§ [Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. WHITLEY) in the Chair.]
§ Order for Second Reading read.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
§ Mr. HOLTI beg to move, as an Amendment, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words, "this House declines to proceed with any measure for reconstituting the Greenock Harbour Trust until an inquiry has been held as to the desirability of placing the harbours and the conservancy of the Clyde under a single control."
I feel that an English Member owes something like an apology to the House for venturing to speak upon a Scottish subject on a Scottish night, but I have some excuse for taking part in this matter, in that in my ordinary private business I happen to be one of the largest traders to Glasgow and an old customer of the shipbuilding yards at Greenock. I approach 1319 this subject, I hope, as a friend to all parties, and also with a certain freedom and detachment from local bias, not always possible among the persons who actually live in the place. The Bill now before the House, which runs to something over 200 Clauses, is not so formidable as it looks. It is brought in to meet the unfortunate position in which the Harbour Trust of Greenock finds itself through being more or less financially under a cloud. In fact, for some years past it has been under what the lawyers call an official receiver. The object of the Bill, by postponing to a very late date the position of some junior securities of the Trust, is to enable a sum of £100,000 to be raised on the guarantee of the corporation for the purpose of developing the harbours. I have not the slightest doubt that the works proposed to be authorised by the Bill are most desirable, and that in the unfortunate situation in which Greenock is found this is probably the only way at the moment of getting the money they require. Attention requires to be drawn to the curious position in which the Trust will be if this Bill passes, because the corporation, having provided the money absolutely necessary for any further improvements, will almost logically be bound to provide any money required for still further extensions in the future. Everybody who knows anything about harbours will realise that these further extensions must come sooner or later. That being so, I think it is not unsuitable to take the opportunity, which my Amendment affords, of considering whether the unfortunate position in which this great harbour finds itself cannot best be alleviated by looking at the problem of the government of the River Clyde as a whole. When I speak of the River Clyde, I mean the navigable waters of the Clyde and its tributaries above the Cloch Lighthouse. The River Clyde is of the utmost importance to the whole prosperity of southern Scotland. There is nothing which is more vital to the importance of Scotland as a whole. It is not a local question; it is a question of the material interests of the whole of industrial Scotland.
No one who has had occasion to go down the Clyde, as I did a few weeks ago in a large steamer, and no one who has had any experience of business in trading or shipbuilding, could fail to realise the very congested state of the river or the very 1320 great difficulties which have got to be grappled with, or the extreme skill and courage shown by the persons responsible for the river in grappling with those difficulties; but it is my firm conviction that it is impossible to get the best value out of that great river for the trade of Scotland unless the government of the river is treated as a whole, unless there is one controlling authority which is empowered to direct that those works and that sort of trade which can be more advantageously carried on in the lower reaches of the river should go there, and that those which can be most advantageously carried on in the upper reaches of the river should go there, and unless the river is treated as a whole, and is not disfigured and spoilt by competition amongst the various districts upon its banks. I may point out, in this connection, that the river necessarily has to be dredged. Dredging is always going on, probably always will be going on, and is now in process if the "Aquitania" is to reach the sea. From my own experience as a shipowner with ships trading from Glasgow to Australia, we find it regularly necessary to go to Liverpool to get bunker coal, because it is impossible to come down the Clyde with all on board. That illustrates the importance of doing the best that can be done for the development of the river. Perhaps I may explain here that, as the House probably knows, Lord Inverclyde has taken a very great interest in the subject and raised the matter upon a discussion of this Bill in another place. I have, of course, had communications with him, but I think I may fairly say that I had formed the opinion that a unified control ought to be established some time before I knew the part that Lord Inver clyde had taken and the views he held, so that his opinion and my opinion are two totally independent opinions
I find that there are on the river no less than seven authorities controlling the government of the Clyde. The dredging I spoke of just now, which is so absolutely necessary, is controlled by two different authorities. One portion of the river, the major portion, is under the Trustees of the Clyde Navigation, and the lower portion is under the Clyde Lighthouse Trustees. The dredging work which either undertakes is absolutely thrown away unless the other authority takes precisely similar steps. That seems to any ordinary business man a most unsatisfactory state of affairs. It must lead to a great deal of duplication of the expenses of the different 1321 authorities, and in the case of any disagreement—which fortunately has not occurred, at any rate recently—there would be a very serious loss o to the development of the river. In any case such a dual authority must always cause a certain amount of unavoidable delay. I am not going to recapitulate the names of the seven authorities. I understand that many of them are by no means as financially strong as harbour authorities ought to be, and I am not sure that the position of Greenock is not shared more or less by several of the rest of them. I am not asking the House in my Amendment to declare that there ought to be a unified control of the Clyde. That is a step going much further than an ordinary Member can ask the House to take. I am asking the House to say that there should be a full public inquiry—I hope by a Royal Commission—into the government of the Clyde, so that a concerted and well-conceived plan may be put forward to the greatest possible advantage of the river. The opinion that something should be done is not held by a few eccentric people alone. It is quite largely held in Glasgow. I should like to read to the House some extracts from letters written to Lord Inverclyde, first of all, by the Secretary of the Chamber of Commerce and Manufactures. He says:—
The directors expressed themselves as favourable to the principle of unity and co-operation of the navigation and harbour authorities on the Clyde, so that the Clyde estuary may be placed under one administration, if the authorities could come to an agreement on suitable and reasonable terms.I should like also to turn to a letter written by the chairman of the Clyde Navigation Trustees, in which he says:—I have to inform you that, after full discussion and careful consideration, the trustees, while generally favourable to one control of the whore river have resolved that under existing conditions the time is not opportune for entering into negotiations, especially having regard to the present position of the authorities promoting rival Bills in respect of that harbour.Therefore, my view as to what ought to be done is clearly shared by the most influential opinion in Glasgow. I understand, from the answer given me at Question Time the other day by the Secretary to the Board of Trade, that the Board of Trade themselves are somewhat inclined to share the same opinion. I ask now that the Board of Trade shall give the House, at any rate, a definite assurance that such an inquiry as I have indicated will be held. I think it would be better if the inquiry were held before anything was done to change the position of Greenock, but there may be a difference of opinion on 1322 that point, and if it is clearly understood that the action now proposed to be taken in the Greenock Bill is not in any way to be held to prejudice what may afterwards be thought desirable in the way of putting the river under unified control, I should not necessarily persist in my Amendment.
§ Sir ARCHIBALD WILLIAMSONI beg to second the Amendment.
The question of the administration of the Clyde to the best advantage does not concern only Glasgow, or Greenock, or Port Glasgow, or Dumbarton. It is a much larger question, which concerns the whole of Scotland, and really the whole of British Trade. I, therefore, rise as a Scottish Member interested in the affairs of Scotland, and also as a British merchant who trades both to and from the Clyde. I have also had an opportunity of learning something of what occurred when there are various authorities in control of a great port or estuary, because I sat on the Joint Committee of Lords and Commons to inquire into the Port of London Bill, and there were many opportunities of seeing what happened when various authorities had control of one estuary. The River Clyde is, or should be, considered not as a number of little or more or less great ports, but as o one great port and one great harbour, and if that view were taken, there would be an opportunity of avoiding overlapping, and of arriving at the best possible method of developing the Clyde in the interests of British trade. The authorities in Glasgow are not really adverse to the object which we have in view. Their difficulties more or less consist of local difficulties, financial and otherwise, and perhaps there may also be local jealousies. It will be necessary for someone apparently to take them by the hand if unanimity is to be arrived at. Speaking for the Government on a recent debate, Lord Crewe stated that the Board of Trade were fully cognisant of the difficulties in the matter of Clyde legislation and would be far from sorry if such an inquiry as this Amendment points to, could be granted. After that it requires very little justification for this Amendment. It has been pointed in the correspondence between Lord Inverclyde and various authorities that the present affords a good opportunity for considering this whole matter, and it is only because of what might be called local difficulties that we, representing a great nation, are defrauded of what is our right, and that 1323 is the proper administration of the Clyde. No doubt each authority has done its best —no one wishes to say otherwise—but there is an opportunity now afforded for bringing these authorities together, and for having a great harbour authority on the Clyde, as we have now a great harbour authority on the Thames and also one great harbour controlling the docks on both sides of the Mersey. That opportunity occurs now, and I have great pleasure in seconding the Amendment.
§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. J. M. Robertson)Speaking for the Board of Trade, I can assure my hon. Friends that we are quite in sympathy with their desire for an inquiry into the question of the unification of the authorities of the Clyde, and that we have already taken steps in the direction they wish. All the analogies point towards the course that they recommend. There is the case of the Mersey, constituted in one authority as long ago as 1857, and there is the more recent case of the Humber Conservancy, in 1907, to say nothing of the Port of London Bill. They are quite right in saying that there is a general trend of public opinion in Scotland and elsewhere —they truly say the matter is one of national importance—in the direction of the unification that they propose, and I can assure them that the preliminary inquiries are being actively made with a view to securing such an inquiry. Of course, the Board of Trade has to put itself in communication with the Scottish Office. The Scottish Office is not at all unfavourable, and what has to take place new is a preliminary inquiry with a view to eliciting whether there is anything like general agreement on the part of the authorities concerned, and whether those concerned would prefer an inquiry under the Board of Trade or under the Scottish Office. The Scottish Office has no prejudice in the matter, and if, as we are led to understand, the general feeling turns out to be in favour of a Board of Trade inquiry, that inquiry will be duly undertaken, and I see no reason to doubt that the end in view may be successfully obtained.
But if we were to declare now that we will hold an inquiry before we have ascertained that there is general agreement on the part of the Clyde authorities, we might frustrate the end in view. It is only fitting that those authorities should 1324 be consulted. Their willingness should be ascertained. That is the natural and, I think, the judicious course to take, and I appeal to my hon. Friend, in view of this readiness on the Hart both of the Board of Trade and the Scottish Office, to accept the assurance that the preliminary investigations leading up to an inquiry are actually being conducted, and that we are entirely in favour of holding such an inquiry in due course. I think my hon. Friend may accept that assurance, and not hold up the Bill until the inquiry is carried out. It will need to be a long and elaborate inquiry. The needs of Greenock are, I think, pronounced. There is a very general agreement as to the need for this measure. I am sure local opinion will be very strong on that point, and I do not think there is any argument in favour of delaying this Bill until the inquiry has been held. The Greenock authority, which has been practically moribund, is now, as it were, reconstituting itself in an active way, and when we do come to make the inquiry, it will be better to deal with a living and vigorous authority than one in a state of inertia, such as has characterised the position of the Greenock authority for some time. The works called for by the Bill are necessary works. The promoters of the Bill will in no way constitute an obstacle to the inquiry which my hon. Friends desire. I trust that in view of the general sympathy with that point of view, and also of the fact that, so far as my information goes, the feeling on the Clyde is substantially in favour of the inquiry which is wished, if we can ascertain that that is so, the inquiry, as a matter of course, will take place, and I see no reason to doubt that their aim will be attained. Having given that assurance in the only form in which I can give it, I would say to my hon. Friends that they should allow the measure to pass its present stage.
§ Mr. GODFREY COLLINSThe hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Holt) was careful to point out that he did not commit himself to one authority being set up for the control of affairs on the Clyde. It might well be, after the inquiry took place, that it might be held one control was not in the best interests of the Clyde. If his Amendment was carried to-night, and the inquiry was held, the Port of Greenock in a few years time might be in the same position as it is in to-day. There is nothing, as I understand, in the Bill which will hinder or delay the consideration of the general question of a conservancy for the 1325 Clyde. I have spoken to certain Members of the Greenock Trustees and I am authorised to say that they are not averse to the question of one control on the Clyde being considered. The question of the Port of London was considered in 1904 when the Bill was introduced in this House, but it was not until 1908 that the Bill ultimately reached the Statute Book. In other words, five years elapsed from the first introducetion of the Bill until the new authority was set up. In view of these facts, and in view also of the favourable reply given by the Government, and that public opinion in the West of Scotland is slowly being formed on the matter, I would appeal to my hon. Friend to withdraw his Amendment.
§ Mr. HOLTAfter the very satisfactory assurance given by my hon. Friend, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Question put, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThe hon. Member can speak against the Second Reading, but he cannot move that the Bill be not read a second time.
§ Mr. HOGGEThen I wish to oppose the Second Reading, and I do so as a protest against this Bill being brought foward at all on one of the days on which Scottish Members were to be allowed to debate Scottish affairs.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERI could not allow that. It is not relevant to the Motion in any way. The Bill is taken by Order.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERI could not accept that Motion. The hon. Member would get more speedily back to the discussion of the Scottish Estimates by remaining in his seat. I put the question, "That the Bill be now read a second time." Having collected the voices I think the Ayes have it.
§ A Division was called, and Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER announced the names of Mr. Godfrey Collins and Colonel Greig as tellers for the Ayes, and added, "There being no tellers for the NOes, the Ayes have it."
§ Bill read a second time, and committed.