HC Deb 11 May 1964 vol 695 cc98-100

Lords Amendment: In page 5, line 16, at end insert: (c) provide for requiring a harbour authority to whom the scheme relates to furnish to the Council such information as the Council may require for the purposes of the scheme, being information relating to any harbour which that harbour authority are engaged in improving, maintaining or managing, to any activities carried on by them at such a harbour or to any property used by them for the purposes of such a harbour, and for requiring the verification of any information furnished in pursuance of a requirement having effect by virtue of this paragraph.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

This is a new Amendment which strengthens the arrangements for raising the levy by introducing a provision which places harbour authorities under the express obligation to supply any information required by the Council to enable it to assess the amount of any charges to be imposed on harbour authorities under a levy scheme. It forms part of Clause 4(3), which lays down what may be included in a scheme.

The Amendment was introduced in another place at the request of the National Ports Council which was concerned about whether it would be possible for it to obtain sufficient information to ensure that any levy scheme was fair. Earlier, we had thought that the Council could rely on its powers under Clause 39 to obtain information for a levy scheme, but it is now plain that this might have given rise to considerable administrative difficulties for the Council. For example, it would have been necessary for it to give notice in writing in seeking information.

By the provisions of this Amendment it would be practical for the Council to prepare a scheme placing an obligation on harbour authorities under the Clause in effect to provide for the necessary information. This Amendment has been framed solely to provide the sort of information which might be required for a levy scheme—for example a statement of revenue, and so forth. It is also necessary because the allocation of the levy will depend on figures produced, that there should be provision for verification. Information under this Clause can only be required for the purpose of a scheme. Information under Clause 39, in contrast, relates more generally to harbour operations. I commend the Amendment to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 5, line 20, at end insert: including, but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing words, provision for imposing penalties in respect of a failure to comply with a requirement having effect by virtue of the last foregoing paragraph to furnish information, so however that no provision imposing such a penalty shall be so framed so as to permit of a person's being punished otherwise than on his summary conviction, or as to permit of the infliction on him of a penalty other than a fine, or of the infliction on him of a fine exceeding £50 or, in the case of a second or subsequent conviction, of a fine exceeding £200.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

This Amendment is consequential on the Amendment which we have just agreed to. It provides the penalties for failure to comply with the obligations imposed by that Amendment.

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

I think that this Amendment deserves comment. We are here concerned with the duty of the Council to work out and impose schemes whereby the Council's own funds may be forthcoming. That is the background. We entirely acknowledge the appropriateness and desirability of a provision that in these circumstances the Council should have the right and power to require information from harbour authorities. Although it may be logical to introduce this Amendment and to have a formal sanction, I very much hope that there will never be occasion to bespeak these penalties. The only occasion on which this can arise will be when the Council, seeking to develop a scheme to collect funds for itself, asks for information from harbour authorities and is denied it. It seems to me that it would be a very melancholy state of affairs should that occur.

My hon. Friends and I would, on the whole, have thought the matter sufficiently met by the previous Amendment. Although we acknowledge that in strict logic it is reasonable and appropriate to have a sanction, this matter is so unlikely to arise, I would hope, that the formal penalty provision seems to be a somewhat unwelcome proposal.

Question put and agreed to.