Nothing could be more unfortunate than the prolongation of the shipping control one day longer than is necessary. It is undoubtedly paralysing the industry, and any attempt, such as has been fore-shadowed, to nationalise shipping would be most disastrous. How could a State department administer the shipping industry of this country in competition with foreign private enterprise?
The national control of our shipping and other leading industries may be expedient in the present war crisis, but it has taught us that the nationalisation of any industry penalises it with so many restrictions, and surrounds it with so many unnecessary difficulties that it is foredoomed to failure, and would inflict infinite damage to the prosperity of the country.
Advances of money by the Government at a low rate of interest would no doubt be an encouragement—and those shipowners who can afford to be bold and accept the position will probably be rewarded; but to go on building ships at the very high prices may be beyond the prudent reach of the average private shipowner. This rather points to the creation of large companies.
In shipowning, as in every other department of industrial life, “scale” may be the dominant factor, and the shipowning companies who, during the war, have been able to lay by large reserves, will find themselves in a position of great advantage. In view of the necessity for strengthening the hands of shipowners and enabling them to carry on in the difficult times before them, the Government is making a mistake in not giving more encouragement to shipowners.
Experience teaches us that shipowners may be trusted to quickly adopt every modern means to work their ships economically, and to adapt them to the trades they serve; but do our port authorities equally recognise their duties to provide the most up-to-date methods and machinery for the handling of our cargoes? We may economise in the working of our ships at sea, but if on their arrival in port they have to wait for berths to discharge and load, and if these operations are hampered by the lack of mechanical appliances or labour, the shipowners’ exertions are in vain. Nor does the difficulty end here: docks lose their value and attractiveness if the cost of moving cargoes from the ship’s side to the warehouse, or to the manufacturing districts, forms a heavy addition to the freight. In Liverpool we have, unfortunately, the costly, cumbrous, and old-fashioned system of cartage still prevailing. There is a lack of good road approaches to the docks and railway termini—a wholly inadequate means of conducting the cross-river traffic. Our trade has out-grown our railway communications with the interior, and our railways continue, as they have always done, to strangle our trade by their excessive charges, and thus to deprive our port of the advantage of its unique geographical position. We want cheap and abundant water, and cheap electrical energy to extend our local manufacturing industries. All these things point to a quickening of Dock Board methods, but still more to the awakening of the City Council to its responsible duties as the custodians of a great seaport, and the urgent necessity that they should do their part in its restoration and development, and make it ready to do its share in the revival of trade after the war.
Our City Fathers cannot rest content with carrying out what Disraeli, in one of his ironical moods, called “a policy of sewage.” We want a wider outlook, and a more generous appreciation of the fact that Liverpool depends upon her commerce. Every expenditure which the city has made in the past upon its development has resulted not only in its growth and prosperity, but in the well-being of her people.
The British mercantile marine has for long been the envy of neighbouring nations, who are watching the opportunity to seize the business which our ships have been compelled to abandon. We have lost a large proportion of our tonnage, and what is left is taken out of the control of the shipowner. The situation constitutes a serious national danger, and we may some day awake to the fact that we have lost beyond recovery the industry which is above and beyond all others, the great national asset, and shall rue the day when our Chancellor of the Exchequer became interested in four small vessels and drew conclusions from his experience which are not supported by the wider and more expert knowledge of the shipowner.
Such is the present position of shipping and its future outlook—
A considerable reduction in the available tonnage.
Government control for a lengthened period.