HC Deb 06 July 1966 vol 731 cc548-54

For the purposes of section 14(iii) and section 18(2)(i) of the 1964 Act, the Transport Act 1962 shall be deemed to be of local application insofar as it relates to the powers of the British Transport Docks Board and of the British Railways Board to act as a docks or harbour authority at any docks or harbours which may from time to time become the subject of a Harbour Revision Order or a reorganisation scheme under sections 14 or 18 of the 1964 Act respectively.—[Mr. Ridley.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Ridley

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

The new Clause arises out of two debates which we had in Committee. The first, which was carried to a vote, was on the question whether the British Transport Docks Board should set up local committees at the ports, and the second was on the Question, "That Clause 40 stand part of the Bill". We did not have a satisfactory answer from the Government in these two discussions.

The point is that the provisions of the Harbours Act, 1964, were intended to overrule completely any previous statutes, either public or private, under which harbour authorities had been set up. In Sections 14 and 18 of the Act, the words repealing or amending any statutory provision of local application occur on several occasions, making it clear that the Act's provisions overrule previous Acts.

In most cases, all the statutory provisions under which harbour authorities have been set up were under the Private Bill procedure, although they have occasionally been set up by Public Bill procedure. However that may be, the British Transport Docks Board is now claiming that the Minister's powers to make revision orders and reorganisation schemes under the Harbours Act are restricted, inasmuch as the Board's own powers as dock and harbour authority are derived from the Transport Act, 1962, which it claims is of general, and not local, application.

For this reason, it contends that it is legally impossible for it to agree to set up local boards on the Humber, at Southampton, and in South Wales. All of these areas have groups of ports which would normally have had local boards or committees running them, but do not at present; they have only advisory committees.

The haphazard position, arrived at through history, that the British Transport Docks Board should own the three groups of ports on the Humber, at Southampton, and in South Wales, is an accident. Although the Opposition do not complain that the Board should have those three groups, we feel very strongly that a greater degree of local autonomy should be provided and that boards, councils or committees should be established upon which will be local user and employee representation to make sure that the local people who use, run, and work in the ports have a full say in how they are managed.

The point is largely legal, in that the Board is claiming that under the previous Acts, it does not have power to set up these local boards. We believe that this is clearly wrong, because the Harbours Act must have overruled that position, since it came two years after the 1962 Act, under which the Board was established.

When we argued this matter in Committee, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport said that we would be wrong to get the British Transport Docks Board to set up statutory committees in each of its groups of ports. Although we do not agree with that argument, I believe that we have overcome the hon. Gentleman's objection by at least clarifying the position in the new Clause and making it clear that the Docks Board cannot shelter behind a belief that the Act under which it was set up overrides the Harbours Act, 1964.

The new Clause by no means asks for statutory boards. It is entirely permissive. If the Clause is added to the Bill, all that will happen is that the Docks Board can no longer use as an excuse the fact that it is not legally able to set up these local committees. It will then have to argue these matters on their merits with the critics instead of sheltering behind a legal point which, many of us feel, is not a true one.

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

Will the hon. Member explain whether the British Transport Docks Board is desirous of having the opportunity of setting up these local committees?

Mr. Ridley

The answer is that there appears to be some dispute between the local harbour users and the Docks Board. This is the reason for the new Clause. It is essential to clear up the legal position.

We argued the merits of the case in Committee upstairs and I would not trespass on the time of the House by going over all that ground again. When, however, on the debate on Clause 40, I sought to get an exact legal definition from the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, he was, understandably at such short notice, unable to give it in specific terms.

I shall be grateful, therefore, if the hon. Gentleman will either accept the new Clause if there is any doubt about the legal position or, if there is no doubt, give an assurance that the law is as I believe it to be and not as the Docks Board makes it out to be.

Mr. Swingler

I know that I will be acquitted at once of any responsibility for either the Transport Act, 1962, or the Harbours Act, 1964. The legal position is perfectly clear. It is clear that the architects of the Harbours Act, 1964, who no longer occupy this side of the House, did not provide in that Act for harbour revision orders or harbour reorganisation schemes to supersede, or to include repeals of, national powers and functions that had been conferred in the Transport Act, 1962.

The 1962 Act laid down the powers, functions and constitution of the British Transport Docks Board and, presumably, it was carefully thought out by those who were responsible for it. It is no secret in the House that I am not a fanatical enthusiast for the Transport Act, 1962, and I am certainly open to persuasion that we should consider some of its provisions.

That was how the national powers and functions of the British Transport Docks Board were laid down. Subsequently, there came the Harbours Act, 1964, which provided that harbour revision orders could contain provisions to repeal or amend statutory provisions of local application. Local statutory provisions could be repealed within harbour revision orders. At the time when the then Government were considering the Harbours Act, 1964, they could have inserted the provision that harbour revision orders could repeal national statutory provisions. But they did not. We know from the discussions that we have had in Standing Committee that certain problems arise and we have endeavoured to provide for them. There are two particular problems.

One of them is the question of the transfer of capital debt of the Docks Board under a harbour reorganization scheme. We have provided within this Bill for the transfer to a new authority of an appropriate part of the Docks Board capital debt under a harbour revision order or reorganisation scheme. This is provided for in Clause 39. We have also provided for adjustments to pensions schemes. Where such orders are made it may be necessary to transfer pension entitlements and we have provided for this in Clause 41(3). We have not provided, and I ask the House not to provide, for any alteration at present in the functions and powers of the British Transport Docks Board as laid down in the Acts.

I wish that hon. Gentlemen opposite would stop knocking the British Transport Docks Board. The Board has been doing an extremely efficient job of work. It has powers to delegate managerial functions to local managers, and it endeavours, I believe, to carry out local consultations to the full. I know that hon. Gentlemen opposite wanted to write into this Bill various procedures to impose upon the nationalised Docks Board, in contradistinction to any obligations which they wanted to impose upon private or other kinds of authorities, the obligation to consult or to have local committees or things of that kind. We believe that the Board is performing an efficient task, and that it has the necessary powers to delegate to its local managers those powers which ought to be delegated. We believe that it endeavours to carry on with users the best possible consultations. We have provided for any necessary adjustments in the Bill in relation to two matters I have mentioned, capital debt and pension schemes in the case of harbour revision orders. I would ask the House to resist this new Clause which, I regret to say, I can only feel is inspired by the desire to discriminate against the nationalised Docks Board.

Mr. Ridley

With the leave of the House, may I reply? I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary for having at least cleared up the legal position. Not being a lawyer it takes me a lot of time to get my mind round the point that I was trying to make, but I understood the answer, which will be useful for clarification purposes. I remain uneasy about the substance of the hon. Gentleman's objection to the effects of accepting this Clause. We have always felt, not because of any discriminatory feeling towards the Docks Board, that ports should be administered on an estuarial basis, and not centrally. I believe that the views of the party opposite run in that direction. We are still apprehensive that not sufficient attention has been pa d by the Docks Board to consultation and the powers to run at the port level. This is not a criticism of the Board. It is a difference of opinion which we are entitled to have.

9.15 p.m.

The main purpose of submitting the new Clause was to get clarification of the legal position. I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for clarifying it. Therefore, we do not intend to press the Clause to a Division.

Mr. David Webster (Weston-super-Mare)

May I answer, I hope fairly, the point which the Parliamentary Secretary made about this side of the House always wanting to "knock" the nationalised industries. I should have hoped that something could be done to encourage discussion of the needs of the docks and estuarial groupings concerned.

An illustration of what I have in mind is the South Wales ports which I visited independently at the time of the Rochdale Commission. I was a week ahead of the Commission. I spent two weeks at the docks, considering their very considerable problems. It seemed to me that consultation and the bringing of users into closer connection with the docks would have been particularly helpful at that time. The South Wales ports were designed about 1910. It was about that time that the last capital structure was done there. The main entry locks date from that time or possibly even earlier. The docks are based completely on a coal-exporting economy, with a tremendous amount of coal staithes built there which have not been used for many years. They are valuable docks.

As is known, the South Wales economy is moving, to a certain extent, away from a coal-mining distributive economy—some of it being by coastal shipping, some by other ways. May I say, without attacking the nationalised industries, that there was not enough adaptation of the South Wales docks to the needs of the new incoming industries, which are not entirely iron and steel. Many smaller industries came in during the "13 wasted years". The Conservative Government did a great deal to encourage industry to come to this part of the country.

I should have thought that this new Clause was reasonable, that it would have provided an incentive for closer consultation with the industries in the area, and, that it could be accepted.

Mr. Swingler

By leave of the House, may I say that I am glad that I have cleared up the legal position for the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley).

I say to the hon. Member for Westonsuper-Mare (Mr. Webster) that if hon. Members can suggest ways in which the British Transport Docks Board could improve its consultative machinery with users, we shall be very pleased to hear about them. My right hon. Friend the Minister is responsible for the Board. It is accountable to my right hon. Friend. I am sure that it would be very pleased to consider any criticisms. But it is a nationalised organisation of which we can be proud. I am sure that it is in favour of the highest standards of management. Therefore, I do not think that we should accept this proposal.

Question put and negatived.