HL Deb 11 April 1960 vol 222 cc947-53

8.28 p.m.

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Craigton.)

and prosperous industry, and it is the firm intention of the Government that that satisfactory state of affairs should continue.

On Question, Whether the said Resolution shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 31; Not-Contents, 16.

CONTENTS
Ailwyn, L. Craigton, L. Kinnaird, L.
Amherst of Hackney, L. Digby, L. Mills, L.
Ampthill, L. Fortescue, E. Morley, E.
Amwell, L. Fraser of Lonsdale, L. Onslow, E. [Teller.]
Atholl, D. Goschen, V. Rathcavan, L.
Bathurst, E. Gosford, E. St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller]
Buckinghamshire, E. Grenfell, L. St. Oswald, L.
Carrington, L. Hailsham, V. (L. Privy Seal.) Spens, L.
Chesham, L. Horsbrugh, B. Teviot, L.
Clitheroe, L. Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.) Waldegrave, E.
Colville of Culross, V.
NOT-CONTENTS
Alexander of Hillsborough, V. Lawson, L. Stonehaven, V.
Attlee, E. Lucan, E. [Teller.] Stonham, L.
Burden, L. [Teller.] Netherthorpe, L. Strang, L.
Ferrers, E. Pethick-Lawrence, L. Taylor, L.
Granville-West, L. Shackleton, L. Wise, L.
Kershaw, L.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The EARL OF BUCKINGHAMSHIRE in the Chair.]

Clause 1:

Assistance to persons providing sea transport services

1.—(1) For the purposes of maintaining and improving sea transport services serving the Highlands and Islands (hereinafter referred to as "the purposes of this Act") the Secretary of State may assist in accordance with this Act persons— (a) who provide, and are wholly or mainly engaged in providing, such services.

LORD STONHAM moved, in subsection (1), after "Act", where that word occurs a second time, to insert: "any district council which provides such services, or". The noble Lord said, I beg to move the Amendment which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Greenhill (who unfortunaately cannot be here to-night) and myself. I think I can deal with this point very briefly, and I hope that I shall be forgiven if I do not make a long speech. Your Lordships will remember that this Bill, which we on this side of the House fully support, gives the Secretary of State power to make grants for ships and the provision of sea transport services, and services ancillary thereto. Those ancillary services, naturally, include the provision of such things as ferries, jetties and piers. Indeed, it will be possible under this Bill when it becomes an Act, for the Secretary of State to make a grant to a private individual engaged full time or fairly substantially in operating a ferry. The applicant for a grant can be a large shipping company or a single person and the Secretary of State may or may not approve the application.

However, piers and jetties in connection with sea transport services are more likely to be provided by local authorities—or, at least, local authorities would perhaps like to provide them—and there is provision in the Act for those who are local authorities within the meaning of the Harbours, Piers and Ferries (Scotland) Act, 1937, to do so. My understanding of local authorities who fall within that meaning is that they are county councils. It is our submission that local authorities who would be most keenly and directly interested in the provision of small things ancillary to a sea transport service, such as a jetty or ferry, would be the smaller district councils. We feel, therefore, that the words in this Amendment should be inserted in order to enable a district council in Scotland to apply direct to the Secretary of State for a grant if they want to provide a ferry service, a pier or jetty or something of that kind.

I am well aware, because I have been informed on this subject, that there are many small district councils in this area—small, not necessarily in a geographical sense but in the numbers of their citizenry; and it is therefore argued that they should not be given power to apply direct to the Secretary of State, because already they can be made agents of the county councils. If county councils apply to the Secretary of State for these facilities and they are granted, they can delegate those powers to the district council as agent. That shows that the district council is able to operate these services and is not too small to do so or grossly incapable of doing so; otherwise, of course, powers would not be delegated by the county council. Our submission is that the district council should have power to apply to the Secretary of State direct. We say that for this reason: that it has been shown that county councils, in the main, have not been so urgent in making representations to the Secretary of State when similar services—though not exactly of the kind mentioned in the Bill—have been required by district councils.

To give an example, the small Island of Eriskay has been asking for a pier since 1950. Although scheduled ten years ago, it has not yet been provided, merely (as I am informed) because no demand has come from the county council. Of course, we cannot expect the Scottish Office to go round finding out that these little things are wanted, but if the county council do not make the demand, it means that the district council cannot do anything, and people are deprived of a badly needed amenity. In fact, I understand that in some cases considerable dangers have arisen and that fishermen and others in the seafaring profession have actually given up in despair because much-needed facilities of this kind were not provided.

If the smallness of these local authorities is argued, I would say to the Under-Secretary that if the councils are fit to exercise these powers when delegated to them by the county council, they are fit to exercise them when they are delegated direct from the Secretary of State. In addition, if their rateable value is small, as I understand it is, I would remind him that these funds will be coming direct from the Secretary of State. We all want to see, I hope, as much devolution of powers as possible in these matters, and we want to see local interest created. We want the people not to feel frustrated but that here are things with which they can go ahead. I hope that that will be within the spirit and terms of this Bill which we all welcome, and I hope, therefore, that the Under-Secretary will tell us that he will accept this Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 8, after ("Act") insert ("any district council which provides such services, or").—(Lord Stonham.)

LORD CRAIGTON

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for the very kind, sensible and helpful way in which he has proposed his Amendment. I believe the noble Lord realises that in the Scottish local government set-up, between the county council and the district councils there are burgh councils. Perhaps "between" is not the right word, but burgh councils also have powers under the present Bill. I agree with the noble Lord that we want to see more devolution of powers.

Though I have not been able to check this, I believe I am right in saying that district councils are not even universal in Scotland, and that there are areas where no district council operates. But that does not detract from the point which the noble Lord wishes to make. I should like to give him a technical reason which I hope he will accept, in explaining why we cannot accept this Amendment. The Bill authorises my right honourable friend to help with finance, and in other ways, those who provide sea ferry services. This is not a Bill intended to give any added or new powers to operators to provide sea services. It gives no new powers and authorises the Secretary of State only to pay money. I see that the intention of the noble Lord is to help district councils to operate sea ferries and ancillary works, but I have to advise him that his Amendment as framed—although, of course, one never stands upon that—would not have that effect.

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, could I just interrupt the noble Lord? He did not interrupt me, and I understood that he agreed when I said that the Bill allows the Secretary of State to give a single person the right to operate a ferry or receive a grant. How is it that a district council cannot provide a sea service in the shape of a ferry?

LORD CRAIGTON

I asked myself that question, and I will endeavour to give the noble Lord an answer. The Amendment, like the Bill itself, provides money, but does not provide powers to operate. The giving of powers to district councils to operate ferries raises wide issues which cannot and should not be dealt with in this Bill. At present, as the noble Lords knows, district councils have limited powers and powers can be delegated to them by the county councils. I agree with the noble Lord that county councils have not been too free with the delegation of those powers.

I will look into the particular point about Eriskay; but some district councils are very small and it is not for us to pre-judge views taken by county councils. Before any extension of the powers in the existing Act was agreed, there would have to be discussions with the county councils; and I would say, quite seriously, that in that the whole field of local authority responsibilities would be involved. To give the noble Lord one example: for the intention behind this Amendment to be effective district councils would need powers to rate for the service beyond their present statutory 1s. rate, which, in general terms, is all they are empowered to raise.

Furthermore, as I believe the noble Lord realises, it would be necessary to amend the Harbours, Piers and Ferries (Scotland) Act, 1937, under which county councils and burghs, but not district councils, obtain powers to run sea ferries. That is the technical position, but I can assure the noble Lord—and this may help him in the view he takes—that the actual position is nothing like so grim as the technical position. So far as the operation of ferries is concerned, the county councils have full powers to delegate all the operations of the sea ferry to any of the district councils in the area who they consider could do the job with advantage. But ferries, as the noble Lord points out, need piers and associated works; and here, in addition, district councils can also act on their own initiative—the noble Lord may not be aware of this—and get help from the Secretary of State without the aid of this Bill.

LORD STONHAM

If I may interrupt the noble Lord, may I point out that in those circumstances they get only a 75 per cent. grant. Under this Bill, if my Amendment were accepted, they would get a 100 per cent. grant.

LORD CRAIGTON

I take the noble Lord's point, but my point was that they have considerable powers now. At least one district council already owns a pier, and others could acquire piers to operate under the General Piers and Harbours Act, 1861; and my right honourable friend has powers to assist with finance in the Highlands under the Congested Districts Act, 1897. I do not want to argue with the noble Lord about the rights and wrongs of the position. The district councils can now operate sea ferries and piers if the county council delegate powers; they can operate piers, should they wish, and they can acquire the piers, and my right honourable friend can help both operations. Therefore I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw his Amendment, on the grounds that the district councils are not completely shut off from sea, ferry and harbour operations, and on the ground that we should not seek to alter the longstanding powers of local authorities in a Bill of this nature, which seeks only to confer a power on the Secretary of State.

LORD STONHAM

I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his careful explanation and for the spirit in which he has dealt with this Amendment. I think I may say that, although he cannot accept the Amendment, the greater part of what I want to achieve is already in being, and it may well he that the difference in the main is that certain district councils could under certain legislation get a 75 per cent. grant and not a 100 per cent. grant as I would hope. But, if I may say so with respect, I feel that the greatest good will come out of the assurance the noble Lord has given that he will pay particular attention to this point, bring it to the attention of county councils and remind them of their duties so that they do not neglect the pleas of smaller authorities in their areas. If he does that I think it will achieve all I could possibly hope for. This is the fourth occasion on which, under force majeure, I have had to take part in Scottish occasions, and I am grateful that I have emerged alive. And, rejoicing at my escape, I would ask the Committee for permission to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.