HC Deb 29 April 1947 vol 436 cc1736-42

Question again proposed, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

3.46 p.m.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes)

I started last night to explain that this Clause arises from a discussion we had on the Committee stage, when I was urged to provide some rights to canal carriers who may be injured by a determination of the Commission. This Clause provides that where a canal carrier is dissatisfied, by a determination of the licensing authority, which is the British Transport Commission, with regard to the carrying on of his undertaking, he can invoke the right for the Commission to take over his undertaking. By a previous Amendment the licensing period of five years was extended to seven years, and it will follow that if the canal carrier is dissatisfied with the licensing decision he will appeal to the Appeal Tribunal. If the Tribunal upholds the appeal the canal carrier will continue as before, but if the Tribunal supports the decision of the Commission, then the canal carrier can exercise his right to require the Commission to take over his business under the compensation plan that applies to the road haulage undertaker. At that stage, six months will elapse for the purpose of enabling the Commission and the canal carrier to come to terms, if they so desire. In matters of this description, I believe that it will be to the general advantage if agreement is reached where possible, but if no agreement is reached then the matter can go to the Arbitration Tribunal for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation. I think this new Clause adequately meets the case which was put in Standing Committee, by the hon. and gallant Member for Holderness (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite)

Mr. Maclay (Montrose Burghs)

I rise with some hesitation to speak on this Motion, because my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Holderness (Lieut.Commander Braithwaite) is not here. He would, however, I am sure, wish to thank the Minister for meeting us in this way, and I feel certain that between now and the time when the Bill goes to another place, the Minister will be prepared to look into any further points of detail which may require consideration.

Mr. Digby (Dorset, Western)

I thank the Minister for having brought forward this Clause which meets some of the objections raised in Committee, but there is one point in Subsection (3) which requires clarification. I believe the right hon. Gentleman said that compensation was to be based on the same principle as that for road hauliers. He must be aware that the life of these craft is very much longer— perhaps five times longer—than the life of road haulage vehicles. I should like to have his assurance that that and other differences between road haulage vehicles and these craft, and the difference of circumstances between this industry and the road haulage industry, will be properly taken into account, when it comes to determining compensation.

Mr. Barnes

I would inform the hon. Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr. Maclay) that this has been discussed with those concerned, and if any other point should arise between now and the Bill's consideration in another place, I will look into the matter. With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr Digby) that the life of a barge is generally recognised to be longer than the life of a lorry, I accept that statement, and it will be taken into consideration.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Right to acquire acquisi-

tion of undertakings providing

port facilities.)

  1. (1) Where—
    1. (a) a person who, on the twenty-eighth day of November, nineteen hundred and 1738 forty-six was carrying on an undertaking the activities of which consisted wholly or partly of the provision of port facilities in the harbour (hereinafter in this Section referred to as "the appellant") appeals to the Transport Tribunal under subsection (4) of Section sixty-five of this Act from a determination of the licensing authority in relation to the provision of port facilities in the harbour; and
    2. (b) the tribunal refuse, either in whole or in part, to do by their order what is asked for by the appellant on that appeal; and
    3. (c) the tribunal are satisfied that their refusal will involve a substantial interference with the carrying on by the appellant of some activity which he was carrying on before the said twenty-eighth day of November and which he has, up to the time of the determination which was the subject of the appeal, continued to carry on with only such intermissions, if any, as are incidental to the nature of the activity.
    the tribunal may, on the -application of the appellant, declare that the undertaking of the appellant, or some part thereof specified in the declaration, is to be transferred to such body, being either the licensing authority or some other body administering or taking part in administering the scheme relating to the harbour or providing port facilities thereunder, as may be specified in the declaration
  2. (2) Where a declaration is made under the last preceding subsection, and at the expiration of six months from the making thereof no agreement has been entered into between the appellant and the body specified in the declaration for the acquisition by that body by agreement of the undertaking or of the part of the undertaking specified in the declaration the appellant may apply to the Minister for an order giving effect to the transfer required by the declaration and the Minister shall make an order accordingly: Provided that the Minister may permit such an application to be made before the expiration of the said six months if he is satisfied that there is no reasonable prospect of the transfer being effected by agreement.
  3. (3) Any such order shall apply to the transfer, with such exceptions and subject to such modifications as may be specified in the order, the provisions of this Act relating to transfers of undertakings or parts of undertakings under Part III of this Act, including provisions as to compensation: Provided that before making the order the Minister shall give the body specified in the declaration and the appellant an opportunity of being heard before a person appointed by the Minister for that purpose, and shall consider the report of the person so appointed
  4. (4) If the body specified in the declaration and the appellant so agree, the order may effect the transfer of a part only of the undertaking notwithstanding that the declaration related to the whole of the undertaking, or of the whole of the undertaking notwithstanding that the declaration related to part only thereof, or of a part of the undertaking not identical with the part of the undertaking specified in the declaration."—[Mr. Barnes.]
Mr. Barnes

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

Hon. Members will find that this Clause which applies to undertakings providing port facilities follows, in almost identical terms, the previous Clause with regard to canal carrier undertakings. This arises, as the hon. Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr. Maclay) will appreciate, from the many discussions initiated on this matter during the Committee stage. I hope that by this Clause I shall be able to settle the hon. Member's troubles, and that I shall not be unduly inconvenienced from now onwards. I have agreed in this Clause that the Commission shall not have a monopoly of these port facilities, and it any person licensed to carry on such facilities considers that he is injured by any decision of the licensing authority, the same procedure as that which applies to canal undertakers will operate, and the necessary safeguards will be carried through

Mr. Maclay

I am slightly more at home on this question than on that of canal carriers. I again thank the Minister for meeting the requests made in Committee. The real trouble is that there has not been time to consider the implications of this Clause for the large variety of undertakings which may be affected by it. There are warehouse keepers, lighter owners, barge owners, stevedores, tug owners and others who may be affected by the terms of the Clause, and, therefore, it will be recognised that it is essential that there should be time for consultation with those industries to see whether the Clause achieves what I know the Minister intends. There are some obvious points which require consideration

The Minister mentioned, in moving the earlier Clause dealing with canal undertakings, that there have been certain changes and concessions in connection with the period of duration of licences. I do not think that question has so far been discussed in connection with ancillary port facilities, but this may be a matter which should be looked at very carefully, and also the terms of the licences. Again it is doubtful whether the compensation terms under Part III of the Bill can apply to all the varieties of equipment used by the various types of under taking which I have mentioned. The point has been made that a lighter or barge has a very much longer life than that of a motor vehicle. It is possible for a barge to be successfully operating after 70 years if it has been well built, and that presents a problem when it comes to a question of compensation.

Generally speaking, one must thank the Minister for doing what he promised on the Committee stage, but in doing so one does not wish to imply that there is any likelihood of this Clause having to be used. If a new authority set up under a scheme in accordance with the Bill works under an identical licence, there is no reason to believe that licences to private undertakings would work in such a way that any undertaking would be damaged. I hope that it is in the Minister's mind that that kind of thing will never happen, but I would rather have some other provision in the Bill to protect a private enterprise firm which continue under licence from the risk of damage from an arbitrary or wrong type of licensing.

Another point which may arise, and which requires careful consideration, is that it may be wise to have a provision to make certain that it is not possible for an undertaking carried on by an authority set up under a scheme to operate in such an unfair way that it is impossible for private enterprise competitors to go on working. That is still a possibility under the Bill. It is conceivable that a new authority operating a port may run tugs, and charge such low sums for their use that other competitors cannot exist. As I understand the Bill, that would be possible, and any loss on the operation of the tugs by the authority operating under the scheme could disappear in the general receipts of the undertaking. It is that kind of thing for which we want protection, and it may be preferable to devise a Clause for that purpose. I do not think that the Minister wants to introduce unfair competition, but it is possible under the Bill. If we could get an effective Clause of that kind, it may be that this particular Clause will not be necessary. As one has to prepare for all eventualities, one must thank the Minister for putting the Clause in its present form, and I hope that if representations are made to him between now and the consideration of the Bill in another place he will listen to them sympathetically.

Mr. Charles Williams (Torquay)

The Minister made a rather pathetic appeal just now that he should not be unduly inconvenienced. I would like to join with the hon. Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr. Maclay) in thanking him for producing a Clause which is, I believe, on the right lines, but I accept it with the reservation that the Minister should between now and another place go into these matters of licensing on the lines suggested by my hon. Friend. There may be other forms of licences in connection with certain harbours. If I understand the matter aright certain harbours will not be covered under this Clause. What is to be the position in regard to fishing boats and pleasure boats in certain harbours. I am sure that the Minister does not wish to drive this form of enterprise out of existence. If he will give me an assurance on that matter I feel we can get along with this Clause. I have used a very obvious illustration of the type of thing which I think the Minister is trying to guard against, namely, unfair operations under this Bill. I am not sure, looking at it widely, whether this Clause will do it or whether it might not be possible to add words in another place in the sense recommended by my hon. Friend the Member for Montrose Burghs. I should like an assurance that it is not intended that this sort of thing should come under a nationalisation Bill.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Barnes

In reply to the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) the boats which he mentioned are not included. This Clause only covers a particular kind of harbour. I think the hon. Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr. Maclay) largely answered his own fears when he referred to the fact that this Clause will not come into operation until a scheme is initiated by the Commission. I would remind him that part of the procedure under these schemes ensures the fullest possible discussion with the port or harbour authorities concerned. They will have the fullest opportunity of discussing practical and technical points. The Minister must satisfy himself that objections are being withdrawn before he issues any orders, and if objections are not withdrawn, these schemes are subject to special Parliamentary procedure. I think that fully covers those difficulties. After all, we are merely settling the procedure. I quite recognise that a wide range of activities, properties and undertakings will be acquired which we could not possibly foresee in detail, and they will be effected by any schemes. Therefore, we propose this procedure which gives the fullest opportunity for those matters to be considered adequately. If a dispute arises with the Commission or the body which the Commission establishes for the purpose of carrying out the port and harbour scheme, the procedure provides in the first place for an appeal to the Transport Tribunal and the Tribunal has to make a determination. Subsequently compensation is settled by the Arbitration Tribunal. If on further examination we can discover any possibility of improvement we will see what can be done. This new Clause will not prevent us looking into it again.

Mr. Maclay

While thanking the Minister for promising to look into further details which may arise, there is one point to which I should like to refer and that is the subject of Parliamentary procedure. I sincerely hope that the Minister will use his influence on the Leader of the House to induce him to give us sufficient time to discuss some very interesting Amendments on the Eighth Schedule which deal with this special Parliamentary procedure. We believe that they afford additional protection which the Minister himself wants.

Mr. C. Williams

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he said on the matter of pleasure boats. That, of course, covers the ordinary pleasure boats, but there is another case about which I am thinking. That is the case of a harbour where licence is given to a boat to run round trips for profit to another harbour along the coast. Under the Bill a licence can be refused, which would drive the whole of this business away and allow the authorities to take it over. If the Minister will agree that that is not the intention under the new Clause I should be glad of his assurance. I hope he will look into it carefully and take what steps are necessary to strengthen the Clause in this respect.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.