WORLD’S CARGOES

Evening Star, Issue 22463, 7 October 1936, Page 13

WORLD’S CARGOES

FIGHTING FOR A SHARE PLIGHT OF BRITISH SHIPS FOREIGH PRESSURE When outlining the importance to Imperial defence of our mercantile marine recently I pointed out that it was just as essential to feed the garrison. as to man the ramparts, writes Lord Lloyd, in the ‘ Daily Telegraph.’ This is the primary duty of the merchant fleets. This is why their efficiency and sufficiency is, as I believe, one of th* most urgent problems now confronting us. While other nations have in the last 20 years enormously increased their resources of-merchant tonnage, we alone, with the exception of Germany, have to record a decline. British ships now carry far Jess of the world’s sea-borne trade than in the years before the war. Yet this country, more than any other, is dependent for her very life upon the safe arrival of her supplies from overseas, and British ehm owners, officers, and seamen are still the finest in the world. Nevertheless, since 1914 British tonnage has declined, on the Government’s own showing, from 18,000,000 to 17,000,000 gross tons. In the last five years there has been a reduction in United Kingdom shipping of no less than three million tons. DECREASE IN TRADE. Lord Zetland, speaking for the Government on this question in the debate in the House of Lords on July 30, said that the governing factor in the situation was the decrease in world trade. But though this is true and would explain a» general reduction of world tonnage proportionate to the reduction of world trade, it does not explain why the proportion of that trade carried in British ships has fallen betwneen 1913 and the present time from 44 per cent, to 28 per cent. There is an explanation. It is that whereas other maritime nations quite frankly look upon their merchant shipping as a second line of defence, and take steps to maintain it as such, we alone—to whom more than any other our merchant navy is our life—have loft our ship owners to bear the burden of decreased trade, foreign subsidies, and discrimination almost entirely unaided by governmental support. This alone can explain why, while British tonnage has decreased between 1914 and 1936 by 9 per cent. Japanese

tonnage on the same basis has increased by 146 per cent., American by 365 per cent., and other Powers by percentages varying from 29 per cent, in the case of Spam to 109 per cent, in the case of Greece. How, then, has this deplorable change come about? DAYS OF WORLD WAR. The story goes back to the days_ of the Great War, which taught foreign nations the enormous political and economical importance of a national cargocarrying trade. Since those days other nations have built up merchant services which free them from dependence on British bottoms, and have filched from this country the trade of carriers in which it was once predominant. By what means has this revolution been accomplished ? How has this uneconomic competition for the freightage of the world’s goods been maintained, and in recent years intensified? British ships, as recent instances have made quite clear oven to the casual student of affairs, have been driven from the trade routes of the world because the merchant fleets of other nations, heavily subsidised by their Governjnents and protected by varying forms of discrimination, have been enabled to carry merchandise at rates in themselves totally unremunerative. And even when these instances have been brought to the notice of the British Government by myself and others no adequate steps have been taken to equalise conditions of trade. Take, for instance, the case of the two British lines trading between Australia and New Zealand and the western seaboard of the United States and Canada. These two lines must shortly cease to operate altogether, thus for the first time sundering our “ all red ” route and leaving the regular fast transpacific trade entirely in the hands of foreign competitors. CAN NO LONGER COMPETE. The reasons are simple. Private shipowners can no longer compete from their own resources against the full strength of the American Government, which has subsidised the building of new and fast cargo liners, granted running subsidies under the guise of mail contracts, and reserved to its own ships exclusively the trade between the United States and Hawaii, while unfettered competition continues in the purely British trade between Australia and New Zealand; As long ago as 1932 the attention of the Imperial Conference at Ottawa was drawn to these facts, and their inevitable \outcome, yet it was not until a few weeks ago, after 1 had raised the matter in the House of Lords, that any definite action was taken. And then that action was limited to the reference of the whole question to the Imperial Shipping Committee. Take again the question of BritishRussian trade to tho Baltic and Black Seas. Russia has used her monopoly of foreign trading to eliminate altogether British liner services which used to do nearly all that trade, and has flouted minimum freight arrangements, with tho result that during the first half of 1936 British shipping was practically excluded from the carriage of Russian timber from tho Baltic to this country. For example, of 18 ships discharging timber in the United Kingdom in June this year not one was British. ■^ s a result of representations made by tho British Chamber of Shipping through the Board of Trade, Russia has offered to charter a quantity of British tonnage during tho remainder of the present timber season. But this is not enough. Tho Chamber of Shipping has no doubt secured the best terms it can, but it is clearly not right that the business of haggling with a powerful foreign Government should bo left to that industry which is tho victim of this foreign Government's policy of economic nationalism. DRIVING THEM OUT.

’i hus is will ho soon that in one case Americn subsidies and in another Russian restrictions are driving British

ships from trade routes developed apd for long maintained by British enterprise, while the British Government remains little more than a luko-warm spectator. Such instances could be paralleled in every sea of the world. The Japanese, for instance, aro not only increasing their competition and their power to compete by enormous subsidies, but are preparing to build a great addition to the number of their cargo boats. In addition, currency depreciation and low wages operate_ to the advantage of Japanese shipping. But the principal factor is tho active interest of tho Japaneso_ Government in the development of its merchant marine. That is, indeed, the factor in all comparisons with foreign Governments. They have foreseen the economic and strategical value of their mercantile marine. They have based their policy on their own needs, and, because successive Governments in this country have remained inert, they have in so doing struck British shipping an almost mortal blow. Quite recently the French Government has passed a further ordinance reserving yet more of her important trade to her own shipping, to the detriment of British tramps. There are specific instances which might be multiplied again and again. For example, of the ships discharging Swedish and Norwegian timber in the United Kingdom on June 23, 14 were Swedish, eight were Norwegian, and only two were British. Yet the timber was purchased and the freights paid by British merchants. Here again national interests are operating to the disadvantage of British shipping. THE TWO PROVISIONS.

In face of this deadly menace to our Imperial security, the Government has produced two measures for _ which they take great credit—a subsidy of £2,000,000 fop tramp steamers, and the famous “ scrap and_ build ” policy. Mountains have been in labour, and on this occasion have again produced but mice. The subsidy is in maiy cases insufficient even to pay depreciation. Tho “ scrap and build ” policy is unpopular with shipowners and of questionable value.

The extent of the handicap imposed on British shipowners and the triviality of tho assistance so far given by the Government were illustrated by Lord Zetland in tho House of Lords when he said, “ If this country were to think of granting subsidies to its shipping on anything like the sort of level that those subsidies are granted to their shipping by the chief other countries, the annual cost to the taxpayer in this country wpuld be something like £21,000,000.” Even this would be a small price to pay for security, apart altogether from the increased employment and services which we should gain. But British shipping does not ask primarily for subsidies. It asks only that where, by subsidies or other Government aids, foreign countries are making it impossible for British shipping to survive, our Government should take whatever is considered in each case to be the appropriate action to preserve equality of opportunity and treatment of British nationals. This surely is little enough to askfair play for an industry which in times of peace is one of our greatest commercial assets, and in time of war the very essence of our defence forces. There is no time to be lost by committees, conferences, and evasions. From tho industrial point of view tho Government’s inaction in this sea affair is unfortunate. From the point of view of the safety of the Empire it may well be disastrous.