HARBOURS, DOCKS AND PIERS (TEMPORARY INCREASE OF CHARGES) BILL. (Hansard, 10 July 1922)

THE MINISTER OF TRANSPORT (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD)

My Lords, I submit this Bill for Second Reading. It extends, and in certain small degrees it amends, the Act of 1920 which regulated the charges of docks, harbours and piers. The 1920 Act was an enabling Act which gave powers to the Ministry of Transport to vary these charges, and it conferred powers upon these authorities to apply to the Ministry, so that where changes were made in nine cases out of ten they were made at the initiative of the harbour, dock or pier authority. Certain authorities have not found it necessary to invoke these powers. Great companies or authorities like the Manchester Ship Canal, the Mersey authorities, and, I think, also the Clyde authority, have obtained their own Acts, and therefore; are to that extent independent.

This Bill fulfils an undertaking which was given by the Government through the Ministry of Transport that as the great bulk of authorities have refrained from promoting a large number of Bills for themselves, this general authority should be conferred upon the Ministry of Transport. It was because of the power I have mentioned that the authorities have not been before Parliament. As your Lord 316 ships are aware all these authorities are limited by Statute. During the war the limitations were of a character which made it impossible for the authorities to make both ends meet. Under the Defence of the Realm Regulations, therefore, powers were given to authorise a variation of the statutory charges. The Minister of Transport was authorised to fix scales of charges which should operate for a period ending on February 15, 1923. The reason for fixing this date was that on that day the then existing, but temporary, powers of charging of the railway companies also ceased to operate. It was thought desirable that temporary powers for dock charges should terminate at the same moment. Meanwhile, the railway rates have been dealt with by legislation that passed through Parliament last year, but it was not possible to make adequate provision that rates charged by the dock-undertakings, whether owned by railway companies or not, should then be dealt with. Thus, it came about that the harbour and dock undertakings pressed, and justly pressed, that either they must promote their own Bills, or that the general statutory power should be continued in the hands of the Ministry of Transport.

The result of promoting their own Bills would have been in many ways unfortunate. There are many of these authorities scattered all over Britain, and there would have been a perfect avalanche of private Bills. This would have inflicted a very serious burden upon Parliament, which would have had to man a larger number of Committees than ever before. Moreover, decisions would have had to be given by Parliament precisely at a moment when the fixation of permanent future charges would have been most difficult and speculative. It was decided, therefore, that the period of duration of the temporary charges should be extended for another twelve months until February, 1924. This Bill extends it still further It proposes that the extension should now be, not till February, 1924, but till February, 1925. This is done for technical reasons which I think are good. In any case, under the Standing Orders, notices would have been required to be presented to Parliament at a time which would be very inconvenient to many of these companies. Your Lordships will know that many railway companies are owners of dock and harbour undertakings. Amalgamation of the railways is now in active process, 317 and will be accomplished before very long. Four great groups will ultimately form the central railway systems of this country, and between them they own thirty undertakings. By that time these thirty undertakings will be reduced to the ownership and control of four railway companies.

One final consideration actuated the Government in asking the House to extend this until February, 1925—namely, that by that time it is hoped that greater financial stability will have been attained and Parliament will be in a better position to fix the permanent charges. This Bill must pass into law, otherwise, next February, all the dock, pier, and harbour authorities will revert to their private Act rates, which are, in effect, pre-war rates, with very few exceptions. I need hardly assure your Lordships that that would bankrupt certain authorities, and some power must be given them to vary their charges. The safeguards are very strong. Traders are fully protected and the Bill has received considerable support from interests which are not harbour, dock, or pier interests. I commend the Bill with confidence to your Lordships' favourable consideration.