POWER TO MAKE REGULATIONS TO APPOINT PERSONS TO PERFORM FUNCTIONS OF A PROPER OFFICER (Hansard, 11 March 1970)

§ Mr. Patrick Jenkin
I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

§ Mr. Speaker
With this Clause, we will take Amendment No. 50, in page 44, line 24, at end insert: 'and any person appointed under regulations made under Clause (Power to make regu- 1358 lations to appoint persons to perform functions of a proper officer)'. The two are linked.

§ Mr. Jenkin
The purpose of the Clause and of the Amendment is to enable us once again to attempt to hear from the Government how they propose to reconcile those provisions of the Bill which conflict with the recommendations of the Duncan Committee in its Report of the Review Committee on Overseas Representation 1968–69, published as Cmnd. 4107. As the Minister of State and the House will be aware, this matter has been raised on a number of occasions during the passage of the Bill.
The point is very short, but very important. The Duncan Report recommends a drastic reduction in the number of consular posts overseas which will be available to perform traditional consular functions, including functions under the Merchant Shipping Acts. The Bill, drawn in very close accord with the recommendations of the Pearson Committee, which reported two years before the Duncan Committee, appears to have taken no account whatever of the possibility, that consular posts overseas may be reduced. Indeed, it contains a substantial number of duties imposed on those whom it describes as "proper officers", who, for the most part, are consular representatives in overseas ports.
When I raised this subject on Second Reading the Minister of State was not in a position to deal with it, and I make no complaint of that. When my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. R. Ridsdale) raised it in Committee, the Minister gave an answer which was, perhaps, a bit superficial. He said: If a proper officer was not available, the regulations, I imagine, would require a report to the nearest consul or the consul at the next port of call, or to the Registrar-General. These arrangements will require consideration. On the larger point of the diminution of consular facilities in various parts of the world, I am conscious of this for certain reasons… and the right hon. Gentleman referred to his previous position in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office: But I do not think that this will be seriously deleterious to the operation of this part of the Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 18th December, 1969; c. 71.] I was, therefore, a bit surprised when I myself addressed the Committee, as 1359 reported in the following column. I then adverted to what I said were over a dozen functions imposed on proper officers, and HANSARD reports that the Minister of State intervened to say, "Seventy-six ". I must say that I have not counted all those functions imposed by the Bill and by the Merchant Shipping Acts, but if it be the fact that 76 functions are specifically imposed by legislation on consular officers it seems to me to represent a very important matter, indeed, if the number of these officers is to be drastically reduced.
It is not as if the functions are unimportant. The functions which the Acts and the Bill impose on consular officers are quite substantial. For instance, if a master wants to discharge a seaman overseas the discharge must be done with the consent of the proper officer. If there is a dispute in a foreign port about wages, it is the proper officer who is called in to settle the dispute. If there are complaints about food or accommodation on board ship—which, goodness knows, can give rise to very serious difficulties—it is the proper officer who has to go on board to see to what extent the complaints are justified. If there is a death on board ship, it is the proper officer who, in the first instance, makes an inquiry into that death. If a seaman has been left behind, it is the proper officer who has to see to his relief and repatriation. And so it goes on.
No one could seriously contend that these are not to be regarded as quite important duties to be imposed by the Bill on those officials in ports overseas. The discharge of those duties all depends on the existence of a substantial number of consular posts along the lines which have existed hitherto in, foreign ports. Yet the Duncan Report recommends a substantial reduction in the number. It states: We recommend that in drafting new shipping legislation the Board of Trade should consider not simply the modernisation of present practice but a more fundamental reform whereby the shipping services at present expected of consular Posts might be drastically curtailed, if not eliminated altogether, on the lines indicated above. Yet, so far as I am aware, since the publication of the report not one change has been introduced into the Bill to take account of that recommendation, nor have the Government yet announced 1360 their intentions with regard to the recommendations of the Duncan Committee.
Ideally, it would have been better had we been able to deal with the matter in the Bill. It obviously will not be possible if consular posts are to be reduced, for the Government to do that. Clearly, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has not yet made up its mind what response it will offer to the recommendations of the Duncan Committee. Therefore, I put forward my Amendment recognising that it is only the second-best, but one which, nevertheless, will save the position. If we find that a substantial number of consular posts are to disappear, the Board of Trade must surely have power to appoint people in their place to carry out the statutory functions. That is what the Clause and the Amendment seek to do.
The Clause would give the Board of Trade power to make regulations under which it might appoint fit and proper persons to perform the functions of a proper officer in foreign ports, and would empower the Board of Trade to pay their remuneration or fees out of moneys provided by Parliament with the consent of the Treasury. This seems to me to be an absolute minimum power which the Government must have if the purposes of the Measure are not to be frustrated.
It simply is no answer to say that they can always go on to the next port where a proper officer is to be found, or they can telegraph to the home port and deal with the matter in that way. Of course, if one is dealing with European ports that may be possible, but one has to think of ships going on long voyages, for instance, to the Far East, and often calling at major ports such as Yokohama, in Japan, or at Manilla, where the services of a proper officer may not be available.
The Clause and the Amendment may not be the way of achieving this purpose, but that something has to be done is clear. We have raised this matter on three or four occasions and not had a satisfactory answer. Now an opportunity is presented for the Minister of State to tell the House what the Government will do.

§ Mr. Goronwy Roberts
I refer, first, to the number of functions to be performed by proper officers. The hon. 1361 Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) was, of course, quite right: the number is nearer to a dozen than to six dozen. The interjection recorded in HANSARD was made in relation to a quite extraneous point. I entirely agree about the importance of functions performed by proper officers and of having a proper coverage of ports.
I am sorry that the hon. Member thinks that I have been a little laggard in coming forward with a statement on the Duncan Report. In view of the fact that this substantial and far-reaching report is still under consideration and decisions have not yet been finalised I decided that I should wait for the latest appropriate opportunity and then make as full a statement as possible. I do not know whether what I am able to say today will satisfy the hon. Member.
I have consulted my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. I assure the House that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is aware of the need to take account of the requirements of any merchant shipping legislation in force, or contemplated, and regulations made, or likely to be made, under such legislation in its study of the Duncan proposals in the consular field. The Office is fully aware of the need that consular facilities should continue to be available to enable a proper implementation of the provisions in the Bill and regulations to be made there under. I suggest that the House should assume that these facilities will be available in approaching the proposals of the Bill.
Clearly, at a somewhat later stage, the hon. Member and his hon. Friends would be right to probe us as to the way in which consideration is developing. After consultation with my right hon. Friend, I am satisfied that the intention is as I have stated it to be. Indeed, I have stated it in terms which were agreed. I hope that that will go some way to allay the apprehensions which the hon. Member has enunciated.
As regards the possibility of serious gaps in the provision of proper officers to discharge these functions in certain ports, I am advised that there is no need for any special provision for the appointment of persons by the Board of Trade outside the United Kingdom. Powers 1362 already exist in Clause 82 of the Bill, but it would normally be left to the Foreign Office to appoint persons serving abroad in those capacities. I hope that with that explanation the hon. Member will feel able not to press the new Clause.

§ Mr. Patrick Jenkin
I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I am sure he will recognise that he has gone a good deal further this afternoon than he was able to go on previous occasions. The statement which he incorporated in his speech with the authority of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will be valuable guidance to shipping companies to know the sort of treatment they can expect to be available for dealing with these matters in foreign ports. It recognises that the Foreign Office is moving fairly sharply towards a rejection of the recommendation of the Duncan Report, which would mean a drastic curtailment in the number of consular officers. I hope that that will not emerge.
I take note of what the right hon. Gentleman has said and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.