TOPICS OF THE DAY
THE SHIPBUILDING CRISIS. THE misgivings which we have expressed during the past few months about the management of our merchant shipbuilding have been only too well justified by the statement issued by the Shipbuilding Employers' Federation and the Shipyard Trade Unions and published in the papers of Wed- nesday. It will be remembered that last week Sir Eric Geddes blamed both masters and men for the alarming reduction in the output of shipping. It was a startling thing to ask the country to believe that an industry which, with a resourceful- ness, adaptiveness, and energy that amounted to genius, has blamed both masters and men for the alarming reduction in the output of shipping. It was a startling thing to ask the country to believe that an industry which, with a resourceful- ness, adaptiveness, and energy that amounted to genius, has built up the shipping supremacy of Great Britain, was failing the nation in such a time of trial as this. If detestation, horror, and scorn of German crimes are provoked more intensely in any one British industry than in the others, they are provoked in that peculiar degree among those who have to do with the sailing and building of ships. It is upon those who " go down to the sea in ships ' and upon those who form the maritime population of Great Britain that the felon's blow has fallen most heavily. We suggested last week that if any employers in the shipbuilding industry were not doing their utmost to hasten construction, it was because they had become dis- heartened and alienated by continuous and unwise intervention from above. They found themselves in the position of a man who, though he thoroughly understands his own job, is being continually told what to do by somebody who does not under- stand it at all. All our misgivings are substantiated in the statement published on Wednesday.
According to this statement, the masters and men last November discussed the subject of man-power in the shipyards, and the possibility of closer and better relations between themselves. As a result of this discussion, definite proposals were drafted and a joint deputation was received by Mr.
Lloyd George. Mr. Lloyd George expressed his delight at receiving such a deputation, as he well might. The constitution of it and the concordat which it had drawn up were both happy portents. Mr. Lloyd George joyfully recognized these facts, and predicted that much good would come of the fact that masters and men were ready to work in such a spirit of brother- hood in the best of all causes. The deputation departed, as we may believe, much encouraged. Had not the Prime Minister told them that what had just taken place was a " unique " episode ?
All that, it is to be remembered, happened last November.
Four months later the masters and men inform us that nothing practical has been done to remedy the defects in organization to which they called attention. The War Cabinet Labour Committee, which was created to remove the defects that had been revealed, broke down and was dissolved. Masters and men, however, did not cease from their efforts. On February 12th they wrote to the Minister of National Service and the Minister of Labour restating their opinions as to what ought to be done, and promising their assistance in reforms.
At the time when we write no answer has been received to those letters, and nothing further has been done by the Govern- ment, so far as we know, to act upon the suggestions of those who really do understand the intricacies of the shipbuilding industry.
It may be said that the Government cannot after all have been so misguided as to take the conduct of shipbuilding away from those who understand it and put it in the hands of those who do not. It may be said also that the whole business of shipbuilding is being looked after by a Depart- ment of the Admiralty, and that if the Admiralty does not understand shipbuilding nobody does. But, as a matter of fact, the use of the name of the Admiralty in this business is misleading. The special Department of the Admiralty concerned with building merchantmen has hitherto been presided over by the Deputy Controller for Auxiliary Ship- building, who is a soldier—General Collard. At least General Collard has military rank, though we believe that before the war he was a railway official in Nigeria. Most of his staff were either soldiers or bore military rank ; and at the time when the National Shipyards on the Severn were being laid out we called attention to an account in a Welsh newspaper of the visit of General Collard's staff of soldiers to the Severn to choose sites upon which the nation was to be re- quired to pour out its money. The whole incident would have been most entertaining if it had not inspired so much anxiety. _ - From statements made this week it appears that General Collard is to concern himself in future, not with the whole range of merchantmen construction, but only with the National Shipyards. We ask the Government once more to consider very carefully whether they will be justified in continuing this scheme of National Shipyards. In theory the idea of building standardized ships in these yards is very attractive. Any one can see that it ought to be easier to turn out ships quickly when they are built on one model in a constant succession, instead of being built to satisfy all the whims and fancies that are the notorious passion of shipowners. But the National Yards have themselves to be created before they can turn out ships in any numbers ; all the machinery, the drainage, the power-stations, the residences or hutments for artisans, have to be made, installed, or erected. If we were able to make our calculations over a period of many years, it might be that everything could be said for the scheme of National Yards and nothing against it. But we have to remember that the crisis is not coming two or three years hence ; it is with us now. However good the intentions of the Government may be, and we do not doubt that they are very good indeed, it will be impossible to turn labour on to these National Yards, without either withholding or diverting labour from the existing private yards. Shipbuilders believe that several millions of pounds will be spent in the Severn district on the National Yards, and that no ships will bo delivered during the present year. This seems too bad to be true, yet we have read a statement, which can be contra- dicted if it is wrong, that the Government are paying much more attention to the Beachley Yard than to the Chepstow Yard. Now the Chepstow Yard was taken over by the Government in a state approaching working order, whereas the Beachley Yard has to be created out of the void. Surely this one fact is very significant. The true policy is (1) to employ all private yards fully ; (2) to extend the private yards; and (3) to build State Yards if further extensions of private yards become impossible.
The success of the Allies' cause depends absolutely upon a vast output of merchant shipping. It will not be enough merely to make good the deplorable arrears. All estimates and expectations must be not only realized but surpassed. The monthly output of new tonnage, Sir Eric Geddes said, had fallen from one hundred and forty thousand tons at the end of 1917 to fifty-eight thousand tons in January of this year. We must not expect the United States for the-present to help us much, if at all. All the tonnage she can turn out will be required to transport and supply her armies for a long time to come. American construction has been delayed, moreover, partly by prolonged winter snowstorms, and partly by an unparalleled congestion of the railways. What we do we must do for ourselves.
And how are we to do it ? We think the answer is to be found in the remarkable spirit displayed in the joint statement of the Shipbuilding Employers' Federation and the Shipyard Trade Unions. The Government must set to work on a foundation which the Prime Minister, four months ago, was perfectly right in calling unique. If we were to describe the attitude of employers and men in a sentence, we should say that, though they have been provoked, they remain perfectly patriotic. They are ready to do anything, ready to test their powers to the utmost ; but if we are not mistaken in reading their thoughts, they ask that for once and all there shall be an end of ignorant meddling. The question is whether the knowledge and the enthusiasm which have made the history of British shipping are to be allowed to express themselves freely, or whether they are to be cramped and misdirected.
It is probably much too late now to create a new Ministry, as has been suggested. Aft3r all, there is a Ministry in existence—the Ministry of the Controller of Shipping. When this Ministry came into being it had to do with construction as well as with the control of existing shipping. Would it not be possible for Sir Joseph Maclay, who has rendered excellent service in his main work of con- trolling shipping, to appoint officials for the management of construction who would be really trusted by the shipbuilding industry ? These officials should not be soldiers, nor yet shipowners, but shipbuilders. And if each district were thrown into a competitive relation towards all the other districts, we might expect an output within the next few months that would be as gratifying as the recent failure has been distressing. The principle on which the Government ought to proceed is that of saying to the shipbuilders : " We want you to produce such-and-such an amount. Go ahead for all you are worth and do it in your own way." They ought never to say to such a highly experienced body of men : " We are going to show you how to do your job."
Previous page
