TRAMP SHIPPING

Southland Times, Issue 22497, 6 December 1934, Page 5

TRAMP SHIPPING

PROPOSED SUBSIDY DEBATE IN HOUSE OF COMMONS LABOUR’S OBJECTION (British Official Wireless.) (Rec. 5.5 p.m.) Rugby, December 4. The House of Commons to-day debated the British Shipping Assistance Bill which authorizes the Board of Trade to pay subsidies in respect of tramp voyages in 1935 up to £2,000,000 and to make advances for two years of a sum not exceeding £10,000,000 for scrapping, building or modernizing British cargo vessels. Mr Walter Runciman, President of the Board of Trade, said that Government support was restricted to tramp vessels because of the peculiar position in which they had developed, the benefits they brought to the trade of Britain as a whole and the essential part they played in Britain’s system of national defence. The passenger lines had been able, except in certain cases, to look after themselves, but where a definite attack had been made on the shipping services of some Imperial routes the Government was prepared to consider each case on its merits. Mr Runciman said that one of the Government’s objects was to enable British shipowners to compete on approximately equal terms with foreign tramp shipping, which was receiving subsidy assistance from its governments. The Government made it clear that this kind of assistance could only be given if the British shipping industry itself took steps to reorganize itself within its own limits. Three conditions they regarded of. first importance were: that the advantages given to the industry should not be dissipated; that there should be greater employment of British ships and British seamen at the expense of foreign subsidy ships; and that the shipowners should themselves with their own organizations, particularly in the International Shipping Conference, press for an adjustment of the supply of world tonnage. Regarding the International Shipping Conference, he trusted that by the middle of January a preliminary meeting to arrange the international agenda would be held in London and that a conference of the whole of the shipowners themselves, working on an approved agenda, would be held later, probably in Berlin.

Mr Arthur Greenwood (Labour) said it must be difficult for Mr Runciman to advocate the present subsidy seeing that he belonged to a Government which had a definite policy of scarcity and high prices and. now asked the taxpayers’ aid because the cargoes were not there. Labour’s objection to the subsidy was that it would not bring employment to British seamen. The subsidy of £2,000,000 would go to the shipowners, but it would do nothing to help 40,000 British seamen who. were unemployed because 50,000 foreigners were employed on British ships. The process of replacing British seamen by foreigners had proceeded steadily during the past two or three years, while the conditions of employment aboard ships were a "disgrace to our national life.” Was the Government prepared to make payment of the subsidy conditional on the observance of reasonable standards of wages and conditions with priority of employment to Britishers? Without such a pledge Labour would oppose the resolution. Sir Robert Home defended British shipping as the most efficiently conducted industry in the world. Personally he hated subsidies, but saw no other way to meet foreign subsidies. Mr Runciman’s resolution was carried by 231 votes to 52.