HC Deb 16 March 1964 vol 691 cc1061-74

7.0 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Irvine (Liverpool, Edge Hill)

I beg to move, in page 24, line 35, after "such," to insert "reasonable".

Mr. Speaker

I imagine that it would be for die convenience of the House to discuss with this Amendment the Amendments in page 24, lines 36 and 38, page 25, line 28, and page 80, line 48.

Mr. Irvine

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

The House should be fully aware of what the Bill does in regard to the matter of charges. The effects of the Bill are important and widespread. This is partly the case because the expression "charges", which is defined in the definition Clause, Clause 53, covers a large number of matters which are there enumerated. "Charges" includes fares, rates, tolls and dues of every description". Under the existing law, the charges that may be imposed by harbour and clock authorities for the various services which they offer are subject to a whole host of restrictions of one kind or another and restrictions which, in many instances, are formidable in character. These restrictions are included for the most part, I understand, in Private Acts, but a large number are comprised in public enactments. As an example of the kind of public enactment which has an important bearing in this respect, I quote the Transport Act which became law as recently as 1962.

The kind of machinery adopted in that Act relative to charges was as follows. In a Schedule, the Act set out a list of harbours where charges under the Act would be applicable. It provided in broad outline, that it would not be permissible to increase charges in those harbours beyond a certain percentage above a level of charge which had prevailed a previous dates which were enumerated in the Act. That was the mechanism employed. It is not necessary to go further into detail. The point is that it was an elaborate mechanism which Parliament, as recently as 1962, thought it wise and right to apply in certain important harbours scheduled in the Act.

As to the level of charges, the restrictions were in many respects strict in character, permitting only comparatively small percentage increases from charges that had applied, in some cases, only a short time previously. It is important that in considering the Amendment, the House should recognise that the Bill sweeps overboard the whole elaborate fabric which has existed in public and in private enactments to keep charges under restraint. On any showing, that is a serious thing to do. It is a peculiarly serious thing to do so soon after Parliament has passed an Act like the Transport Act, 1962.

The position as proposed in the Bill is that the sky is now to be the limit. The only restraint which is imposed is that contained in Clause 27, which enables certain classes of person to object to certain types of charge. If the National Ports Council, which it is proposed to create, upholds the objection, it may give a direction to the harbour authority. In addition, there is, it is true, the overriding power which the Bill confers upon the Minister after a scheme has been submitted by the Council to revise ship, passenger and goods dues. That is provided for it Clause 28.

The point which we think it right to draw to the attention of the House is that within those somewhat, it may be thought, cumbersome and remote provisions provided by Clauses 27 and 28, there is no restraint or restriction whatever upon harbour and dock authorities, upon the charges which they may exact. We take the view that in principle that is undesirable.

It is right to say that throughout our considerations of the Bill in Standing Committee, both sides received assistance from the representations made to them by the Docks and Harbour Authorities Association and its spokesmen. In a considerable number of instances, we took up the position in our consideration of matters in Committee that there was great substance in the cases which they brought forward and the arguments which they desired to have addressed to the Committee. The relations of both sides with the Association were cordial throughout, as it was right that they should be. Let no one think, therefore, that in expressing the view as I do, that this provision in Clause 22 concerning charges gives too much freedom to the harbour and dock authorities, that I am motivated by any lack of respect and admiration for Mr. Lamborn and dock authorities.

It follows that I have not in the slightest degree any reservation to make to the regard that I hold for them and for their Association—quite the contrary. I would expect the authorities themselves to be somewhat embarrassed by being given the degree of freedom relative to charges which the Bill as at present worded offers them.

Our Amendment would require the charge to be reasonable; that is the only difference that we offer in the drafting of the Bill. It would have the effect, however, that apart from the power of the Minister and of the National Ports Council, if a harbour or dock authority imposed an unreasonable charge it would be open to anybody affected thereby to take steps upon the matter and to make representations that the charge was unreasonable. I conceive that it would be open for there to be initiated proceedings for an injunction to restrain an authority from imposing a charge for a service if that charge was unreasonable.

This seems to us to be a businesslike and sensible change to make. It still leaves the authorities with extensive freedom of action and great responsibility for charging, and it still leaves a substantial change in the law by virtue of the extent to which public and private enactments are repealed by the Bill. The Amendment would impose upon the authorities just that element of restraint which is desirable and would give the public the opportunity in appropriate cases to take action to prevent unreasonable charges from being imposed. It would do those things and have those effects in a fashion much more direct and, for capital purposes, more readily available than the methods propounded in Clauses 27 and 28.

Mr. David James (Brighton, Kemptown)

I agree with the arguments of the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine), but, as he is more honourable and certainly more learned than I, I am surprised that there appears to be a certain internal contradiction in his Amendment, because the charges would have to be "reasonable as they see fit", and for many years hon. and right hon. Members opposite have been trying to make us believe that what they saw fit was reasonable, but they have not succeeded in convincing the general public of that. Our suggested wording "may be reasonable" is more appropriate. However, apart from that leg-pull, our case hangs purely on a consideration of the Rochdale Report which, speaking of charges and not dues, said that all other charges should be reasonable and users dissatisfied with these charges should continue to have recourse to the courts. That is the nub of the case.

Dr. Horace King (Southampton, Itchen)

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) has moved the Amendment powerfully and reasonably, and I hope that he will not mind if I express some uneasiness about it. The uneasiness arises from the kind of action which he suggests might be taken if in the view of somebody the charges are not reasonable.

So far, the docks and harbours authorities can fix charges and the National Ports Council comes in if anyone is troubled about them. As a last resort, there is an appeal to the Minister. As a layman, it seems to me that if we add the word "reasonable", which some client can take to court seeking an injunction, we shall bring in all the paraphernalia of the law and add a fourth price fixer. We shall then have first, the authority; secondly, the Ports Council; thirdly, the Minister, and fourthly, one of Her Majesty's judges.

Much as I respect Her Majesty's judges, I am not sure that they are competent to pronounce on the complicated question of whether a charge in a docks is reasonable. It is only for that reason that I have some anxiety about the Amendment. I shall be interested to hear what the Parliamentary Secretary has to say.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Michael Coulson (Kingston upon Hull, North)

I support the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton. Kemptown (Mr. David James). I was not a member of the Standing Committee which considered the Bill, but I have read most of the OFFICIAL REPORT of its proceedings. I have noticed that this matter was raised in the Standing Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster) and that my hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary answered him by saying that the word "reasonable" in the Transport Act, 1962, gave no protection at all to users of port facilities. After saying that, my hon. and gallant Friend changed his mind and said that what he really meant—and this is a rather subtle distinction—was that there was just as much protection under the Bill as under the 1962 Act.

My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary went on to suggest that a user who thought that increased charges were unreasonable still had some sort of legal remedy in that he could refuse to pay and rest his defence in any subsequent legal proceedings on the ground that the charges were unreasonable. This seems an exceedingly doubtful proposition, and I should like to know whether my hon. and gallant Friend still supports it.

Docks charges are a serious matter for the users, and it might not be out of order if I draw an analogy with what has happened over dock haulage charges in the Port of Hull. When the 1962 Act was being considered, the Hull Timber Trade Association wrote to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport asking about the reasonableness of these charges and asking him to insert the word "reasonable" in the provision dealing with haulage charges. My right hon. Friend replied that there was no necessity to insert the word because he was certain that the Railways Board, which was responsible for initiating these charges, certainly in Hull, would not abuse its power by unreasonable treatment of individual traffic.

However, exactly the opposite has happened, because in Hull all dock haulage is controlled by the Railways Board in conjunction with the British Transport Docks Board and all transport is tied to the railways, with no alternative form of transport of timber possible. Yet in recent months the Railways Board has substantially raised its charges for dock transport haulage; in some cases they will eventually be as much as seven times higher than at present. Despite strong representations from the timber trade, the Minister has found himself unable to direct the Railways Board to consider whether the charges are reasonable.

In other words, as drafted the Bill provides a position exactly the same as that under the 1962 Act, and that is regrettable. One is forced to the conclusion that Clauses 22 and 23 as they now stand afford no protection to traders in ports. Clause 27, which deals with port dues, that is to say, dues for passengers and cargoes, what are frequently called statutory dues, gives a right of objection to the National Ports Council. In effect, this means that there will be even greater divergence between statutory dues on the one hand and what are frequently called miscellaneous charges, docks services and so on, on the other hand.

The difference can be very important in a port like Hull, which is a nationalised port under the British Transport Docks Board, where there is virtually a monopoly of many services. Although my hon. and gallant Friend may say that if a trader does not like the charges, he can employ a private contractor or other private facilities, that does not apply in a nationalised port like Hull where the Railways Board has a virtual monopoly of work on the docks and where in some cases it is contrary to statutory provisions for a private contractor to perform form work on the docks, even though he might wish to do so, in competition with the Railways Board. It is for those reasons that I support my hon. Friend's Amendment.

Commander Harry Pursey (Kingston upon Hull, East)

I had not intended to take part in the discussion on these Amendments. But I am constrained to do so because of the attack made on the nationalised docks board in Hull by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. Coulson) and the docks which are in my constituency. The hon. Gentleman had a long time to consider this Bill—as did the timber trade—before the Second Reading debate. But there was not a whisper from the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Coulson

I do not know whether the hon. and gallant Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Commander Pursey) is suggesting that because an hon. Member does not speak during the Second Reading debate he cannot speak on the Committee stage by way of an interjection.

Mr. James H. Hoy (Edinburgh, Leith)

This is not the Committee stage.

Commander Pursey

If the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North had waited until I had gone a bit further with my argument he would not have dived off from the deep end after so short a contribution. The hon. Member could have served on the Committee and then we might have heard from somebody on the Government side in the Committee, instead of having a collection of "landlubbers" who sat silent except when they were ventilating arguments in support of private harbours.

Hull is the third port in the country and the largest of the nationalised docks It is one of the best organised and run——

Mr. Speaker

Order. We know of the hon. and gallant Member's constituency enthusiasm. But, in this instance, we are confined to matters relating to this group of Amendments. It would be all right to say that there is a parallel instance of the unwisdom of omitting the word "reasonable". But to applaud the glories of Hull in the circumstances is a little remote.

Commander Pursey

I was only taking up the point which had been made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North. I do not at this stage in the debate want to get at cross-purposes with the Chair.

Regarding charges being reasonable for the timber trade—presumably I am now 100 per cent. on target—there is no question at all that every user of the Port of Hull gets reasonable consideration over the question of charges. During the lifetime of the Labour Government I was in the closest contact with the timber trade. I have represented the constituency of Kingston upon Hull, East for 18 years, which is a considerably longer period than the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North has represented his constituency. Members of the timber trade have never made representations to me about charges. I have every reason to assume—in the absence of approaches from the Chamber of Commerce and Shipping about reasonable charges—that the trade is satisfied and that this is simply an argument against the present set-up of the docks at Hull which hon. Members opposite would like to smash.

I can assure the hon. Member that the timber trade would be far worse off if the docks on the Humber were to split up into separate units and compete against each other. There is no question that the timber trade is the last that should be taken up from the point of view of national charges, or of local, which is the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North. I conclude with one word about the argument. It is absolute nonsense.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Vice-Admiral John Hughes Hallett)

I do not think that I shall enter into the lists over the difference of opinion between the hon. Members who represent the northern and the eastern parts of Kingston upon Hull. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. Coulson) is quite right. I did make a slip when replying to this point in Committee. I explained that to hon. Members who were present in the Committee, and, had my hon. Friend written to me, I could have told him the same thing.

There are two sets of Amendments before the House which are designed to achieve the same purpose, namely, to restore the requirement that charges made by statutory authorities for services at harbours should be required to be reasonable. This is a more complicated question than may be generally realised, and the balance of argument for and against restoring the requirement that the charges should be reasonable is more even than might appear from some of the speeches to which we have listened tonight. This was recognised by the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King).

The hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) gave a clear summary of the fair charges Clauses of the Bill. May I go on to summarise the position as it now is from a rather narrower front. In local harbour legislation, dues on vessels, passengers and goods are invariably levied at specified rates. In contrast, charges for services and facilities, such as the use of cranes, warehousing, the supply of water, and so on, are sometimes specified in a local Act, but more often are subject to the requirement that they should be "reasonable". There are some cases where charges for services and facilities have been left entirely at the discretion of the harbour authority. This, however, is unusual, and in a majority of cases charges not specified in a local Act are required to be reasonable.

Under general legislation revision of specified charges may be made by my right hon. Friend. Section 6 of the Transport Charges Act, 1954, provides for this. But this power of revision does not apply to those charges left to the discretion of the authority without any other restriction than the requirement that they shall be reasonable. In the Transport Act, 1962, a similar policy was followed for charges at the British Transport Dock Board group of harbours. Despite the enormous number of charges subject to the requirement of being reasonable, we have been unable to trace any case of litigation. I concede at once that the existence of the requirement may have exercised a restraining influence on harbour authorities. Against this, we have no evidence whatsoever that excessive charging is taking place in those cases where there has been no restriction at all.

I turn now to the effect of the present Bill. Clause 22 releases harbour authorities, and Clause 23 releases the British Transport Docks Board, from the existing statutory controls and also from the requirements that the charges should be reasonable. In the particular case of ship, passenger and goods dues provision is made for an appeal to the National Ports Council. Provision is also made in certain circumstances whereby my right hon. Friend has power to impose a new scheme revising the ship passenger and goods dues for a particular port as a whole. The provision for appeals and this particular power of the Minister is contained in Clauses 27–36 of the Bill, to which there are already a number of Amendments on the Notice Paper. We shall come to them later.

I must stress that the present Amendment should refer only to charges for services and only to those services pro vided by statutory authorities. For example, if we restore the word "reasonable" this would apply to services provided by the Port of London Authority but not to services provided by, shall we say, the proprietors of Hay's Wharf. Actually, it is arguable, I think, that the Amendments as they appear on the Notice Paper would embrace dues as well as charges. But I think I am right in saying that their sponsors—do they wish that or not?

7.30 p.m.

Mr. R. J. Mellish (Bermondsey)

We certainly wish that it should include dues as well.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett

I should say, in passing, as it might save time later, that we would find great difficulty in agreeing with that because it would mean that two separate bodies could be appealed to, the Council, on the one hand, and the courts, on the other. I cannot think that that would be desirable.

Mr. David James

In the Amendments I ha ire tabled I was considering charges only and not dues.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett

I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. I thought should make that point in passing, because I do not want to mislead the House in what I say later.

I have been asked: why not continue to require that these charges should be reasonable? The case against continuing in that way is two-fold. In the first place one of the major purposes is to give harbour authorities as much freedom as possible to conduct their affairs on sound commercial lines. The second reason is that we think the courts would have difficulties in deciding whether a particular charge which had become the subject of litigation was reasonable or unreasonable. Even if they decided that it was unreasonable, because of the nature of the proceedings, that could be only an ad hoc decision applying to the particular charges which are the subject of litigation, and their level at the time of the litigation. No doubt the courts could make restitution, but they could provide no lasting remedy beyond that achieved by the threat of further litigation.

In practice, we think that the requirement of reasonable charges is effective only in so far as it would provide a safeguard against charges being made which were not only unreasonable but extortionate. Extortionate charges are possible only where there is a monopoly. This is most uncommon. It is seldom that the shipowner or shipper is obliged to use a particular port. In the last resort he can trade through a different port. And it is exceptional to find that particular services at ports of any size are subject to monopoly. In the great majority of cases there is competition among a number of contractors each ready and able to provide the same service. Curiously enough, the only sizeable port of which the authority has a monopoly is the profit-making port of Manchester.

Commander Pursey

That is a private port.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett

I would not agree entirely with the word "private", because I think I am right in saying that the City of Manchester holds a majority interest, but it is a profit-making port. No one so far as I am aware has complained that the charges of Manchester are excessive. If they were, customers would use the Port of Liverpool instead.

I am bound to concede that competition between port services is seldom perfect, as the economists says. I also concede that there is force in the argument that it would be possible to introduce monopolies through the machinery of a harbour reorganisation scheme under Clause 17 of the Bill. The Government are not prepared to accept the Amendment to prevent this occurring. On the other hand, there would be many cases where a grave abuse of monopoly powers could be countered by means of the harbour revision order under Clause 13. Hon. Members may think that that would be a very cumbrous process, but I doubt whether it would necessarily take longer or be more expensive than litigation.

When the matter was under consideration and the Bill was being drafted, we naturally considered whether the appeals procedure in Clause 27 could be widened to allow for appeals against charges as well as dues being made to the Council. The objection to this is that it might involve the Council in a tremendous burden of administrative work. Port users who might think twice before embarking on costly litigation might be perfectly prepared to lodge appeals through the cheap and more informal procedure of going to the Council. We have discussed this matter at length with Lord Rochdale and he and his Council are in agreement in regard to that particular point.

We also considered the possibility of adding a Clause to the Bill which would retain for my right hon. Friend a reserve power under which he could reimpose the requirement that charges should be reasonable either at ports as a whole or at particular ports, and that he should do this if experience showed that it was desirable. We rejected this course of action because we are not satisfied that we possess at the Ministry either the knowledge or the machinery to adjudicate upon complicated commercial issues. We are therefore left with the choice of opposing this Amendment and the Amendments which go with it and leaving the harbour authorities with no restrictions whatever on their charges, or of accepting the Amendment and, as it were, restoring the status quo.

After most careful consideration, we have decided—if I may put it this way—that it would be unreasonable not to restore the word "reasonable." To that extent we accept the Amendments in principle. The restoration of the requirement that charges should be reasonable is not quite so simple as the Amendments appear to indicate. If, however, they are withdrawn I give an undertaking that the Government will seek to move the necessary Amendments in another place to restore the requirement that charges should be reasonable where that requirement now prevails.

Mr. Mellish

I am much obliged to the Parliamentary Secretary. Of course, we shall willingly co-operate with him and, in the light of his assurance, we shall withdraw our Amendment on the understanding that the matter will be dealt with in another place. There is, however, a difficulty here which we had better get on to the record. When we put down the Amendment about "reasonable we wanted it to be concerned with the whole of dues and charges. The Parliamentary Secretary has said in effect that this Clause concerns only services and facilities and in that sense I recognise the difficulties.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman made a fair point by saying that if this applied only to harbour authorities in regard to services and facilities the famous firm of Hay's Wharf, in my constituency, would not be covered. I do not think that the analogy is fair because the services and facilities which Hay's Wharf gets come through co-operation with the P.L.A. I cannot imagine that there would be cut-throat open warfare between the two. We had in mind in the whole problem of charges that the consumer should al so have some rights. I should have thought we should have had support on that from hon. Members opposite.

Mr. A. J. Irvine

In view of the assurance given by the Parliamentary Secretary, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett

I beg to move in page 25, line 27, at the end to insert: or under an order confirmed by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries or the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in pursuance of section 2(3)(2) of the Fishery Harbours Act 1915". This is not actually a drafting Amendment. It is to widen the meaning of the term "statutory provision" in Clause 22. The reason is that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has the power, which has been exercised in the past, to make certain orders in revising charges on what is called revision of rates provisions concerned with orders under Section 2(3)(2) of the Fishery Harbours Act, 1915. The little ports of Lone, Bridlington and Scarborough are examples in respect of which such orders have been made.

This Amendment is intended to ensure that such revisionary orders are stautory provisions within Clause 22 and that charges in them are, therefore, free from litigation.

Amendment agreed to.