I wish to raise the matter of the Washington Shipping Conference, which was held in June of this year and at which the then Minister of Transport represented this country. I want, first, to quote a few sentences from the official communiqué which were incorporated in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The communiqué said: The representatives agreed that there was a need for further exploration of some aspects of these problems and of new problems which might develop in the field of shipping. They therefore agreed to recommend to their governments that favourable consideration be given to informal arrangements which would facilitate discussion and consideration of those problems. The communiqué also referred to the fact that United States representatives had said that the views on United States shipping policy expressed by the European Governments would be considered in connection with a study of the United States transportation policy, together with such additional material as might be presented by those and other Governments.

Those quotations lead me to the purpose of the debate, which is to ask the Joint Parliamentary Secretary what progress over the past six months he can report. Can he tell us whether the continuing informal machinery has now been established, whether it is functioning, and whether any further representations have been made to the American shipping authorities? Perhaps to that he can add any information about the study of United States transportation policy, to which committee, I understand, fresh representations can be made by the European maritime nations. I do not know whether he could also add some information about probable early developments in 1960 which may come out of this informal machinery which has been set up.

The other aspect on which information would be welcome would be not only on developments among European maritime nations, but developments on the other side of the Atlantic, in particular, on whether the attitude of the American authorities has in any way noticeably changed since the time of the Washington Conference. I am well aware that the Parliamentary Secretary may not be able to give me as much information as I should like or am seeking. There are considerations of discretion and almost of diplomacy involved in a matter such as a joint committee covering all the European maritime nations.

However, if he cannot give us all the information we would like, I hope that he can give us at least some encouragement. I should like encouragement to offset the unfavourable impression which the American comment on the conference made on me. I have brought along a few quotations which I should like to read. I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary has had these brought to his notice. The first is from the Maritime Reporter of New York, which, in an editorial on the Washington Shipping Conference, said: A group of European maritime powers … had the temerity to request a meeting so they could complain about this nation's shipping policies.

The editorial referred to the opening statement to delegates by the American Under-Secretary of State for Economic Affairs and referred to it as "the most constructive maritime document" to come out of the American Department concerned. The editorial also went on to say that that document … sent the European complainers scurrying home believing that they had stepped into a hornet's nest. That may be journalistic comment.

There is other comment from people in the industry. The president of the American Merchant Marine Institute, Mr. Ralph Casey, said that the proposal: to establish a committee for future discussions on shipping problems of an international nature leaves me cold. If I were in their shoes, I would be in no hurry again to interfere with what they must now be convinced is a firmly-established maritime policy in this country.

Dealing with the remarks in the communiqué that a committee or working arrangements would be set up, Mr. Casey said: This seems rather fantastic … imagine an organisation set up for the prime purpose of reviewing U.S. shipping policy located in Paris. How ridiculous can you get? That is good and typical American comment on any issue which affects a vested economic interest in America. Many in this country wish that we, in return, were at times equally downright in our comments.

Now that the informal continuing machinery has been established, can the Parliamentary Secretary tell us what is the scope or terms of reference of this machinery or committee? I notice that in the communiqué specific reference is made to the fact that new problems can be raised as well as existing ones. I wonder what the new problems may be. Must they be new problems of obvious and particular interest to American shipping policy and Laws, or can they go wider than that? For example, in the coming year could this machinery be used for initiating any general discussion on international scrapping policies? Could it be used at all for initiating any conversations preparatory to negotiations about double tax conventions?

I raise that specifically, because if any of the European maritime nations which are members of the committee wish to revise their own tax laws as they affect their own shipping industries, it would probably be the case—it will certainly be the case with this country—that existing double taxation agreements could be denounced by other parties who have exempted shipping under those double taxation agreements. So, for us, the existence of many double taxation agreements is a cause for no thought or no negotiation being given to new or novel tax arrangements for shipping industries. Will the committee, with its representation of Europe and America, be suitable machinery for commencing consideration of such matters?

I wish to refer to the general argument being put, I hope, to American shipping authorities as distinct from my request for more information about what has happened and what will happen. One paragraph of the communiqué says: The representatives reaffirmed that the general objective of their governments is to promote so far as is practicable freedom of opportunity for ships of all nations to compete in world trade and thus provide the most efficient service in the interest of the general economy of the free world". That is a wonderful test which I should like to think the representatives of the Western European maritime nations are quoting every other day to their opposite numbers in America. Our argument is becoming stronger and stronger, and the American argument is becoming weaker and weaker.

We have seen in the past few months a noticeable change in the American attitude towards free trade and discrimination and currency arrangements in Europe. We have seen a growing pressure from America for an end to discrimination as it affects American products and interests; an increasing request for more free trade, the easing of currency arrangements, and more help from European countries towards foreign aid costs. If that is so, it seems to me that this shipping policy and machinery is an excellent means of putting the intentions of all parties to the test, because we should not go further in making concessions on quotas, discrimination, free trade and currency arrangements if such outstanding and extreme examples of discrimination as the present American shipping laws continue.

It is said that the American shipping laws have to be retained for defence considerations—that the Americans wish to maintain a sufficient merchant fleet in case of war—but is that really the case? The figures now available in the P.E.P. shipping report and those available to the Ministry show that America has an active fleet of 9 million tons, while there is a fleet of about 7 million tons owned and controlled under flags of convenience by American interests.

Those fleets are pledged to America, as it were, in case of war. Therefore, we have an active controlled American fleet of at least 16 million tons even before we consider those ships not under flags of convenience; ships, for example, under British registration and owned by American oil companies. That being so, I do not think that it can be argued that the existing American shipping laws are required to maintain an adequate fleet under American control, because they are not even being used to the fullest extent at present by American shipping operators.

The other aspect of this is that Europe is being asked to contribute more to the foreign aid costs that America is bearing. That seems to be a contradiction of the spirit of the foreign aid programmes, because the American shipping policy is seriously weakening the economies of the very countries that the Americans are now asking to share some of the burden.

I would like to ask whether, in the representations that we are making to America and that we have made in the past, particular stress has been laid on the American policy of reserving all direct trade between American ports, and between American ports and those in American foreign possessions, to American ships only.

That practice is an extreme example of discrimination. British and European ships are debarred from the American carrying trade, whereas no such discrimination exists against American ships in British and European coastal waters. We should certainly ask for a major revision of that policy if the Americans are to ask of us that discrimination and quotas be quickly ended in Europe.

America is now the major shipping Power in the world. Unfortunately, America is also the major shipping Power that is practising an extreme discriminatory and protectionist shipping policy. That is a major contradiction in American economic and foreign policy. I hope that it has been said, and will be said very often, by our representatives on the committee—and in a downright way.