§ (1) Proviso (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section one of the Harbours, Docks, and Piers (Temporary Increase of Charges) Act, 1920 (hereinafter referred to as the principal Act) shall not apply to any port, harbour, dock or pier 116 forming part of the undertaking of a railway company, but in considering any modification of the statutory provisions regulating the charges to be made by any railway company in respect of any such port, harbour, dock or pier, regard shall be had to the charges in force at similar ports, harbours, docks or piers (whether forming part of the undertaking of a railway company or not), and to the cost of labour and materials, and no modification of such statutory provisions shall be authorised which would increase the charges beyond such amounts as the railway company were at the passing of this Act entitled to charge by virtue of Section three of the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919.
§ Mr. HANNONI beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "shall" ["regard shall be had to"], to insert the word "also."
This is a manuscript Amendment, of which I have given notice to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport. Its object is to bring the Bill into conformity with the principal Act, and it has relation to a subsequent Amendment which I shall move.
§ Major M. WOODI beg to second the Amendment.
Mr. NEAL (Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport)This Amendment and the subsequent one are, in my opinion, merely drafting Amendments. Therefore I am prepared to accept them.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Further Amendment made: In Subsection (1), leave out the words "and to the cost of labour and materials."—[Mr. Hannon.]
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
§ Sir D. MACLEANThis Bill went up to a Committee, and I agreed that the Amendment that was there inserted went a considerable distance towards meeting the point made here on the Second Heading. I want to bring to the notice of the House and of the Minister a point I made on the Second Beading, namely, the real importance for the whole of the commercial community of keeping as close an eye as possible on the operation of the very high charges at harbours, docks, and piers. The suggestion I make, which I think was slightly misunderstood during the course of the Second Beading, was 117 that next year the Ministry of Transport or the Board of Trade, if by that time it has resumed its normal and proper functions in this respect, should come to the House and ask for this Bill again; so that the House would keep its annual control over this question until that happy day—may it come as swiftly as possible— when the charges, not only on our railways, but at our harbours and docks, are commensurate with the ability of the trade to pay them. There is not the slightest doubt that the charges are still far too high to meet the commercial needs of the country at the present moment. It may be that the companies have to exact these charges in order to maintain their position. But a broader outlook and a wider policy of providing transit facilities at a cheaper rate would, in my view and in the view of the commercial community as a whole, result in no loss but in greater trade, with the necessary revenue to meet all the proper overhead charges on this great increase, and, after paying the cost, would unquestionably confer a real benefit on the community as a whole.
Mr. NEALI am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the statement that he thinks that the Amendment made in Committee will have the effect he desires. I am glad to think that, for more reasons than one, because I am thoroughly in agreement with him with the object he has in view. There can be nothing worse than that the charges should be kept, as a handicap upon industry, at any higher point than is necessary to preserve the financial stability of the undertakings concerned. The Amendments made in the Bill, I think, really meet the whole of the points which the right hon. Gentleman made on the Second Reading.
§ Sir D. MACLEANI do not admit that.
Mr. NEALNo. I am saying that I think so. The Bill now provides that these charges shall be revised at least once every 12 months; there may be revision much earlier and much more frequently should the occasion arise. For that reason, I think we have in substance met the point my right hon. Friend had in mind. I should like to add that I received a deputation from the Mining Association of Great Britain. They 118 pointed out, in extremely cogent terms, the very serious handicap upon our export trade of dock charges, particularly in South Wales and on the North-East Coast. As those were largely matters with which the railway companies were concerned, I got into communication with the railway companies. They consented, without any difficulty, to an Amendment being made in the Bill which brings their charges under review at an earlier date than would otherwise have been the case. That may be taken as a very friendly act on the part of the railway companies, and I have no reason to doubt that they, along with all other dock and harbour authorities, will desire to bring the charges down within reasonable limits at the earliest possible date.