THE PORT OF LONDON. (Hansard, 6 April 1903)

§ THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR,) Leeds, Central
I rise to introduce a Bill "to establish a Commission, for the administration of the Port of London, and for transferring to the Commission the undertakings of certain dock companies, and certain powers and duties of the Conservators of the River Thames and the Waterman's Company, and for other purposes connected therewith." This Bill is the outcome of the valuable comprehensive Report presented by the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the question of the administration of the Port of London. The Commissioners recommended that a new port authority should be created which should take over the powers and duties of the Lower Thames Conservancy, of the Waterman's Company, and of the Trinity House, so far as the duties and powers of the Trinity House relate to the Port of London. They recommended, in addition, that the new authority should purchase the undertakings of the principal dock companies—that is to say, the London and India Dock Company and the Surrey Commercial and Millwall Docks Companies—subject, however, to the obligation to lease or sell the warehouses belonging to those companies as soon as that could conveniently be done. They further recommended that, in order to bring the port up to modern requirements, the new authority should forth-with proceed to carry out extensive 1128 works in connection with the deepening of the river channel and with the improvement of the existing dock accommodation and the provision of further dock accommodation. They estimated the expenditure on the deepening of the river channel at a sum of £2,500,000, and the expenditure upon the docks at a sum of £4,500,000. Finally, they advised that the large financial commitment involved in these proposals should be met partly by empowering the new authority to raise dues upon the goods entering the port as well as upon the ships, partly by a municipal contribution to the expense of deepening the river, and partly by an issue of Port stock in payment of the undertakings of the dock companies, such Port stock to have behind it the guarantee of the London County Council and the Corporation of the City.
In its main outlines the Bill follows the recommendations of the Commission; but there are some not altogether unimportant exceptions which I will proceed briefly to indicate. In the first place, it is not proposed to include the powers and duties of the Trinity House among the powers and duties which are to be transferred to the new authority. It is generally admitted, I believe, that the Trinity House has done its work in connection with the Port of London well; and the Commissioners themselves seem to have recommended the transfer of its functions rather on the ground of abstract symmetry than in order to meet any practical complaint of the manner in which those functions have been discharged. Moreover, it appears to the Government on further inquiry into the subject that this transfer would have the effect of raising difficulties in connection with the lighting of the port and the pilotage quite out of proportion to any advantage likely to ensue from it. We have accordingly decided not to include Trinity House within the scope and operation of this Bill The proposal to purchase the undertakings of the dock companies is undoubtedly a very far-reaching one—it is really the keystone of the scheme which has been put forward by the Royal Commissioners. After most careful consideration, and weighing as well as we were able the arguments for and against, we have 1129 come to the conclusion that the Commissioners were right in the importance which they attributed to this proposal. In one respect, however, we have been unable to agree with the recommendations of the Commissioners as to the purchase of the docks. As I have already stated, the Commissioners advise that the new authority should be placed under an obligation to dispose as soon as possible, or, at all events, within a stated time, of that part of the property of the dock companies which consists of warehouses There appears to me to be a very great consensus of opinion, in which we also share, that that proposal is not a workable one. Accordingly we have decided to leave it open to the new authority either to dispose of the warehouses at present belonging to the dock companies or to retain them as they see fit. As regards the financial arrangements, our proposal differs in two respects from that made by the Royal Commission. The Royal Commission suggested that a municipal guarantee should be given jointly by the London County Council and the Corporation of the City. I under-stand that the Corporation of the City is not in a position to give such a guarantee; and accordingly the Government propose that it shall be given by the County Council alone. The Bill also provides for what appears not to have been contemplated by the Royal Commissioners—namely, that the debenture stock of the dock companies shall be compulsorily redeemable. We naturally take all precautions in the Bill that that shall be carried out without any injustice to the reasonable interests of the holders of debenture stock.
Lastly I come to the question of the constitution of the new port authority. With regard to this important point the scheme of the Bill differs materially from the scheme proposed by the Royal Commissioners. Under the scheme of the Royal Commissioners the port authority was to consist of forty members, fourteen of whom were to be elected and twenty-six nominated. We maintain the total number of forty, but we exactly reverse the proportions of elected and non-elected members—that is to say, we propose that twenty-six shall be elected and fourteen nominated. The constitution of the authority under our proposal will 1130 be as follows:—Appointed by the London County Council, eight; by the City Corporation, two; by the Admiralty, one; by the Board of Trade, one; Trinity House, one; and the Railway Association, one; elected by the payers of dues on ships, ten; by the payers of dues on goods—that is by the mercantile community—ten; by the wharfingers, four; and by the owners of river craft, two. It will be noted that under this scheme, while we very materially increase the number of the representatives of shipowners and the mercantile community, we very materially diminish the numbers of those who are to be appointed by the local authorities. I imagine that this change will be received with general favour, and that the only question that is likely to arise is a doubt as to whether the pecuniary interests of the London County Council, as the guaranteeing body, have been adequately secured under it. I may say that the Royal Commissioners themselves indicated their view that, apart from financial considerations, they would propose a smaller representation for the County Council and the Corporation of the City.

§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTON (Tower Hamlets, Poplar)
They proposed eleven.

§ MR. GERALD BALFOUR
That is so. I may, however, point out that the County Council cannot really be protected from financial incompetence on the part of the new authority unless they actually have a majority of members on the board; and that is, of course, absolutely out of the question. We have therefore to look in another direction for the protection of the interests of the ratepayers, which we fully admit they are entitled to. What we propose is that, if at any time the revenues of the port are insufficient to meet its obligations and the interest upon the Port Stock, and recourse has to be had to the guarantee, the County Council, as the guaranteeing body, shall be then entitled to move the Board of Trade, and the Board of Trade shall have power to make an order upon the dock authority fixing the dues upon goods and ships at such a rate as will make good any deficiency that may have arisen. I have now described, as briefly 1131 as I can, the principal provisions of the Bill; and I trust the House will be content to leave any further explanations or justification of the proposals that may be required to a future date, when hon. Members will have the text of the Bill in their hands. In conclusion I will only say that the problem presented to the Government has been by no means a simple one, and I myself, after devoting a great deal of attention to the subject, doubt whether any solution could be found that would be entirely free from objection. But the need for doing something is urgent; and, on the whole, I believe that the more the question is studied the more it will be recognised that a bold and thorough solution, such as that put forward by the Commissioners and substantially embodied in this Bill, will be the one most likely to lead to useful and fruitful results. I beg to move.

§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTON
said that in the few minutes open to them for discussion he did not propose to discuss the principles or details of the Bill. Before doing that they must have a copy of it in their hands. But speaking for himself, and on behalf, he hoped, of most hon. Members, he welcomed the action of the Government in dealing with this matter, and congratulated them upon the extraordinary promptitude with which they had carried out the recommendations of the Royal Commission, it being the rule for Governments to take a long time to consider such recommendations. In some respects he thought the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman improved upon the proposals of the Royal Commission, but in others it worsened them. He was very glad the right hon. Gentleman was going to base the financial oper- 1132 ations on the credit of the rates, without which, in his opinion, it would have been quite impossible to carry them through, either in regard to the buying up of existing interests, or the raising of the new capital essential for the prosperity of the port. He was glad to think that the County Council, on behalf of the ratepayers of London, were to finance the undertaking. That was an improvement on the proposal of the Royal Commission to set up a sort of dual control. But with regard to the composition of the body which was to undertake the management of the docks, he heard with surprise and disappointment that they were to have only one-fifth of the whole representation on the new authority. The right hon. Gentleman proposed that if the new body got into financial difficulties, the County Council should be able to move the Board of Trade to move the dock trust to put up the rates. That was a most clumsy device. He hoped that in Committee they would insist that the County Council should have a fair representation on the authority, and then he would much rather leave it to those representatives to see that the interests of the ratepayers were preserved than, when the extremity had come, resort to the clumsy expedient of moving the Board of Trade. As to the exclusion of Trinity House from the purview of the Bill, while the House was agreed that the great confusion and chaos of authorities having jurisdiction on the river should be ended, if leaving Trinity House in its present position would not lead to that confusion he had no objection. He regarded this Bill as an earnest on the part of the Government that they wished to deal with this matter in a broad-minded and satisfactory way. There were one or two other points to which, on the Opposition side of the House, there would be considerable resistance, but as this matter was not one of party or politics, he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would leave it to be discussed and decided according to the general feeling of the Committee. He had heard it stated that the right hon. Gentleman proposed to send the Bill to the Grand Committee.

§ MR. GERALD BALFOUR
said his proposal was that it should go to a joint Committee of Lords and Commons, as the Water Bill did last year.

§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTON
And it will then come back to this House and be discussed in Committee?

§ MR. GERALD BALFOUR
As at present advised that is my intention.

§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTON
said this was clearly a matter which the House itself ought to have the opportunity of discussing, seeing that it dealt with a trade which represented £250,000,000 sterling yearly. Again he congratulated the right hon. Gentleman on having introduced the Bill, although of course they must wait till they had it in their hands before they could form an opinion as to whether it was a satisfactory measure.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER
put the Question in pursuance of Standing Order No. 11.