SUBSIDISED SHIPPING

Press, Volume LXXII, Issue 21906, 6 October 1936, Page 10

SUBSIDISED SHIPPING

WITH BRITISH LINES

PROTECTIVE POLICY ADVOCATED

DECISION OP COMMERCE CONGRESS

ITHE PRESS Special Service.]

WELLINGTON, October 5,

The principle of protecting British shipping against subsidised foreign competition was affirmed by the fourteenth congress of the federation of Chambers of Commerce of the British Empire to-day. There was only one dissentient to the motion, and speaker after speaker spoke of the vital need of maintaining British-owned services between parts of the Empire.

The following resolution, moved by Mr Spencer Watts (Sydney), was carried:—

“This congress views with grave concern the serious losses being sustained by British shipping, owing to foreign subsidised competition; and while reaffirming its adherence to the principle of free, unrestricted 'and unsubsidised ocean transport services, recommends to the Governments of the United Kingdom and the British Dominions that trade facilities to foreign shipping trading between Empire ports, should be granted only to the shipping of those countries which give similar facilities to Empire shipping; and that they should, whether by subsidy or

otherwise, afford such assistance as will enable the British mercantile e marine to remain, as in the past, ■one of the greatest bulwarks of the Empire, whether in peace or war.”

Mr Watts said the sponsors of the resolution wc:e only asking for an appropriate variation of the Golden Rule—“Do unto others what they are doing to us.” (Laughter.) Time -was the essence of the contract, and once tiie resolution was passed the conference should place the whole of its great influence behind its request for immediate action. American Ships in Pacific Mr A. M. Seaman (Auckland) seconded the resolution. He said the only service of real value to the community was one which could maintain itself without artilic-al props; but at the .same time they had to recognise that it was necessary to adopt a means with which they did not agree. In adopting a policy of restriction the Governments of the Empire must proceed with considerable delicacy, as a large portion of the revenue earned by British ships came from foreign services. The subsidised competition of the Matson Line was an illustration of the problem that was facing British shipping, and he used this example without any antagonism to Americahe was convinced that Britain and America had common responsibilities and a common trusteeship in the Pacific. American lines in the Pacific werb nnhmtaimng faster . pnd • more luxurious vessels than the trade warranted, and not only was the British service to San Francisco closing down, but also ;’the.' All: Red Route was threatened! The American Government was subsidising both the construction and the running of the Matson liners in the Pacific, and .on top of that it had ruled that British ships could not trade between Hawaii and American ports. British shipping could not, live against such competition, and it was unfortunate that British people were more concerned with their own comfort than with the future of their shipping. The security of the Empire was involved, and immediate and definite action Mfas necessary. Mr T. B. Hooper (Brisbane) said British people Should not allow other countries to gain control by aid of subsidies, even if it was necessary for Empire Governments to grant subsidies to meet the competition. Mr J. T. Martin (Wellington) said New Zealand had a shipping company that had operated for more than 60 years, and New Zealanders should protect their own shipping by asking for assistance similar to that given to American shipping. United Action’Urged Sir Thomas Wilford (chairman of the council) supported, the resolution, and said that the first fact they had to agree Upon was that the whole Empire must act in concert Great Britain had owned 29.23 per cent, of the world's shipping in 1914, and in 1935 owned only 26.83 per cent. Great Britain was faced with a problem both in the Pacific and in regard to India. She could* If she would, use her purchasing power to secure equal treatment in ocean trade. All the delegates would admit that an adequate mercantile marine must be maintained, for all merchant ships of fast speed in time of war were auxiliary cruisers. War might come at any time, and the American ships might be withdrawn from the Pacific, with disastrous results. America was establishing in the Pacific a national steam ship service which. If something was not done, would compel British shipping to abandon the Pacific trade. “I believe that the maintenance of the Pacific routes is a material as well as a national necessity,” he said. “I do not believe in subsidies or state-owned ships. Subsidies always seem to me like a whiff of oxygen given to a dying man; but needs must when the devil drives. Subsidies must be paid in the meantime, because it takes time to build ships.” Sir Tho&as Wilford suggested that the representatives of New Zealand, Australia, and Canada, who would all he in London in May, should make direct representations to the British Government, for the organisation of a .partnership in Pacific trade, to build ships and maintain services with money by way of loans guaranteed by all four countries. Ships could be built by the. four Governments, and in the meantime, they could co-operate to keep the British flag flying in the Pacific, because its withdrawal for even a day would be a blow at British prestige. When the new • ships were re&dy, il the scheme were adopted, he suggested that the route to (Vancouver should be via Sah Francisco. British Actions Criticised .Mir J. E. Emlyn-Jones (Cardiff and Newport) said the British Government, under the Trade Facilities Act, had been subsidising the building of ships for years. The British policy had not , been as pure Ss Md been made out. The: policy of granting cheap money for snip construction had brought about 1 the collapse of the Royal Mail line. ' The. only way to maintain British ! shipping Was tiuprovide better services ; than were- being offered by fore;-;n i companies. A solution"-of the Pacific 1 problem Was -thh utilisation of British 1 ships' by- .British people If the ‘ principle of' subsidising was adopted for. shipping there was , . fa great danger of its’ Spreading 4q omer spheres of activity. In Chr- . diff, which was the centre of the coal (export-trade* they never saw an American .flag, and they were successfully . carryiag cqpl to France in competition with SfißSmised .French ships. The same - thing applied to the Mediter- - Xfineanjapa Other parts of the world,. ’ ' IWhere.TJritish shipping was more than

holding its own. What they should concentrate on was an expansion of trade between the different parts of the Empire. Mr C. Granville Gibson (Leeds) said that he could not agree with the defeatist attitude of the previous speaker. The resolution reaffirmed the principle of unrestricted unsubsidised shipping; but at the same time they realised that unless subsidised competition was adequately controlled, British shipping would disappear from the Pacific. It was necessary that subsidy should be met by subsidy. It was only fair and reasonable that New Zealand and Australian ports should be as coastal ports between which American ships could not trade, so long as they adopted a similar attitude towards British vessels.

Mr C. A. L. Treadwell (representing Hong Kong) supported the resolution. The Cardiff delegate, he said, had given a false emphasis to the position. They had to face a new order of things, and meet subsidy by subsidy. Subsidy Given to Tramp Shipping Mr A. Wigglesworth (London) said the subsidy which the British Government had given to tramp shipping had revitalised those services. The . foreign services had not retaliated, but had come into line. However, before any subsidies were granted, a world conference of shipping interests should be called in London to define the subsidies. Britain should tell foreign countries that she intended to grant subsidies, and then ask them to agree to some mutual understanding as to the limitation of subsidies and restrictions.

Mr Emlyn-Jones was the only opponent of the resolution. Sir Thomas Wilford moved:

“That this congress views with grave anxiety the possibility of the withdrawal, owing to serious subsidised competition, of the British liners plying between Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, and urges all the governments concerned to take early action in the interests of British trade in the Pacific to preserve this link in the All Red shipping route.”

Sir Thomas said that he wanted to make it clear that he was not in favour of state-owned fleets. The governments should provide money to enable the shipping companies to build modern mercantile fleets. Mr A. G. Lunn (Auckland) seconded the resolution. Sir Montague Burton (London) suggested that a conference should be held on the subject. Mr T. F. Matthews (Toronto) said that, while he agreed that a conference with America might be helpful, he considered the ships should be built first. A considerable trade had been built up between New Zealand,’ Australia, and Canada; and he wanted to see the shipping services maintained.

New Zealand's Overseas Trade Mr M. G. McCaul (New Zealand Associated Chambers) said New Zealand’s overseas trade was her lifeblood, and would have to be maintained at all costs.

Mr W. B. Darker (Adelaide) suggested that the congress, while realising the importance of the resolution, might be unwise to go on with it, as it applied to a sectional interest. Lord Elibank said the ships qdhcerned were part 6£ the “All Red” route of British shipping round the world, and if one part was sacrificed it would affect the Whole.

Mr Emlyn-JohCs moved that the whole question of British shipping in the Pacific should be deferred pending a conference between Great .Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and America, with a view to arriving at ah understanding as to the participation of British and American shipping in the Pacific. . This was seconded by Mr F. W. Cook (Dudley), but was defeated, and Sir Thomas Wilford’s resolution was carried.