§ Mr. LOUGHERI beg to move,
That it he an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to leave out Clause 3.I wish to express my regret that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) is not present to take part in this Debate. There is a growing tendency on the part of dock authorities to include Clauses in their Private Bills which give them statutory powers in excess of the common law. It is probably in the public interest that this should be so, more especially as far as the users of the ports are concerned. The shipowners or shipmasters when they go to particular ports do not know what the laws are which govern those ports. It is true to say that there are several port authorities already possessing these powers, but there are many others that have no powers of this kind, and the difficulty arises that the shipmasters do not really know how they stand with regard to the laws affecting these different ports. The primary object of this Bill, as set out by the promoters, is to be able to recover costs against an owner in a case where a wreck has occurred in excess of the present statutory limits. The present limits are that the Port Authority can only recover to the value of the wreck, and if the wreck is caused by the negligence of the master or the officers of the ship, they can recover against the owner to the statutory limit of £8 per ton. The promoters of this Bill contend that the owners should be liable for any expense in connection with the wreck in excess of the statutory limit which now exists. Of course, this cuts directly across a very important principle which has engaged the attention of those concerned for the last 20 years, and it has led to the establishment of an international arrangement or agreement with 2147 regard to the unification of these laws, and also for the limitation of the shipowners' liability. In 1923 an agreement was arrived at in connection with the Brussels Convention, and amongst the signatories to the Convention itself is that of Great Britain. This Convention will unify the maritime laws in all countries and will place British shipping for the first time on a similar footing to foreign shipping. This Clause, which has been introduced by the Medway Conservancy, cuts across that arrangement, and holds this country up to ridicule in foreign countries, because we have been advocating a unification of maritime laws. Whilst we have no objection to the Medway Conservancy or the Bristol Port Authority protecting themselves against the risks incurred by wreckage which they have to raise and remove, because that is quite reasonable, the question is whether they should provide for these risks themselves or whether they should pass them on, as they desire now, to the shipowner. I suggest that they should insure against these risks themselves.
§ Mr. MACKINDERWho should insure?
§ Mr. LOUGHERThe Harbour Authority.
§ Mr. MACKINDERNot the shipowners?
§ Mr. LOUGHERNo; the Harbour Authority can measure the risk by the number of ships entering the harbour, but to pass that same risk on to the shipowner would mean that all shipping would have to insure themselves against the risks without knowing the dangers of the harbour.
§ Mr. MACKINDERDo the shipowners propose to recompense the authorities?
§ Mr. LOUGHERI am trying to explain that the port authorities can cover the risk because they can measure the amount of the liability, and they know, approximately, how many vessels are coming into their harbour and they can insure against the risk. If you ask the shipowner to insure, all shipowners will have to insure against the risk of going to certain ports, although in some cases the risk may be very remote, and consequently you are casting upon a 2148 large industry the cost of insurance which ought to be borne by the port authority. I do not for a moment suggest that the authority should not pass on, as they undoubtedly will, the cost of the insurance to the shipping that comes to that port. That would be perfectly fair and equitable, because it would mean that the tonnage using the particular port would pay for the particular risks attaching to it. But what I want to lay particular stress upon is the fact that the port authorities entered into a bargain in 1913 with the shipping authorities for the limitation of the liability of shipowners. It was during the passage of the Pilotage Bill through this House, and at that time, in the case of compulsory pilots, the liability in respect of damage done to vessels or to wrecks attached to the pilots. The bargain was that the shipowners would relieve the pilots—it is the compulsory pilots of whom I am now speaking—of their liability, and would assume that liability themselves, in consideration of the port and harbour authorities accepting the principle of the limitation of liability.
That was a very great concession to the port and harbour authorities at the time, because any damage done to a port or harbour where compulsory pilotage was in vogue would only be recoverable against the pilot himself, and, with all due respect, the pilot would not be of sufficient financial standing to stand claims of that kind which might be made against him. Therefore, for the shipowners to assume that liability was a very great concession to the port and harbour authorities. That arrangement I will confirm by reference to a discussion which took place on the Pilotage Bill itself. If one refers to the OFFICIAL REPORT of the 5th February, 1913, one finds that during the passage of the Pilotage Bill the hon. and learned Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Sir L. Scott) said:
I may just say that the shipowners of this country say we want to come to an arrangement with regard to the limitation of liability, so that we may have the same law and be put on the same footing as our foreign competitors. They want us to give up the defence of compulsory pilotage, and we say we will do it if they will agree to a limitation of liability."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th February, 1913; col. 2347, Vol. 47.]2149 Following that, the President of the Board of Trade at the time, Mr. Buxton, said:It was suggested in various quarters that some compromise might be made, and considerable negotiations took place, and the parties expressed their willingness among themselves to allow this suspensory Clause for a period of five years to be inserted, but that it should come into operation at an earlier time if an international agreement was reached."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th February, 1913; col. 2351, Vol. 47.]The meaning of this suspensory Clause was that, in consideration of the dock authorities agreeing to fall into line with the International Convention—and the Convention was practically agreed upon at that time, though it had not reached the stage of completion—that Clause of the Pilotage Act, giving relief in the case of compulsory pilotage, should be suspended for a period of five years, so as to allow this International Convention to be ratified in the meantime. What really happened, however, was that the War broke out, and the negotiations in connection with the Convention were suspended; but, as a matter of fact, the Pilotage Act came into actual force in 1918, thereby completing the bargain from the shipowners' side, though the Convention proposals were held in suspense until 1923. The Convention has been signed by most of the maritime Powers, including Great Britain, so that it will be seen that there was a complete bargain with regard to the limitation of liability. I was very much surprised, when attending a conference a few days ago at the Board of Trade, to be told by the representatives of the dock authorities that they had no idea we were going to raise this question of principle in objection to the Clauses to which I am now referring, but that is the very essence of our objection.We have no objection to the Medway authority protecting themselves, but we take very serious objection to cutting across the International Convention in the manner in which these Clauses do. I say at once that it is a breach of faith on the part of the dock owners and port authorities to promote these Clauses to which we are taking exception. The proper course is to allow the law to stand as it is now, and for them to cover themselves by insurance as I have already indicated. By so doing, they will not interfere with this Convention, 2150 to which we attach so very much importance, and they will not need to come to the House of Commons for such powers as they now seek. I trust that the attitude of the President of the Board of Trade in regard to this matter will be made clear. I believe that he is intensely interested in this Brussels Convention, and that he desires to see it ratified, so as to bring about the results indicated. I am glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman is in his place to-night, and I trust that, so far as the question which is now before the House is concerned, he will give expression to his views, which. I rather anticipate will be in the direction of preserving at all events the excellent work that has been already done by those who have been responsible for bringing the Convention to its present state. I trust that the House will give the necessary instructions to the Committee to delete these Clauses.
Mr. SANDEMAN ALLENI beg to second the Motion.
I regret very much that, owing to the unavoidable absence of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Exchange Division (Sir L. Scott) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman), I am compelled to present the case in supporting what my hon. Friend has said. The House is entitled to know why this comes before them in the form of an instruction rather than leaving it to be settled by the Committee upstairs. Of course, if it were an ordinary question the proper course would be to send it to be settled by the Committee, but many of us feel the matter raises one or two vital principles on which the House should pass judgment, after realising what is the true position. While speaking absolutely from one's own convictions after studying the facts, I am also expressing the views of the trading interests of the country. The Association of British Chambers of Commerce, the Federation of British Industries, the Mansion House Association on Railway and Canal Traffic, the Chamber of Shipping, the Liverpool Steamship Association and Committee of Lloyds—there is a solid and substantial body of public commercial opinion, and, I am sure, whatever decision the House in its wisdom may arrive at, it would like to know what 2151 that opinion is. Clause 3, which is practically the Bill, deals with the raising and recovery and removal of wrecks. It is obvious that the fairway must be kept clear. It is obviously right that any dock authority or conservancy should have full power to deal with the removal of any obstruction, and no one in his senses would object to any such power being given, but the law of the country is quite clear, that if such a calamity as an obstruction of this kind occurs the liability for its removal falls, in the first instance, upon the owner of the property up to the value of the wreck, and where the wreck has occurred through the negligence of the shipowner or his agent, he is liable to an additional cost over and above the proceeds of the wreck up to the amount of his legal liability as limited by law—that is the value of the vessel, calculated at £8 per ton register.
In the case of a foreign-owned vessel there is no limit beyond the value of the wreck, except possibly by the arrest of a ship of the same owner should it happen to come to that port. Those who have had to deal with this question for 30 or 40 years know how illusory that prospect is. So long as the authority is content to accept the rights given it by the law of the land, no one can take exception, but what one takes exception to very strongly is that they should want a good deal more. There are four points to which attention should he called. Firstly, we hold that no private parties should, by a private Bill, be entitled to extend the liability or privilege of an individual beyond what is laid down in the law of the land to the injury of third parties. Secondly, the admission of such special terms is destructive of the principle of uniformity of law and practice which has for a generation at least been the object of all who are interested in the commerce and shipping of the country and the international trade as a whole. It is, therefore, a denial of the position taken up by the Government and business men of the country for some time past. Thirdly, we are in the act of concluding an international Convention dealing with this very question of shipowners' liability for damage and loss. I have not overlooked the fact that the Convention contains a reservation put in specially in order that the question should be thoroughly ven- 2152 tilated and dealt with. My last reason is that the effect of the Clause is to place an entirely innocent party in a much worse position than if he had been guilty of negligence.
My first point is that private enterprise is entitled to the same legal rights as any other, but it is not entitled to immunity if it inflicts injuries on other members of the community. We have heard a great deal recently about private enterprise. Many of us feel that private enterprise and the interest and welfare of the community should go hand in hand, and, if necessary, be yoked togeher. But when you come to one body being granted special privileges to the injury of a third party, we think that is not fair. The argument has been raised that the dues are not sufficient to cover risks of this kind. The answer to that is quite simple. If the user is guilty of obstruction, let him pay. If not, the usual business course is open. Either arrange a fund or arrange for insurance. But why saddle an innocent party? Again I hear people say—I have heard it said recently on this subject—"but it is his ship that has caused the obstruction. It. is his cargo that has caused the obstruction.' The ship has railway material on board. Are you going to charge the innocent cargo owner with the cost of removing the rail, and if not, why are you going to charge the innocent shipowner Instead of rushing a Bill of this kind through, these matters ought to be carefully considered, in justice to all concerned.
When one hears talk about a clock company or a conservancy not having sufficient means, I would remind the House that in the case of foreign ships there is no chance of recovery beyond the value of the wreck unless by happy chance another ship belonging to the same owner can be arrested. This must be provided for by the dock authority. Then again, British shipowners are not all solvent for ever, and in the Medway they are accustomed to small sailing ships. Some small sailing ship owners may perhaps be on their last legs, and one has to remind the House that the conservancy has to provide for the insolvency of the owner. The dock authority therefore must make provision in certain cases. Why should an attempt be made to saddle an innocent party with a liability which could well be provided for through the 2153 normal business channels by the conservancy doing its proper work and insuring its risks as the shipowners do?
Sentiment is all very well, but we have to deal with what is fair and sound in the lax and practice regarding these matters and to maintain our reputation as a great maritime nation. On the question of uniformity, I expect to hear some hon. Members say, "What is the use of taking that line, when other ports in the Kingdom have managed to get some clause of this kind."Yes, but how? They did it without the fact being noticed at the time. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who is to blame?"] I dare say we are to blame. I am speaking as a member of a trading community who did not watch these things as it does to-day. We see the danger now.
§ Mr. MACKINDERWho is meant by "we "?
Mr. ALLENThe Association of Chambers of Commerce—the business men of the country. I have nothing directly to do with ship owning, except that I represent them as Chairman of the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce. Liverpool has not a Clause of this kind. Cardiff has not a Clause of this kind, nor has Southampton, and probably 100 smaller ports have not such a, Clause. Liverpool, Cardiff and Southampton port authorities might well take the view, "Why should we not have a Clause like this, if the Medway authority have one?"The whole point that we are standing for in this matter is that we must have something like uniformity. We must guard against the promoters of private Bills having differently worded Clauses, so that ship owners and others concerned do not know where they are when they go in and out of the different ports.
§ Mr. MACKINDERBefore the hon. Member leaves that point—
§ Mr. MACKINDERI should like to know, for clearness sake—ߞ
Mr. ALLENWill the hon. Member let me finish the point? For the last 10 or 20 years we have been striving to get some uniformity in this country and in other countries with respect to the vital matter of shipowners' liability.
§ Mr. MACKINDERIs it not a fact that Liverpool has the power to remove wrecks? Under what terms of an Act of Parliament have they that power?
Mr. ALLENYes; the Liverpool Port Authority has that power. It has power immediately an obstruction comes into the river to take possession and to do everything to remove the wreck. I know that as an underwriter many times I have tried to get the Dock Board to see my view, that we could do it more cheaply and save money. The Liverpool Port Authority has the power to deal with a wreck and to charge the owners of the property up to the extent of the value of the property, and if they have been negligent up to the extent of their liability as limited by law.
§ Mr. MACKINDERI understood the hon. Member to say that Liverpool wanted to get this power, but could not get it. Now I understand him to say that Liverpool has it.
Mr. ALLENI did not say that. What Liverpool, no doubt, would like to have is a Clause like the Medway Clause, putting the whole burden on the shipowner, whether he be guilty or innocent. That is what they might like; but perhaps I am wrong in saying that that is what Liverpool would like. People like to get something for nothing, even hon. Members opposite.
§ Mr. MACKINDERNo.
Mr. ALLENI have already mentioned the point as to the International Convention, and I will say nothing further on that. I would ask hon. Members opposite, who are as desirous as we are to grasp the position, which is a very technical one, and to do justice, to follow my argument on this point. On the question of limitation of liability, the shipowner is responsible for the cost of removing the wreck providing it has resulted from his negligence. That is the present law. This Clause goes further. It says whether he is guilty or innocent, whether he is negligent or not, he is to have the burden thrust upon him. At the present time the guilty shipowner—I call him guilty if the accident has happened through the negligence of his servants—is responsible to the extent of a liability of £8 per ton. If he is not guilty and he has not been negligent, then he is responsible without limitation 2155 We think that it is an absurd and unjust anomaly that the man who is not responsible for the accident is liable to pay more than the man who is guilty and responsible for an accident.
When the thing is carefully studied it will be seen how unsound the practice is. I cannot understand why business men do not accept the position that if their man is responsible they should pay; but if not, let the man take his chance like anyone else. We are dealing with the law of mercantile shipping in these matters, and we must remember that this country for many years past has wisely realised that we must watch carefully the interests of our overseas trade and our shipping. We have realised that if we are to do that and to encourage people to build ships and to work ships, there must be a certain amount of limitation of their liability. The businesslike way would be to leave the matter as we suggest, and I very deeply regret that the promoters of the Bill do not see their way to accept our suggestion and be put in the same position as Liverpool, Cardiff, Southampton and the leading ports of the country.
§ Mr. ATTLEECan the hon. Member say what will be the position of the harbour authorities without this Clause? Will they only have to pay when they have been negligent, or will they have to pay any way?
Mr. ALLENWe are not discussing the question of the harbour authorities having to pay, but what they have to collect.
§ Sir GERALD HOHLERI hope to prove my case quite clearly and very shortly. The instruction which has been moved would kill the Bill, and I support the Bill. The House is asked to kill the Bill. What is it that the Bill asks? In cases of wrecks the Conservators of the River Medway are charged with the duty of keeping the navigation clear, removing wrecks and doing dredging work. For that purpose they are entitled to make certain charges upon the craft using the river. They work on the basis of no profits. They must limit their charges merely to the recovery of their expenses. What is asked for in the Clause under discussion is that, whether by negligence or not or whatever the cause, if a vessel is 2156 wrecked or becomes a wreck in the River Medway, the owner of that vessel shall be at the expense of removing it. I should have thought that anything fairer it would be difficult to state. Of course the river is a highway. I do not suppose that anyone doubts the truth of the proposition that the man who obstructs a highway on land has to remove the obstruction at his expense.
§ Mr. MACQUISTENSuppose he is run down by a motor.
§ Sir G. HOHLERIt is equally true in that case. My hon. and learned Friend will be able to deny it if he thinks otherwise. If he were run down by a motor car and killed, his executors would be liable to move the obstruction. We ask that the same law shall apppy in reference to the highway of the river. We have in our Act of 1881 a Clause similar to that which is now being discussed. By that Clause we are able, where there is a wreck, to remove it at the expense of the owner. We have the right to remove it, to sell the wreck for what it will fetch, and to charge the owner with any excess of cost over what we may have received from the sale of the wreck. At any rate so I am instructed. I think it is Section 121 of the Act of 1381. I was surprised when my hon. Friends said that such a Clause was new, especially as the hon. Gentleman who seconded the Motion said he was an underwriter. Suppose the owner of the wreck abandons to the underwriter, and then the underwriter says "I cannot recover."The owner ought to pay just a little further premium to the underwriter in order to cover that risk. It could easily be done. I am speaking as a conservator.
We ask the House to say that the owner cannot escape liability by giving notice of abandonment. That is a most just provision. Let it go upstairs and be discussed, and let counsel on both sides argue it. I ask for nothing more than that. In the absence of a lawyer on the other side, I am not going to argue now that I am right, but in my view of the law I wholly disagree with what has been said on the other side. However, these matters can be argued upstairs by authorities. In my view in regard to a wreck, there is no question of limitation of liability of any sort or kind. I submit that this is a most 2157 reasonable Clause. It is merely intended to get rid of a very clever device—leaving me with a wreck which I have to get out at the expense of all the other shipowners who use the river, while the owner of the wreck escapes his liability. The greatest port in this country and in the world, the Port of London, has such a Clause. I could give a long list of other ports, Hull amongst the number, which have such a Clause. In fact it is a common Clause in such Bills as this. If Liverpool has not got it, I have no doubt that they ought to get it, and we should be glad to see them have it.
§ 9.0 P.M.
§ Mr. SHORTI rise to oppose the Motion, because I wish to support the Bill as it stands and also the Bristol Corporation Bill. I understand that the provisions now being sought by the Medway are similar to those included in the Bristol Corporation Bill, and I take it that the decision of the House on this Bill will settle the issue also on the Bristol Corporation Bill. I observe that the promoters of the Medway Bill constitute an elective body which is not a profit-making concern, and they seek to maintain the Medway for the benefit of traders and shippers. The Bristol Corporation is a public body responsible for the maintenance of one of the chief ports of the Kingdom. Millions have been invested it the Bristol undertaking.
§ Mr. SPEAKERWill the hon. Member allow me to ask the House whether it is agreed that, as far as this issue is concerned the one discussion will cover the two Bills. [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed ! "]
§ Mr. SHORTI was saying that millions have been invested in the Bristol undertaking, and millions have been expended in the development of the port, in creating additional storage accommodation, in the installation of more efficient equipment and in other ways, in order to meet the increasing trade of the port. Who is responsible for the management of this undertaking? I observe that the Seconder of the Motion said fie was speaking for the Chambers of Commerce and similar organisations. In the case of Bristol—as also in the case of the Medway—the docks committee is responsible for the harbour undertaking. The docks committees are elected by the city councils, and these bodies are seeking 2158 powers to enable them more effectively to cope with certain difficulties which confront them. The success of the port of Bristol is a monument to the courage, skill, intelligence and foresight of those responsible for the undertaking. Men have sat upon this docks committee, not belonging to the Labour party, not believing in Socialist principles, but members of the trading community, and, indeed, of the Conservative party, and it is men who have sat on this committee for 30 years who have intimate knowledge of the needs and requirements of the port of Bristol, who are seeking these increased powers to deal with the raising and removal of wrecks. The same remark applies in the case of the Medway. The fact that this proposal comes from men of such character, standing and experience should invite the House to give it serious consideration. We know that when bodies of this character take a progressive line, they meet with severe opposition from vested interests such as has been indicated in this case. The House would be well advised to listen to the voice of the Bristol authority and to the voice of the Medway authority who are inspired by a desire to meet public needs, rather than be moved by the artificial record, shall I say, of the Chambers of Commerce, the Federation of British Industries, the Liverpool Steam-owners Association and bodies of a like character.
§ Mr. HANNONWhat does the hon. Member mean by "the artificial record "!
§ Mr. SHORTThe gramophone record. The hon. Member should understand me. He knows that at any rate the demands of Bristol and the Medway in this matter are inspired by a regard for public interests, and not by a regard for vested interests. One or two peculiar arguments have been used in this discussion. As I understand the legal position, under the Harbours, Docks and Ports Act of 1847, authority is given to these bodies to deal with wrecks. What has arisen out of that law? It is possible for the owner of a wreck to abandon it and give formal notice that he is doing so. Then the responsibility of removing it falls upon the harbour authority and that authority is unable to recover the deficiency, if any, arising when the wreck has been removed. What is the alternative? The alternative 2159 which has been put forward is to leave things as they are. There is no new principle involved in this claim of Bristol and the Medway. The power which they seek has been given to between 17 and 20 harbour and dock undertakings in this country, and that which has been found useful for such undertakings might reasonably be extended to Bristol and the Medway.
I do not believe that decent shipowners would pursue the policy of abandoning wrecks but if indecent shipowners do so, and throw the financial responsibility on the dock authority it culminates in increased dues and handicaps the promotion of trade. Thus, in the interests of decent shipowners and of commercial morality we should see that the owners of these wrecks face their financial responsibilities, pay for the cost of removal and meet, the deficiency, if there should be one, as there frequently is one. During the dockers' inquiry known as the Shaw inquiry, evidence was not lacking as to the difficulties and obstacles in the way of free transport and rapid handling of our goods at the ports. Organised labour which is supporting the Bristol Bill and I believe is also supporting the Medway Bill has sought, through its officials, notably through Mr. Ernest Bevan and my hon. Friend the Member for Stepney (Mr. Gosling) and others to remove those difficulties. There have been cases in which navigation has been impeded by wrecks, left lying for long periods, saddling the authority with cost and leading ultimately, as I have said, to increased dues. When a progressive authority seeks powers to improve the facilities of a port, to bring about increased employment and a general improvement in the condition of the workers in the ports, the House ought not to hesitate to give those powers. I trust therefore the House will reject this Motion because I believe these powers to be necessary in the interests of our harbour undertakings and for the improvement of the trade and commerce of our ports.
§ Lieut.-Colonel POWNALLI rise to support the Motion, and I do so at the desire of the Corporation of Lloyd's, of which body I have been a member for a good many years. In the first instance, 2160 I take exception to a private Bill of this nature upsetting a public law. I speak with all deference in the presence of my hon. and learned Friends, but I understand the Bill seeks to set up a special law in certain ports which would not otherwise apply. It is true that roughly one-half of the principal ports in the country, already have a Clause of this sort, but it is also to be remembered that a large number of other ports have not this Clause. Therefore, it is suggested that there is to be a Clause of this kind applying to three ports out of four right round the coast. That is most undesirable from the point of view of shipowners.
§ Sir G. HOHLERI do not know if this is a point of Order, but I understand that my hon. Friends are willing that this Bill should go upstairs.
§ Mr. HANNONI have been in consultation with my hon. Friends, and if you, Mr. Speaker, approve, we would like to conclude the Debate, in order that the Bill might be sent upstairs, without the Instruction which has been moved.
§ Mr. SPEAKERIf the Mover and Seconder will withdraw the Instruction, that course can be followed.
§ Mr. LOUGHERI beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.