a drawback scheme ultimately, but a very long period elapsed.
The hon. Member will allow that the drawback scheme was obtained at the instance of the consuming industries and worked out in consultation with them. They had to be quite sure that the drawback was given only in respect of duty that had been paid on oil imported subject to the duty.
I agree, but my criticism was the same as that of the hon. Member opposite. In general, a drawback is very undesirable and it is only desirable in those cases where the duty raises prices. In most cases the duty has not raised prices. It is only in those cases where the duty has raised prices that a drawback is desirable. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I have devoted as much time to consideration of this particular aspect of drawback as any hon. Member. I will not go into the whole argument, because it would be unfair on this very narrow issue, but I say without hesitation that drawback ought to be the unusual, and not the usual case. Where a drawback is essential it should be granted without delay so that you do not prejudice exporting interests.
The truth is that a drawback is not designed in accordance with trade interests but in accordance with Treasury interests. The Parliamentary Secretary has just said that a drawback is granted only in respect of goods in the manufacture of which dutiable oil has been used, and this is one of the few cases where the tariff has raised prices. It has raised the prices of Argentine seed and Indian seed. Argentine seed is dutiable but Indian is not. Therefore, if I use oil made from Indian seed in any article which I export I am not entitled to claim a drawback because no duty has been paid in respect of the raw material, though the price of that raw material has been forced up because of the duty on Argentine seed. Any intelligent system of drawback should not be based on a question of whether the oil used is dutiable or not but on some compromise figure irrespective of whether you use oil which is dutiable or not. But that does not happen because the Treasury thinks of tariffs in terms of revenue and not in terms of employment. I am not talking about the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Financial Secretary but of that mysterious mind called the Treasury, whatever it is, which every Minister of the Crown has met and which has been denounced in terms which cannot be repeated in this House.
This is a case where the forecast of these duties has been borne out. So far as the Parliamentary Secretary is defending the action of the Import Duties Committee in recommending adequate protection for the crushers he has a case which cannot be gainsaid. The crushers have suffered in the severest possible way, but, for reasons for which the Parliamentary Secretary has no personal responsibility—it was one of the accidents of the Ottawa Agreement—linseed was included. If the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) who represents the co-operative movement had been at Ottawa, he would have had a great advantage with his wide knowledge of trade, but even he might have slipped up on something with which he had no acquaintance. I am not blaming the delegates at the Ottawa Conference. When you are entering into agreements concerning everything which enters into human consumption it is not fair to criticise people because an odd mistake has been made. I do not blame anyone, but I urge His Majesty's Government to take the earliest opportunity to persuade those responsible for the Government of India to agree to a modification.
Nothing you do will put this duty right as long as we have a duty on Argentine seed. No one is a more fervent defender of Imperial preference than myself but I think that there should be some modification. If you put a duty of 10 per cent. on linseed at £10 a ton—that is near enough for the purpose of my illustration —it is a duty of £l per ton. The linseed when crushed produces so much oil and cake. About 30 per cent. of the weight is oil and the rest is cake. The cake is used by such persons as my hon. and gallant Friend from Devon, who is a fair sample of those who use cake, not for personal consumption, and I am satisfied that despite all we have done agriculture is not in a position to pay more for its cake.
The whole of that duty is thus forced on to the oil and a 10 per cent. duty on linseed is equivalent approximately to a duty of £3 10s. on oil. The oil enters in the manufacture of linoleum and, I have discovered, into the manufacture of another article of which I did not know three and a half years ago, but which is of interest to my constituency. I refer to printing ink without which the fame of most of us would rapidly diminish. My constituents who are concerned in this manufacture cannot use the Argentine oil as yet, because there is a certain quality in the oil made from Indian seed as a result of which the printing ink made from that oil is far superior to the printing ink in the manufacture of which Argentine seed is used. I am glad to say that we not only provide publicity for the inhabitants of this country, but also do a very large exporting trade in printing ink. In that export trade they can get no drawback. On the present basis the drawback is only granted where the actual oil used is itself dutiable.
The appeal which I make is twofold. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to use every influence with his colleagues to induce them to seek from the Government of India, on a friendly basis, a modification of this duty. The Government of India may say that this duty has done India some good, but it has not done India a great deal of good. They may want compensation in some other direction but that is business. In deals of this kind if you enter into a contract and find afterwards that it operates harshly, in a way that you did not expect, you go to the man with whom the deal has been made and ask for relief and offer him some other concession in return. What that other concession should be in this case is not a matter for discussion now, but surely it would be a good thing to say to India, "This is not doing you much good; it is causing us great difficulty and we ask you to agree to some modification, so that we can relieve certain important industries from severe pressure from which they are suffering." This industry employs some 40,000 people. I do not know the exact proportion employed, in the crushing industry, in this actual work.
The other point which I would urge on the Parliamentary Secretary is that the whole basis of drawbacks should be reconsidered, so that where an article comes from a non-dutiable source and has been forced up in price, and where that article enters into export trade a drawback should be granted in the same way as it is granted in the case of the dutiable article. I know there are difficulties. There are certain countries which have anti-dumping legislation. Canada, I think, is one. Canada might say, "If you grant a drawback in this case you are engaging in dumping as we understand it," and certain duties might then, automatically, come into operation. There are one or two other countries in which that might happen. I hope the Board of Trade and the Treasury will examine the question of modifying the dumping regulations. I think the case for this duty, from the point of view of the crushing industry, is overwhelming. On the other hand, the argument for persuading India to abandon the preference and for adopting a sensible system of drawback is also overwhelming. I cannot vote against the Order because, from the point of view of the industries concerned, it is justified, but I beg and beseech the Parliamentary Secretary to give the most earnest consideration to the points which have been urged by hon. Members on both sides.
10.30 p.m.
The right hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills) has certainly emphasised the vicious circle into which we have got under the Ottawa Agreement. Like the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams), I am sorry the hon. Member for Ealing (Sir F. Sanderson) is not present, because he is one of my constituents and has a great interest in seed crushing, and I believe that the constituency which I have the honour to represent is the centre of the seed crushing industry. It is also a centre for the paint industry, and what we want in both industries are abundant supplies of raw material at as low a figure as possible. I wish to appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to give every consideration to my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. Kennedy), and also to the right hon. and gallant Member for Ripon and the hon. Member for South Croydon in this regard, because it has been proved that Hull and the seed crushing industry want at present more abundant supplies of the Argentine linseed. Here again the hon. Member for Ealing is interested, because he is interested in a great textile factory also in Yorkshire, and one of the best customers of that factory and of the West Riding is the Argentine, for woollen industries.
If the Parliamentary Secretary could come to some agreement with India on this matter, to have more abundant supplies of raw material—linseed, not linseed oil—it would mean also more abundant prosperity for the West Riding and incidentally for the shipping of India. I wish to reply to what the right hon. and gallant Member for Ripon said as to seed crushing being a comparatively small industry.
I did not say that the seed crushing industry was small. I said that the portion of it which would be employed on crushing linseed was a small part of the seed crushing industry.
I accept that, and I am glad that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has given me the opportunity of saying that most of the people engaged in the seed crushing industry live and work in the constituency that I happen to be representing at the present time. It is a very important point to them, when they have not that free supply of linseed and the mills are running on short time, and I would remind the House that this particular constituency can, as a result of unemployment, be called in very truth a distressed area. I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary not to injure the export trade of the paint industry, which again has its life and being largely in Kingston-upon-Hull East, and I want him to consider very carefully the point made by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ripon, who occupied the post of Financial Secretary to the Treasury with great distinction when he was Member for Durham. I am hoping that such an appeal, made with such emphasis by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, will meet with the consideration which it deserves from the Board of Trade and the Treasury, and that we shall have a 100 per cent. drawback on the export paint trade as some palliative to this mess into which the Ottawa Agreement has put us.
10.35 p.m.
Mr. Speaker, you were good enough to call me yesterday and I apologise for intervening again to-night, even for the few moments I shall occupy. My only excuse must be that those whom I represent are deeply concerned about this Order. The House can compliment itself on this Debate. We have had half a dozen speeches from almost every section of the House, not one of which has been marked by the least suggestion of partisan views. Each one has been inspired throughout by an impartial desire to examine this problem scientifically. I think that we have seen to-night Parliament in one of its best moods when we all like to be complimented on its work. There would seem almost to have been a magic carpet spread upon the floor, upon which we have all been able to meet. I am glad to think linoleum has produced it. The Parliamentary Secretary must have been impressed by the unanimity of the appeals made to him for the further consideration of this matter, and I would like to join with those who have spoken from different parts in supporting that appeal—the appeal to reconsider the agreement with India, and the appeal to reconsider the matter of rebates. I have some hope in making that appeal when I recall how the Government, and the Minister of Agriculture in particular, have assured us that the Government were proceeding by the method of trial and error. We have made the trial, and I am sure that this one has been unconnected with error. I hope that we in this House, and the Government in particular, are prepared to take a lesson from experience. Our plea is that the Government will give time to reconsider this matter.
10.38 p.m.
During the last three or four years the House has had a great number of discussions on Orders of this kind, but it will be difficult to remember an occasion when a more formidable case has been against an Order than that which has been made from all parts of the House this evening. I want to associate myself with the appeal that has been made. I would, however, first like to address to the Parliamentary Secretary a question arising out of the date of this Order. The Order was made on 10th December last and came into operation on 12th December. My recollection is that it was actually placed on the Table for discussion some time in December, and was to be taken on a certain day in December. Speeches were prepared, the stage was set, and for some reason, with something like half an hour's notice, the Government decided not to proceed with the Order.
Perhaps the hon. Member will permit me to explain. Because of the fact that the Christmas adjournment was coming soon, the Government wanted to get the Order out of the way. One or two of us who wanted it looked at more carefully discovered, rather to our surprise, that it was to be taken on a certain evening. About 6 o'clock we made representations to the Patronage Secretary, who, for the first time, discovered that there was any body of criticism of the Order. When he discovered that the Order was likely to be criticised, he promptly, and I think properly, agreed to a postponement. I was more responsible for that than anybody else, and I do not think there is any occasion for the hon. Member to criticise the Government.
I really feel that the hon. Member has let the cat out of the bag, and I should like to ask him for further and better particulars of this deputation. Who was on the deputation? Were there representatives of the industries concerned? Were they all Members of Parliament, and, if so, of which party? If the deputation had come from the Labour party or from us on this bench, should we have been able to obtain a similar concession?
I hope the hon. Member does not imagine that there was anything in the way of a formal deputation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Backstairs!"] No, and nothing backstairs. Two of us who happened to be interested, for one reason or another—constituency reasons or otherwise—discovered that it was proposed to take the Order on that particular evening before those industrially affected had had any opportunity to discuss it. We happened to meet the hon. Member for Ealing (Sir F. Sanderson), who takes the other view about this, and we went to the Patronage Secretary and made to him a perfectly reasonable request, of the kind made frequently by his opponents and occasionally by his supporters, that there should be a little postponement in order that all concerned might have the opportunity of examining the Order, which, incidentally, has been in operation during the whole period, so that nothing has been postponed except this Debate.
It seems to me that that statement does not get round the point at all. The hon. Member says, first, that the interests concerned had not had an opportunity of considering this Order. Had they not had an opportunity to make representations to the Import Duties Advisory Committee? When the Import Duties Act was passed we were told that the great advantage of the procedure was that there could be no backstairs' representation, no private deputations going to a Minister, but, instead, there would be this impartial body, the Advisory Committee, which would not be amenable to any form of political or other pressure, that Members of Parliament would not be able to exercise pressure upon that Committee and that the Treasury would act upon its recommendations. The whole purpose of that procedure will be defeated if at the last moment Orders are to be withdrawn or held back simply on private representations of the kind described by the hon. Member. Perhaps we might have a word or two more of explanation from the Parliamentary Secretary. Perhaps he will give us the names of those who made the representations.
It is evident that we have to consider to-night a conflict of interests between the seed crushers and the oil using industries. We often have to consider that sort of conflict and try to gauge the relative importance of the interests concerned. The Parliamentary Secretary told us that some 10,000 people are employed in the seed crushing industry, but it has been made clear by the right hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills) and others that only a proportion, and I think I am right in saying it is a small proportion, of that number are actually engaged in crushing linseed. Therefore, there can be no comparison between the importance of the oil using industries and the importance of the industries which crush linseed in the United Kingdom. Would the Parliamentary Secretary also tell us how large a proportion of the total consumption of linseed oil is actually produced in the United Kingdom? It is important to know that before we vote to-night.
The total consumption in the United Kingdom?
Yes, how much the oil using industries consume in the year, and how much of that is produced by the linseed crushers in the United Kingdom. It was admitted when this subject was discussed in 1933, and it has been said by many speakers in this Debate this evening, that the whole extent of the duty has fallen upon the oil users. It is clear that that has been a constantly increasing burden; at first 10 per cent., then 15 per cent. and then £3 10s., which amounted in the first place—I do not say always— to no less than 25 per cent. It was £3 10s., and it is now £5. In each case the full amount of the duty has to be paid by the oil users. The Parliamentary Secretary gave us figures to show that that was not a very important matter to the paint industry; I do not think he would claim that it is not an important matter to the linoleum industry. I represent a constituency in which there are linoleum factories, and I have received, as other hon. Members have from theirs, protests from my constituency. In one letter, my correspondent says:
We have heard about the drawback, and it has been made clear that the drawback always falls short by a substantial amount of the full amount of the duty, and that consequently there is always a time-lag between the imposition of a higher duty in these matters and the arrangement of a drawback scheme. When the Ottawa Agreements Bill came before us—if I remember rightly, in September, 1932— this matter was discussed and the duty, following upon the Ottawa Agreements, came into effect on 1st January, 1933. The Parliamentary Secretary will perhaps correct me if I am wrong in saying that the drawback scheme did not come into force until May or June, 1933; that is to say, there was a time-lag of nearly six months before the using industries were able to get the advantage of any drawback whatsoever.
I hope that that is not to happen on this occasion, if this Order goes through. It has been hinted during the Debate that a further drawback scheme is being considered. If that be so, I hope that we shall not again be confronted with a time-lag of five months or six months, and that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to assure us—after all, this is a highly important matter to the using industries concerned—that it will not be as long as that before the drawback scheme is arranged so that there shall not be this disparity of £2 per ton between the amount of the duty and the extent of the drawback.
10.49 p.m.
It is only, of course, with the permission of the House that I can intervene again, but perhaps it is convenient that I should reply to the questions which have been raised. I fancy that the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. D. Foot) is under some confusion. The order made by the Import Duties Advisory Committee was, of course, entirely free from any representation to that body, and when confirmed by the Treasury it became an Order and the Order became effective. The Order was listed on the Order Paper of this House for a number of days. It is usually by arrangement between the different parties in the House that the actual day is fixed on which the Debate is taken. It is unknown to me that the day was altered. I had been given no information of anybody seeing anybody else as to the day on which the Debate should take place. It was quite without conference, because the Order was in force, and if there has been any adjournment it has given the consuming industries the opportunity of circularising every one of us and of placing a most inaccurate communication in the hands of hon. Members.
The points that have been raised in this Debate—and I think that the House will agree that the Debate has been informative and interesting—have been substantially four in number, the position of the using industries, the position of India, the question of drawback, and the question of a postponement of the decision on the matter. Let me take, first, the question of the using interests. When the Ottawa Agreements came up and this question of a duty was raised on 31st October, 1932, fears were expressed as to what would happen if a duty were put on linseed. Those fears have been entirely falsified. The using interests have had the time of their lives. I have given figures to show that the using interests are prosperous. It had been feared that they would suffer, but the fear has been rendered entirely illusory by the operation of drawback schemes. There has, in fact, been no suffering. The one industry which may be proved to have suffered is the crushing industry. Why? Let me give the House the figures. When this duty came on, the importations of linseed oil were comparatively low. We raised the duty to £3 10s. a ton. The result was that the imports of oil came running down and in 1933 were only £104,000. In 1934 foreign imports of linseed oil multiplied by five in one year. Think of the effect on the crushing industry; more than £542,000, increased by five times in the one year. The position has become even worse in 1935. Imports have risen to a level not only five times those of 1933 but above the high water mark of 1930.
In 1930, which was a record year, the quantity in tons from all countries was 32,969. In 1935 the figure was 44,347 tons. I want the House to appreciate that if the crushing industry was suffering in 1933, when total imports were £100,000 in value, in 1935, when they were five times as much, even though, as the right hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills) says, there was an increase in price, it is obvious that the crushing industry has not improved, to put it no higher than that. The crushing industry, having applied for an increased duty, have made out their case and the Import Duties Advisory Committee, after hearing whom they were pleased to hear, have produced a document—the hon. Member for East Birkenhead,(Mr. White) said that it is lop-sided and perfunctory—which is perfectly sound and coherent and says that the duty which had previously been £3 10s. ought now to be £5. There is not much that is partial, perfunctory or lop-sided when it is uncontested that the crushing industry is immeasurably worse off than in 1933. The using industries are flourishing and have not been hurt; the crushing industry is not flourishing and has been hurt; and the case, therefore, is for help to the crushing industry.
A number of speeches have been made as to what India wants. I have not any idea. I am not concerned in this House of Commons to put forward anything with regard to the views of His Majesty's Government in India. As the right hon. and gallant Member for Ripon very properly said, we cannot alter the Ottawa Agreement unilaterally. We are not concerned whether this has turned out for the good of India, or whether it has justified expectations. These are matters for His Majesty's Government iii India. I can give one or two facts, but I cannot deal with a matter which is primarily India's concern.
The production in India has, broadly speaking, remained stationary at 400,000 tons per annum. The average declared value of imports from India rose from £10 19s. a ton in 1932 to £11 7s. 6d. in 1935. During the year 1933, when there was a failure of the Argentine crop owing to climatic conditions, India at once took advantage, showing her expansive power, and imports from India went up to 130,000 tons. I cannot say whether India desires this or not; I am concerned to point out that, so long as the Ottawa Agreement with India is in force, we are under an; obligation to place a 10 per cent. duty on Argentine linseed, and I have no means of escape from that. Various Members have said, "Use a convenient opportunity to endeavour to make a bargain with the Government of India." That request will be borne in mind, but I am sure the House will be alive to the fact that there may be much more important matters to take up with His Majesty's Government in India than a mere question of a duty on linseed, and it would not be right for me to give the House the slightest encouragement to believe that we would engage on a partial modification of an Ottawa Agreement at a time so near to the date when the whole agreement itself will no doubt come under review.
There are other matters which leap to the mind as possibly being subjects of discussion with India. Hon. Members for textile areas will think of one or two at once. I do not want anyone to be under the impression that we can deal with this question otherwise than as it is—an obligation under an agreement with India to put a 10 per cent. duty on linseed coming from the Argentine. I must deal with the crushing industry, which is faced with imports five times as large as it has been accustomed to, and is claiming protection against those increased imports; and I must deal with it as it is to-day, reserving, of course, for the Government the power to negotiate with the Government of India if and when the time comes.
With regard to drawback, the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. Kennedy) and others have raised questions as to the quantum of the drawback, the date at which it becomes applicable, and the system. I would ask hon. Members to study carefully the Import Duties Drawback No. 21 Order, Command 4742. No one can read that drawback scheme without being convinced of the enormous complication of the problem. No two of these consuming industries uses the same quantity or quality of oil, and there has to be a different datum line for each separate industry. The task of the Import Duties Advisory Committee, in working out a drawback in conjunction with the consuming industries, the adjudicating tribunal and the Revenue authorities is to find such a balance as fairly represents the proportion of the duty-paid article which is used in an article manufactured here which is being exported. Do not let the House imagine that an intricate drawback formula of this character can be worked out without a great deal of coming and going. I referred to this matter at length when the Ottawa Agreements were under discussion. The whole question of drawbacks is governed by Section 9 of the Finance Act, 1932. I need only give the House an assurance that the machinery is intact, that the provision is most carefully worked out and that, however, involved the substance may be, there is a formula for arriving at an equitable drawback.
With regard to the duty, the drawback is not the whole of the duty on the oil; it is the duty on the oil that is crushed from seed. The purpose is to help the crushing industry. A drawback is therefore given only on so much oil as is crushed in this country from seed. [ Interruption. ] No, it is not given on imported oil. If foreign oil is imported and the duty on it is paid, and if the article is then re-exported and a drawback given on; it, that does not help the crushing industry. There must, obviously, be a difference between the duty on the oil which is imported and the seed which is imported. The drawback is very carefully prepared and is £3 as against £3 10s. The hon. Member for Birkenhead asked whether that means that in future it will be £2. Of course it does not. There is no reason why it should not be 10s. The whole matter is in the hands of the consuming industries. The application, has to come from them; it is they who have to work out the formula, it is they who have to prove the extent of the oil which they use that is manufactured here from foreign ingredients; and, in fact, an application is at this moment before the Import Duties Advisory Committee, and I have no doubt that a satisfactory drawback scheme will be announced very shortly.
The hon. Member for Kirkaldy said that if I were in a position to give him an undertaking on this matter it would materially influence his attitude towards this particular Order. I entirely understand his point of view, and I appreciate to the full this question of the drawback Have I not had deputations from all these bodies ever since 1932 and has not this drawback scheme, which has worked so successfully, been worked out with the knowledge of the officials of my Department? The whole matter has been most elaborately worked out by the Import Duties Advisory Committee. I cannot give an undertaking, but I can give an explanation. Before this increase the duty was £3 10s. The consuming interests satisfied the Import Duties Advisory Committee that the proper drawback was £3 where the duty was £3 10s. The duty is now being increased to £5 in order that the extent of protection afforded to the crushing industry should be the same as it was before. The House will remember the reasons I gave for that. The idea was to restore the protective rates which existed previously. There is no reason why the proportion of 10s. should not substantially provide a guide for the proportion under the increased figure of £5. I cannot give the figure. It is not within my control. It is a matter for the Import Duties Advisory Committee. But I will give the House the information, that I have. It is that the rate of drawback has not been increased since the present Order came into force. The Import Duties Advisory Committee on 5th February gave public notice that they are now considering an application for an increase from the using trades. The House can rest assured that the Advisory Committee will deal with the drawback mutatis mutandis.
Will the hon. Gentleman deal with this point? When there is a duty in operation and a drawback associated with it, will the Advisory Committee in future when they recommend an increased duty, simultaneously deal with the drawback question, otherwise there is this time gap, which really places the industry in a difficult situation.
I appreciate what the hon. Member says, but there is a fundamental misconception and I hope the Advisory Committee will do nothing of the kind. If you are putting a duty on seed, and are giving a drawback on the oil crushed from that seed, there must be a time lag before the application for
a drawback ought to arise. Do not let it be too long, but do not imagine that it can be simultaneous. The drawback is in respect of something that is manufactured from a raw material. You are putting a duty on the raw material. You are going to convert the raw material into a manufactured article and then export it. It is impossible to go through this commercial operation without there being a time lag.[ Interruption. ] That is a question for the consuming industry. In this case the Order was made on 10th December. By 5th February the Advisory Committee have already advertised the fact that the consuming interests have applied to them and that they are considering the matter. [An HON. MEMBER: "How long?"] It is entirely a matter for the consuming industry.
The last question was whether this is not a matter which on the whole ought further to be considered. Every conceivable point that ought to be able to be given in favour of the imposition of a duty exists in this case up to the hilt. I hope I have satisfied the House as to the way in which this matter works in practice. No injustice has occurred hitherto. The consuming interests are quite prosperous. They have expressed a fear. I believe that fear to be groundless.
Question put.
The House divided: Ayes, 208; Noes, 135.
Division No. 34.] AYES. [11.10 p.m. Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J. Campbell, Sir E. T. Duggan, H. J. Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.) Cartland, J. R. H. Duncan, J. A. L. Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G. Carver, Major W. H. Dunglass, Lord Albery, I. J. Cary, R. A. Dunne, P. R. R. Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh) Castlereagh, Viscount Eales, J. F. Apsley, Lord Channon, H. Eastwood, J. F. Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover) Chapman, A. (Rutherglen) Edge, Sir W. Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.) Christie, J. A. Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E. Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Clarry, Sir R. G. Emrys-Evans, P. V. Baldwin-Webb, Col. J. Clydesdale, Marquess of Errington, E. Balfour, Capt. H. H.(Isle of Thanet) Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J. Erskine Hill, A. G. Baxter, A. Beverley Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.) Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.) Beauchamp, Sir B. C. Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh. W.) Everard, W. L. Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h) Craddock, Sir R. H. Fildes, Sir H. Bird, Sir R. B. Critchley, A. Findlay, Sir E. Blaker, Sir R. Crooke, J. S. Fraser, Capt. Sir I. Blindell, Sir J. Crookshank, Capt. H. F. f. Fremantle, Sir F. E. Borodale, Viscount Cross, R. H. Ganzoni, Sir J. Bossom, A. C. Crowder, J. F. E. Gibson, C. G. Bower, Comdr. R. T. Davies, C. (Montgomery) Gluckstein, L. H. Braithwaite, Major A. N. Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil) Goodman, Col. A. W. Brass, Sir W. De la Bère, R. Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral) Brocklebank, C. E. R. Dixon, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. Gridley, Sir A. B. Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham) Dorman-Smith. Major R. H. Grimston, R. V. Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith) Dower, Capt. A. V. G. Gritten, W. G. Howard Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury) Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop) Guest, Maj. Hon. O.(C'mb'rw'll, N. W.) Bull, B. B. Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side) Gunston, Capt. D. W. Burgin, Dr. E. L. Dugdale, Major T. L. Guy, J. C. M. Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H. Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) Savery, Servington Hanbury, Sir C. Mitcheson, Sir G. G. Scott, Lord William Hannon, Sir P. J. H. Morgan, R. H. Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree) Harbord, A. Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.) Shepperson. Sir E. W. Harvey, G. Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Unlv's.) Shute, Colonel Sir J. J. Heilgers, Captain F. F. A. Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J. Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U. B'lf'st), Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P. Munro, p. M. Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D. Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan- Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H. Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen) Hepworth, J. Nicolson, Hon. H. G. Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe) Holmes, J. S. O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh Somerville, A. A. (Windsor) Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J. Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G. Southby, Comdr. A. R. J. Horsbrugh, Florence Orr-Ewing, I. L. Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L. Howitt, Dr. A. B. Palmer, G. E. H. Spens, W. P. Hume, Sir G. H. Patrick, CM. Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fyrde) Hunter, T. Peat, C. U. Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.) James, Wing-Commander A. W. Penny, Sir G. Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.) Joel, D. J. B. Percy, Rt. Hon. Lord E. Strauss, H. G. (Norwich) Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n) Perkins, W. R. D. Strickland, Captain W. F. Jones, L. (Swansea, W.) Petherick, M. Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h) Keeling, E. H. Plugge, L. F. Sutcliffe, H. Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose) Ponsonby, Col. O. E. Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.) Kerr, H. W. (Oldfham) Pownall, Sir A. Assheton Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford) Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.) Procter, Major H. A. Thomson, Sir J. D. W. Kimball. L. Radford. E. A. Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L. Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F. Ramsay, Captain A. H. M. Turton, R. H. Lamb, Sir J. Q. Ramsden, Sir E. Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull) Leckie, J. A. Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin) Ward, Irene (Wallsend) Leech, Dr. J. W. Rayner, Major R. H. Waterhouse, Captain C. Levy, T. Reed, A. C. (Exeter) Wedderburn, H. J. S. Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J. Reid, Sir D. D. (Down) Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R. r Lloyd, G. W. Remer, J. R. Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.) Lumley, Capt. L. R. Rickards, G. W. (Skipton) Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin) MacAndrew, Lt.-Col. Sir C. G. Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool) Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G. McCorquodale, M. S Ropner, Colonel L. Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl McKie, J. H. Ross, Major Sir R. D. (L'derry) Wise, A. R. Maclay, Hon. J P. Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge) Womersley, Sir W. J. Magnay, T. Rowlands, G. Wragg, H. Makins, Brig.-Gen. E. Rugglcs-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A. Young, A. S. L. (Partick) Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. Russell, A. West (Tynemouth) Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M. Salmon, Sir I. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— Maxwell, S. A. Salt, E. W. Mr. James Stuart and Dr. Morris-Jones. Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J. Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney) Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth) Sandys, E. D.
NOES. Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke Gardner, B. W. Marklew, E. Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple) Garro-Jones, G. M. Marshall, F. Adams, D. (Consett) George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke) Maxton, J. Adams, O. M. (Poplar, S.) Green, W. H. (Deptford) Messer, F. Adamson, W. M. Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. Montague, F. Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.) Grenfell, D. R. Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.) Ammon, C. G. Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.) Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Anderson, F. (Whitehaven) Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth) Muff, G. Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R. Groves, T. E. Naylor, T. E. Banfield, J. W. Hall, G. H. (Aberdare) Oliver, G. H. Barnes, A. J. Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) Parker, H. J. H. Batey, J. Hardle, G. D. Parkinson, J. A. Bellenger, F. Harris, Sir P. A. Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. Benson, G. Henderson, A. (Kingswinford) Potts, J. Broad, F. A. Henderson, J. (Ardwick) Price, M. P. Bromfield, W. Henderson, T. (Tradeston) Pritt, D. N. Brown, C. (Mansfield) Holdsworth, H. Quibell, J. D. Buchanan, G. Holland, A. Richards, R. (Wrexham) Burke, W. A. Hopkin, D. Riley, B. Charleton, H. C. Jagger, J. Ritson, J. Cluse, W. S. Jones, A. C. (Shipley) Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.) Cocks, F. S. Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.) Compton, J. Jones, J. J. (Silvertown) Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens) Cove, W. G. Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Rothschild, J. A. de Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford Kelly, W. T. Rowson, G. Daggar, G. Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T. Salter, Dr. A. Dalton, H. Kirby, B. V. Seely, Sir H. M. Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill) Kirkwood, D. Sexton, T. M. Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd) Lawson, J. J. Short, A. Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton) Lee, F. Silverman, S. S. Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Leonard, W. Simpson, F. B. Dobbie, W. Leslie, J. R. Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's) Dunn, E. (Rother Valley) Logan, D. G. Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe) Ede, J. C. Lunn, W. Smith, E. (Stoke) Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.) Macdonald, G. (Ince) Smith, T. (Normanton) Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty) McEntee, V. La T. Stephen, C. Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H. McGhee, H. G. Stewart, W. J. (H'ghtn-le-Sp'ng) Foot, D. M. McGovern, J. Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.) Frankel, D. Maclean, N. Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth) Thurtle, E. Welsh, J.C. Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe) Tinker, J. J Westwood, J. Windsor, W. (Hull, C.) Viant, S. P. White, H. Graham Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley Walkden, A. G. Whiteley, W. Young, Sir R, (Newton) Walker, J. Wilkinson, Ellen Watkins, F.C. Williams, J. (Ogmore) TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Watson, W. McL. Williams, T. (Don Valley) Mr. Paling and Mr. Mathers.
Resolved,
"That the Additional Import Duties (No. 34) Order, 1935, dated the tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the said tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, be approved."
Before we proceed with the next Order may I move the adjournment of the Debate? We have had a very long debate on the Order just passed, and we want an opportunity—
The hon. Baronet must wait until there is a Question before the House.
I beg to move:
"That the Additional Import Duties (No. 35) Order, 1935, dated the tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the said tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, be approved."
This Order puts a duty on certain needles and other goods. The imports before 1932 amounted to less than £2,000 per month and they have increased to £4,470 per month, and they come mainly from Germany and the United States. Our home production is 40 per cent. of the total. The Import Duties Committee report that there was no opposition to the application, which was supported also by consumers.
11.23 p.m.
I beg to move, "That this House do now adjourn."
We have here Orders which, with great respect, raise issues of first-class importance. For the first time we have a tax of 40 per cent. on an essential raw material of industry. It may be a good thing to tax the raw material of a struggling industry like hosiery in a time of severe competition from Japan and Germany, but I suggest that if we are to impose a duty we are entitled to more information than the Parliamentary Secretary has attempted to give us and more information than is contained in the preamble to the report. I think that we might very well go home at a convenient hour, and that the House should discuss these Orders at a more appropriate time.
11.24 p.m.
I hope the House will not respond to the invitation. The hon. Member is quite wrong in suggesting that we are putting on a duty of 40 per cent.; it is an increase of a duty of 20 per cent. up to 40 per cent. So far from raising any matter of principle the Order only raises a matter of quantity, and so far from it being a raw material of importance, this is a small trade in which the imports have more than doubled for the United States and Germany. It should not take the House ten minutes to decide, and the other two Orders ought not to take any length of time.
Question put "That this House do now adjourn."
The House divided: Ayes, 105; Noes, 191.
Division No. 35] AYES. [11.25 p.m. Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke Daggar, G. Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.) Adams, D. (Consett) Dalton, H. Harris, Sir P. A. Adamson, W. M. Davidson. J. J. (Maryhill) Henderson, A. (Kingswinford) Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.) Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd) Henderson, J. (Ardwick) Ammon, C. G. Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Henderson, T. (Tradeston) Anderson, F. (Whitchaven) Dobbie, W. Holdsworth, H. Banfield, J. W. Dunn, E. (Rother Valley) Holland, A. Batey, J. Ede., J. C. Jagger, J. Bellenger, F. Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.) Jones, A. C. (Shipley) Benson, G. Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty) Jones, J. J. (Silvertowl) Broad, F. A. Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H. Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Bromfleld, W. Foot, D. M. Kelly, W. T. Brown, C. (Mansfield) Frankel, D. Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T. Buchanan, G. Garro-Jones, G. M. Kirby, B. V. Burke, W. A. Green, W. H. (Deptford) Lawson, J. J. Cluse, W. S. Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. Leonard, W. Cocks, F. S. Grenfell, D. R. Leslie, J. R. Logan, D. G. Price, M. P. Thurtle, E. McGhee, H. G. Pritt, D. N. Tinker, J. J. McGovern, J. Ritson, J. Viant, S. P. Maclean, N. Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.) Walkden, A. G. Mander, G. le M. Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.) Watson, W. McL. Marklew, E. Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens) Welsh, J. C. Marshall, F. Rothschild, J. A. de Westwood, J. Mathers, G. Rowson, G. White, H. Graham Maxton, J. Sexton, T. M. Whiteley, W. Messer, F. Silverman, S. S. Wilkinson, Ellen Morrison, Rt. Hn. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.) Simpson, F. B. Williams, E. J. (Ogmore) Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's) Williams, T. (Don Valley) Mud, G. Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe) Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe) Naylor, T. E. Smith, E. (Stoke) Windsor, W. (Hull, C.) Oliver, G. H. Smith, T. (Normanton) Woods, G. S. (Finsbury) Paling, W. Stephen, C. Young, Sir R. (Newton) Parker, H. J. H. Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng) Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.) TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— Potts, J. Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth) Mr. Acland and Sir Hugh Seely.
NOES. Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J. Fraser, Capt. Sir I. Orr-Ewing, I. L. Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.) Fremantle, Sir F. E. Palmer, G. E. H. Agnew, Lieut. Comdr. P. G. Furness, S. N. Patrick, C. M. Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh) Gibson, C. G. Penny, Sir G. Apsley, Lord Goodman, Col. A. W. Percy, Rt. Hon. Lord E. Aske, Sir R. W. Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral) Perkins, W. R. D. Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover) Grldley, Sir A. B. Petherick, M. Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.) Grlmston, R. V. Plugge, L. F. Baldwin-Webb, Col. J. Gritten, W. G. Howard Ponsonby, Col. C. E. Baxter, A. Beverley Guest, Maj. Hon. O.(C'mb'rw'll, N. W.) Pownall, Sir A. Assheton Beauchamp, Sir B. C. Gunston, Capt. D. W. Procter, Major H. A. Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h) Guy, J. C. M. Rad lord, E. A. Bird, Sir R. B. Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H. Raikes, H. V. A. M. Blaker, Sir R. Hanbury, Sir C. Ramsay, Captain A. H. M. Blindell, Sir J. Hannon, Sir P. J. H. Ramsden, Sir E. Borodale, Viscount Harbord, A. Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin) Bossom, A. C. Harvey, G. Rayner, Major R. H. Bower, Comdr. R. T. Hellgers, Captain F. F. A. Reed, A. C. (Exeter) Braithwaite, Major A. N. Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P. Reid, Sir D. D. (Down) Brass, Sir W. Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan- Remer, J. R. Brocklebank, C. E. R. Hepworth, J. Rickards, G. W. (Skipton) Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith) Holmes, J. S, Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool) Bull, B. B. Hope. Captain Hon. A. O. J. Ropner, Colonel L. Burgin, Dr. E. L. Horsbrugh, Florence Ross, Major Sir R. D. (L'nderry) Campbell, Sir E. T. Howitt, Dr. A. B. Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge) Cartland, J. R. H. Hunter, T. Rowlands, G. Carver, Major W. H. James, Wing-Commander A. W. Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A. Cary, R. A. Joel, D. J. B. Salt, E. W. Castlereagh, Viscount Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n) Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney) Channon, H. Jones, L. (Swansea, W.) Sandys, E. D. Chapman. A. (Rutherglen) Keeling, E. H. Scott, Lord William Christie, J. A. Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose) Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree) Clarry, Sir R. G. Kerr, H. W. (Oldham) Shcpperson, Sir E. W. Clydesdale, Marquess of Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.) Shute, Colonel Sir- J. J. Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J. Kimball, L. Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's u. B'lf'st) Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.) Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F. Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D. Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh. W.) Lamb, Sir J. Q. Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe) Critchley, A. Leckle. J. A. Southby, Comdr. A. R. J. Crooke, J. S. Leech, Dr. J. W. Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L. Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C Levy, T. Spens, W. P. Cross, R. H. Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J. Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde) Crowder, J. F. E. Lloyd, G. W. Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.) Davies, C. (Montgomery) Lumley, Capt. L. R. Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.) Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil) MacAndrew, Lt.-Col. Sir C. G. Strauss, H. G. (Norwich) Dixon, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. McCorquodale, M. S. Strickland, Captain W. F. Dorman-Smith, Major R. H. McKie, J. H. Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'tnw'h) Dower, Capt. A. V. G. Maclay, Hon. J. P. Sutcliffe, H. Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop) Magnay, T. Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.) Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side) Makins, Brig.-Gen. E. Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford) Dugdale Major T L Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. Thomson, Sir J. D. W. Duggan, H. J. Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M. Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L. Duncan, J. A. L. Maxwell, S. A. Turton, R. H. Dunglass, Lord Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J Ward, Irene (Wallsend) Dunne P R R Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth) Waterhouse, Captain C. Eales J. F. Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R. Eastwood, J. F. Mitcheson, Sir G. G. Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.) Eastwood, J. F. Morgan, R. H. Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin) Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E. Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.) Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl Emrys-Evans, P. V. Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. Wise, A. R. Errington, E. Morrison G A (Scottish Univ's) Womersley, Sir W. J. Erskine Hill, A. G. Muirhead Lt Col A J Wragg, H. Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, s.) Munro. P. M. Young, A. S. L. (Partick) Everard, W. L. Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H. Fildes, Sir H. Nicolson, Hon. H. G. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— Findlay, Sir E. O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh Lieut.-Colonel Sir A Lambert Ward and Mr. James Stuart.
Question again proposed,
"That the Additional Import Duties (No. 35) Order, 1935, dated the tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the said tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, be approved,"
11.31 p.m.
The House has now decided that this is a proper time to discuss matters pertaining to the hosiery industry, and I wish to make a few observations on this Order. I cannot let the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade get away with the perfunctory statement which he made in the House in connection with this matter. He has already attempted to convince the House that these Orders which come before us from time to time are quite innocuous and never injure anybody, and that if we only get enough of them, we shall soon reach the millenium. He does not, however, convince all of us when he makes such sweeping statements. The hon. Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. Graham White), when we were discussing another Order, called attention to the explanatory paragraphs which were attached to it and suggested that they were in some way misleading, and certainly, as far as he could judge, the whole matter wanted further consideration. I am certain that if that applied to the previous Order, it applies very much more powerfully to the Order which we are now discussing, because there are statements in the explanatory paragraphs which seem to me to be hopelessly inaccurate and to suggest that neither the Tariff Advisory Committee nor the Parliamentary Secretary is properly informed on these matters.
The Parliamentary Secretary made a great deal of fun about these bearded needles and narrowing points, running-on points, and welt hooks, but I do not know whether he knows very much about them. I see he has in his hand a pattern, but I am glad to say that for 25 years I had to use them, and consequently perhaps I should be able to give him some information about them. There is nothing worse for a Parliamentary Secretary than to be hopelessly ignorant about these matters with which he is supposed to deal, and it may be necessary to give him some information. Let me first of all talk about one or two paragraphs here. For instance, I read:
Let me turn to the question of the needles and hooks. The Parliamentary Secretary says that the number of people involved is not very great, but it is the business of the House to safeguard the interests of the citizens of the country who have interests of a special kind, however few their number. Numbers should not count in a matter of this kind. We ought to concern ourselves with the tiniest interest. [HON. MEMBERS: "Come over to this side!"] There is no necessity to go to the other side when the Members who sit with me on these benches have as great, if not greater interest in all that appertains to the people who carry on various processes of manufacture, as anybody in the House. On a machine that makes 24 stockings at once there might be from 7,000 to 8,000 needles. If there is a knot or a twist in the yarn the beards come off the needles and they are all broken. The bearded needle is a very ingenious device. The ladies would not be able to have the stockings they like so much, with their elasticity and beauty, were it not for these bearded needles. A great mistake is made in the Order in this particular direction. These are the finest needles of from 40 to 45 and 50 gauge, as they are called. I had better, perhaps, for the information of the House, explain what a gauge is. The gauge is three inches of the head. You may have in the gauge 60 or 80 needles, or, in the very fine counts, 120 needles to every three inches of head. According to the number so is the fineness or coarseness of the stocking. I do not think there are more than half-a-dozen firms in the country making these needles: perhaps a couple in Nottingham, a couple in Loughborough and a couple in Leicester. Very often gauge needles are imported by those who use the German machines. The Parliamentary Secretary said the users of these fine gauge needles made no representations to the Advisory Committee. Am I to understand that they do not object to a duty of 40 per cent., and that that communication was actually made to the Advisory Committee?
I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that the very fine gauge needles cannot up to the moment be made in this country and the manufacturers who have the German machines prefer to get
the finer needles from the German firms who have made the machines. Any one who knows anything of the technical details will realise that if these fine needles are not as good as they should be they will spoil the stockings from the artistic point of view. [ Laughter. ] Why do hon. Members laugh when I suggest that stockings may be artistic? I should imagine that their aesthetic sense has many a time been charmed by the sight of a beautiful stocking; or am I to suppose that they have no aesthetic sense and do not admire beauty in stockings or anything else? Perhaps most of them admire, rather, the beauty of battleships. There can be beauty in a silk stocking. For once I have deliberately said something with which I knew the whole House would agree. It does not often happen and I congratulate myself on getting agreement from all parts of the House.
I will say no more than this: This is the second instalment of the process of building up what is called a scientific tariff. When we started the process we were told it would solve all our industrial problems. Let me remind the House that we still have 2,000,000 unemployed.
I think we had better keep to the subject of the Order.
I am fearful lest the duty proposed in this Order should add to the number of the unemployed, and I thought my observation would be strictly relevant to the discussion. All I have to add is that not only have these tariffs, failed to solve our unemployment problem but they have not given us the high wages which were promised. Therefore, I claim that there are very good reasons why the House should not accept this Order, especially after the perfunctory explanation of it which was tendered by the Parliamentary Secretary.
Original Question put.
The House divided: Ayes, 177; Noes, 82.
Division No. 36.] AYES. [11.45 p.m. Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J. Baxter, A. Beverley Brass, Sir W. Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.) Beauchamp, Sir B. C. Brocklebank, C. E. R. Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G. Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h) Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith) Apsley, Lord Bird, Sir R. B. Bull, B. B. Aske, Sir R. W. Borodale, Viscount Burgln, Dr. E. L. Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover) Bossom, A. C. Butler, R. A. Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.) Bower, Comdr. R. T. Campbell, Sir E. T. Baldwin-Webb, Col. J. Braithwaite, Major A. N. Cartland, J. R. H. Carver, Major W. H. Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan- Pownall, Sir A. Assheton Cary, R. A. Hepworth, J. Procter, Major H. A. Castlereagh, Viscount Holmes, J. S. Radford, E. A. Channon, H. Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J. Ramsay, Captain A. H. M. Chapman, A. (Rutherglen) Horsbrugh, Florence Ramsden, Sir E. Christie, J. A. Howitt, Dr. A. B. Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin) Clydesdale, Marquess of Hunter, T. Rayner, Major R. H. Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J. James, Wing-Commander A. W. Reed, A. C. (Exeter) Critchley, A. Joel, D. J. B. Rickards, G. W. (Skipton) Crooke, J. S. Jones, L. (Swansea, W.) Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool) Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C. Keeling, E. H. Ropner, Colonel L. Cross, R. H. Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose) Ross, Major Sir R. D. (L'derry) Crowder, J. F. E. Kerr, H. W. (Oldham) Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge) Davies, C. (Montgomery) Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.) Rowlands, G. Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil) Kimball, L. Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A. Dixon, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F. Salt, E. W. Dorman-Smith, Major R. H. Lamb, Sir J. Q. Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney) Dower, Capt. A. V. G. Leckie, J. A. Scott, Lord William Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop) Leech, Dr. J. W. Shaw. Major P. S. (Wavertree) Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side) Levy, T. Shepperson, Sir E. W. Dugdale, Major T. L. Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J. Shute, Colonel Sir J. J. Duggan, H. J. Lloyd, G. W. Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U. B'lf'st), Duncan, J. A. L. Lumley, Capt. L. R. Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D. Dunglass, Lord MacAndrew, Lt.-Col. Sir C. G. Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe) Dunne, P. R. R. McCorquodale, M. S. Southby, Comdr. A. R. J. Eastwood, J. F. McKie, J. H- Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L. Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E. Maclay, Hon. J. P. Spens, W. P. Emrys- Evans, P. V. Mag nay, T. Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.) Errington, E. Makins, Brig.-Gen. E. Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.) Erskine Hill, A. G. Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R. Strauss, H. G. (Norwich) Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.) Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M. Strickland, Captain W. F. Everard, W. L. Maxwell, S. A. Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h) Fildes, Sir H. Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J. Sutcliffe, H. Findlay, Sir E. Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth) Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.) Fraser, Capt. Sir 1. Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest) Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford) Fremantle, Sir F. E. Mitcheson, Sir G. G. Thomson, Sir J. D. W. Furness, S. N. Morgan, R. H. Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L. Gibson, C. G. Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. Turton, R. H. Goodman, Col. A. W. Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Unlv's.) Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull) Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral) Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J. Ward, Irene (Wallsend) Gridley, Sir A. B. Munro, P. M. Waterhouse, Captain C. Grimston, R. V. Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H. Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R. Gritten, W. G. Howard Nicolson, Hon. H. G. Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.) Guest. Maj. Hon. O.(C'mb'rw'll. N. W.) Orr-Ewing, I. L. Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin) Gunston, Capt. D. W. Palmer, G. E. H. Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl Guy, J. C. M. Patrick, C. M. Wise, A. R. Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H. Penny, Sir G. Womersley, Sir W. J. Hanbury, Sir C. Percy, Rt. Hon. Lord E. Wragg, H. Hannon, Sir P. J. H. Perkins, W. R. D. Young, A. S. L. (Partick) Harbord, A. Petherick, M. Hellgers, Captain F. F. A. Plugge, L. F. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P. Ponsonby, Col. C. E. Sir James Blindell and Mr. James Stuart.
NOES. Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.) Price, M. P. Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple) Harris, Sir P. A. Pritt, D. N. Adams, D. (Consett) Henderson, A. (Kingswinford) Ritson, J. Adamson, W. M. Henderson, T. (Tradeston) Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.) Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.) Holdsworth, H. Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens) Ammon, C. G. Holland, A. Rowson, G. Anderson, F. (Whitehaven) Jagger, J. Seely, Sir H. M. Benson, G. Jones, A. C. (Shipley) Sexton, T. M. Bromfield, W. Kelly, W. T. Silverman, S. S. Brown, C. (Mansfield) Kirby, B. V. Simpson, F. B. Buchanan, G. Lawson, J. J. Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe) Burke, W. A. Leonard. W. Smith, E. (Stoke) Cluse, W. S. Leslie, J. R. Smith, T. (Normanton) Cocks, F. S. Logan, D. G. Stephen, C. Daggar, G. McGhee, H. G. Stewart, W. J. (H'ghtn-le-Sp'ng) Dalton, H. McGovern, J. Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth) Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill) Maclean, N. Tinker, J. J. Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd) Mander, G. le M. Viant, S. P. Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Marklew, E. Westwood, J. Dunn, E. (Rother Valley) Marshall, F. White, H. Graham Ede, J. C. Maxton, J. Wilkinson, Ellen Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.) Messer, F. Williams, E. J. (Ogmore) Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty) Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.) Williams, T. (Don Valley) Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H. Oliver, G. H. Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe) Foot, D. M. Paling, W. Windsor, W. (Hull, C.) Frankel, D. Parker, H. J. H. Young, Sir R. (Newton) Garro-Jones, G. M. Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. Green, W. H. (Deptford) Potts, J. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Mathers.
Resolved,
"That the Additional Import Duties (No. 36) Order, 1935, dated the tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-fire, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the said tenth day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, be approved."
11.52 p.m.
I beg to move,
"That the Import Duties (General) Order, 1935, dated the twenty-third day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the twenty-second day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, be approved."
This Order and the following one—the Import Duties (Exemptions) (No. 15) Order, 1935—are substantially consolidation Orders. Unless the House sees any reason for taking these two Orders separately, I think they are pre-eminently suitable Orders to be discussed together, but I am entirely in the hands of the House.
It seems to me, if the House is agreeable, that it might be convenient to discuss these two Orders together, but, of course, it would be the right of the House to divide on them separately.
This Order does three things. It consolidates into a single list all the duties that have been made under the 1932 Act, and rearranges them in a new form. There have been some 102 separate Orders, and this makes a convenient index to the whole. It also makes certain minor modifications by removing anomalies, but they are unimportant. It continues in operation the 20 per cent. duty on British iron and steel, under the International Steel Cartel, and in addition it alters the form slightly; but substantially it is consolidation, except for the minor changes in paragraph 7 of the Committee's recommendations.
The Exemptions (No. 15) Order does the same thing. From time to time there have been exemptions made, which have now been consolidated in a single Exemptions Order, and the classes of goods concerned have been arranged in a logical sequence for convenient reference. As a preliminary it was necessary to make certain minor changes, but in substance the two Orders merely place all the Orders made in one form, and all the exemptions made in another form.
11.56 p.m.
I have been asked to make a request to the Parliamentary Secretary with regard to the Exemptions Order. Page 7 of the Second Schedule makes reference to the exclusion from exemption of certain forms of trade catalogues, and it actually charges duty on all imported trade catalogues sent through the post which weigh more than eight ounces. We have been pressed by some of our constituents engaged in the sale of music to make this request. Hon. Members will understand that, if you are to do any wide business in the sale of music, you must be well informed about the supply of Continental music. Yet the people for whom we speak are charged as much as 20 to 30 per cent. in respect of trade catalogues of German, Austrian, Russian and other music which they desire to stock. I have never heard a more ridiculous idea than the charging of a duty of this character, and I want to know whether the Government will undertake to have this matter inquired into for the purpose of review.
11.59 p.m.
In Exemption Order No. 2, 1934, as amended by Exemption Order No. 15, 1934, trade catalogues, trade lists and trade advertising material other than those imported by post in a packet not exceeding eight ounces were removed from the free list. Trade catalogues imported in a package weighing eight ounces and under are duty free. Trade catalogues imported in a package exceeding eight ounces in weight are chargeable at the appropriate rate of duty as articles of paper. The answer to the right hon. Gentleman appears to be that, if anybody wants to import foreign music or other articles, they should have more packages and less in each. The weight of eight ounces is not limited to our own country, but is a standard of weight. Eight ounces and under, duty free; over eight ounces, no longer regarded as catalogues but treated as articles of paper of the class to which it belongs.
Why?
There must be a limit somewhere.
Why?
Because it has been so decided. I think the question whether these catalogue matters are worthy of further inquiry depends entirely upon the volume of opinion that wants such an inquiry. So far as I know, there have been no representations on this subject and no substantial grievances have been brought forward in respect of it. I can only say that quantities under eight ounces are allowed to come into the country duty free and that the appropriate duty must be paid on quantities above that amount. It may well be that eight ounces is an arbitrary limit, but I can give no undertaking on behalf of the Government that the matter will be reviewed. As responsible Minister in charge of the Debate, however, I will offer to look into the matter, to make myself familiar with the circumstances and to communicate further with the right hon. Gentleman. Beyond that I cannot go.
Is it not a fact that if the condition with regard to weight is removed, there is nothing to prevent a manufacturer importing catalogues from abroad duty free? It would, for instance, be possible for an English manufacturer to get 10,000 catalogues from Germany duty free.
One would have thought that the import business was in any case a bit of a racket so far as Germany is concerned. In the question under discussion, however, the interference with trade seems to be without any sense whatever. Let me deal with art catalogues as an example. In Germany, Austria and Italy there is a very flourishing trade which does not exist to any extent in this country, the colour-printing of art catalogues. When printed on art paper, even if only small pictures are given, catalogues have to be printed on very good paper if they are to be in the least effective. If the limit of eight ounces was observed, it would mean that there would have to be a very large number of different catalogues, because it would be impossible to keep a single catalogue under eight ounces. When dealing with glazed paper, as the hon. Gentleman knows, eight ounces is a very small amount.
It is for this reason that I say it is absurd to suggest this limit of eight ounces, with regard to which I presume some clerk in the Board of Trade had a bright idea. The hon. Gentleman does not even know why he suggests that limit. This is a matter that could obviously be put right by the simple exercise of commonsense. The only answer the hon. Gentleman can give is, "My masters will it"—to this level have the National Government brought these Liberals. But could not the hon. Gentleman once in a while plead with his masters to prevent this interference with normal and legitimate matters of trade, with which the other side of the House prides itself on being so much better acquainted than mere Labour people?
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolved,
"That the Import Duties (General) Order, 1935, dated the twenty-third day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the twenty-second day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, be approved."
Resolved,
"That the Import Duties (Exemptions) (No. 15) Order, 1935, dated the twenty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the twenty-second day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, be approved."— [ Dr. Burgin. ]
Orders of the Day
Sugar Industry (Reorganisation) [Money]
Resolution reported,
"That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the establishment of a Sugar Commission; for the amalgamation into a single corporation of companies manufacturing sugar from homegrown beet; for granting financial assistance to that corporation and to the companies aforesaid; and otherwise for the reorganization of the sugar industry, it is expedient to provide—
Resolution agreed to.
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Tuesday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at Six Minutes after Twelve o'Clock.