HL Deb 02 June 1960 vol 224 cc295-304

2.12 p.m.

Read 2a, and referred to the Examiners.

VISCOUNT RUNCIMAN OF DOXFORD rose to move, That it be an Instruction to the Committee to which the Bill may be referred that they should satisfy themselves whether or not it is in the public interest to give the powers appropriate to a public Port Authority to a limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1948. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I do so because the point it raises is one which might not be brought before the Committee by Petition, being a point of a more general character, and also because, being of a more general character, it is one which your Lordships might desire to have well examined.

Broadly speaking, the question it raises is what is the best form of port authority. Very briefly, there are at present three main forms of such authority. There are the public trusts, described by the Royal Commission on Transport in 1931 as the best kind of authority to own docks and harbours", whose powers are balanced by obligations, such as to apply their revenue to improving the port, and whose membership is widely representative of the interests concerned in the port—merchants, shipowners, local authorities and the like. Then there are the former railway docks, now belonging to the British Transport Commission. That ownership has not in the past been without question, but certainly their charges are subject to very strict control, and that is obviously more a public form of ownership than would be ownership by a private company. Then there are a number of port authorities which are in fact private companies. I doubt, though, if they offer much guide to the particular case of Sheerness. Most of them are very small, and there are generally either old historical reasons, such as the ownership of property, as in the case, say, of Granton on the Firth of Forth, or a close tie with a single local industry, like Par Harbour in Cornwall.

There is a modern case of a limited company having powers of a port authority where it is closely tied to a local industry, and that is the United Steel Companies, Limited, at Workington, where the dock was transferred to that company by Act of Parliament in 1957. In that case, however, as the Act recites, over 90 per cent. of the trade in the port is related to the Workington Iron and Steel Works owned by the companies, and they have in any case the power of appointing trustees of the former harbour board. That is more nearly the case of a private harbour than a general port catering for all shipping. Two oil companies and the Angle Ore and Transport Company have certain rights to acquire land and build piers and make charges in Milford Haven, but here again it is more a matter of a single trade than of a general port such as will be developed at Sheerness. The only outstanding example of a limited company being a major port authority is, I think, the Manchester Ship Canal Company. Here, however, the incorporating Act provides that if application is made to Parliament for an Act to transfer the undertaking to trustees, the company shall not oppose it but shall support it. By the Manchester Ship Canal (Finance) Act, 1904, it is provided that the majority of the Canal Company's directors shall be appointed by the Manchester Corporation, so that in practice the undertaking is under municipal control.

Those are the sort of considerations which form the background to my Motion this afternoon. I would only add, though I am sure it is unnecessary to do so, that there is no conflict to my mind between the public interest and the interest of Sheerness itself, whose development as a major port your Lordships have, I am certain, so much at heart. I beg to move.

Moved, That lit be an Instruction to the Committee to which the Bill may be referred that they should satisfy themselves whether or not it is in the public interest to give the powers appropriate to a public Port Authority to a limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1948.—(Viscount Runciman of Doxford.)

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

My Lords, I have been very interested in the speech the noble Viscount has made with regard to this matter. It is not very usual, although of course it is perfectly in order, to move an instruction to the Committee on a point like this. But I am rather moved by his concluding sentences, and I am sure the whole House will not want to interfere in any way with the development of Sheerness as a port. Therefore, the instruction to the Committee seems to me to be unnecessary. I suppose that in a matter of this kind the Committee which is appointed to deal with the Bill will in any case, or should in every case they deal with, take into account what is in the public interest. Otherwise it is not a matter that ought to be brought before Parliament at all, and it seems to me, therefore, superfluous to put this particular instruction. What I am most anxious to know is what is the origin of this proposed Motion. Who submits it? Is it on behalf of objectors to the Bill or to any provision in the Bill? Is it by any chance a river conservancy board, or is it the Port of London Authority? I did not gather from the speech made in moving the Motion exactly where it emanates from.

VISCOUNT RUNCIMAN OF DOXFORD

If I can reassure the noble Viscount, I am not, and never have been, a member of any port authority. I made this Motion entirely on my own personal responsibility.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

I understood previously—and this is why I asked the question—that another noble Lord might have been the one who was going to move it and that there was a particular interest. However, I can well imagine that there may be some opposition, say from some neighbouring river conservancy board or from the Port of London Authority. But what I feel that the House should bear in mind, as a matter which really should be considered in the public interest by the Committee, without any such instruction as this, is what is the duty of Parliament and the Government to the inhabitants of Sheerness?

What is the position there? In 1805 the Government of the country began to build a dock, which afterwards became such a notable naval dock, and it has continued ever since then. That is a period of about 155 years. The whole township of Sheerness has depended Upon the Government work in that yard, and it has now been brought to an end. The fact that the dockyard has now been closed, and that the remaining work that had to be disposed of has gradually been got rid of, after the decision of the Government to close, has already brought depression to the town of Sheerness in the island. The average percentage of unemployment in the country at large is just over 1 per cent.—barely 1½ per cent., anyway. But in Sheerness, as a result of Government action, it is 9 per cent. Moreover, many of the men who are still employed now have to go, at greater expense to themselves, all the way from Sheerness to Chatham for their daily work.

It was a Government decision to close the yard and to sell the property to a development company, from which there is some prospect of being able to provide employment for this very important urban community in this island, so affecting, of course, the livelihood of all the inhabitants in Sheerness. And if the Government approved of the Admiralty action in disposing of this property, so that there would be something done by private enterprise, to whom they sold their nationally owned dockyard, in order to assist the local population, then it seems to me reasonable that nothing should be done in the consideration of this Bill which would give to the company which has taken over the development in this island, for the purpose of helping the local people any lesser privilege in the development of the harbour in any respect than was already the privilege of the Admiralty during all their years of occupation.

I am not able to say exactly what those privileges were. From what I have ascertained by inquiry I am quite certain that no Government Department would lay down in points 1, 2 and 3 or paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) exactly what conditions should be attached to the sale of a property in all these circumstances. But I am quite sure that there is a great moral responsibility upon the Government of the day, since it was by their action, however necessary it was from a general policy point of view, that the dockyard was disposed of, to secure the proper standard of life and constant employment of the people of that place.

What is likely to arise in evidence before the Private Bill Committee, I do not know. But it seems to me that if there is opposition it is likely to be from interested companies, or from parties like the Port of London Authority or a river conservancy board, or some similar body who may fear some competition from the development of this port as a civil port. If that is so—if they fear any competition—it seems to me that when the Board of Admiralty advertised at large this dockyard, factory and premises for sale, then it was perfectly within the competence of the authorities I have referred to to have made a bid or to take over the yard. As they did not do so, it seems to me fairly clear that they are not ever themselves likely to develop the port as it should be developed.

I know something about the anchorage—naturally so, because for nearly nine years I was at the Admiralty. It is a most valuable and wonderful deep-water anchorage. From a commercial point of view, if the actual dockside were advanced to a certain extent into the deep water, great ships could lie there in comfort for any length of time. It is an extraordinarily good mooring and working place for large ships. In my time some of the finest and largest ships of Her Majesty's Navy have anchored with complete safety and calm, and in perfect depth for their purpose, in the wonderful anchorage at Sheerness. I am most anxious that your Lordships ought to consider first, before anything else, what are the real interests of the people of the island who have been faced with a trade depression and increase in unemployment as a result of the Government's action in disposing of the yard and that, whatever is done in this Private Bill before it passes through its final stages in Parliament, one thought should be in our minds—namely, our moral responsibility as Parliament to see that the people of that island are able to get such facilities as will give them full employment and a decent standard of life.

The only other point I wish to make is this. The noble Viscount, Lord Runciman of Doxford, referred rather briefly to other port enterprises. I am quite sure that he did in war time what I myself did—sigh more than once over that wonderful harbour at Falmouth which is in private company ownership. I remember flying back from Bordeaux when I had been over to negotiate with Admiral Darlan in June, 1940. One could not bring any great charge of lack of public interest in regard to the behaviour and efficiency of, and the accommodation provided by, the private dock company at Falmouth. Looking down from the air I have never seen such a collection as we had there in the third week of June, 1940. There are, of course, many other yards, docksides and ports in the country which are still under private interest. I am not one who wants at large to support private enterprise in these matters, and I am perfectly willing that in every possible case where it can be done in the interests of the whole community, such a place should pass into either local public or national public ownership. In this particular case, however, we have a Bill before Parliament, and no other public authority—not one—has proposed to help this community. Where a Private Bill is introduced as a result of the Government's decision to sell to a private development company, it seems to me that we ought to do all we possibly can to give the company every possible facility.

LORD TWEEDSMUIR

My Lords, I rise to make one brief point. I am one of those who has a very strong predilection towards letting a Select Committee get on with their job, in their own way and in their own time. Their task is to scrutinise every relevant consideration. They have learned counsel to assist them, and no lack of time in which to do it. It is not as if this Bill is leaving this House never to return. Admittedly, there is no Report stage; but there is a Third Reading, when the House has an opportunity of either giving or withholding consent. I would suggest to my noble friend Lord Runciman of Doxford that he has made his point in a short, but extremely interesting, speech and by moving this Motion. But I do not think that the wording of the instruction can, frankly, add much to the deliberations of the Committee, and I venture to hope that having made his point, as he has, he may see his way to withdraw it.

2.26 p.m.

THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM)

My Lords, I think it might be for the convenience of the House if I were to intervene briefly, particularly in view of what the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition has said. He, of course, made a powerful contribution on this matter, and I was glad that he did, although in another respect—and he will appreciate that I intend no disrespect to him—I was not so glad that he did; because I hope that I do not have to assure him, or any of your Lordships, that it is precisely the kind of factor that he related that we have had in mind in adopting an attitude to this Bill, and indeed in trying to make these arrangements with the development company. It was precisely those factors which the noble Viscount detailed.

So far as the instruction is concerned, I do not think I need say much about it—though perhaps I might say that it was established as long ago as 1908 that, on the whole, it was preferable for a harbour authority to be a public trust of some kind. There are, however, as has been mentioned, quite a number of exceptions to that rule which are sufficient to prove that they can work perfectly well. I should have thought that the Committee would in any case have taken that point into account, and I think that, on the whole, we all want this thing to happen, for the reasons that have been mentioned and which I need not repeat again. Therefore, I think it is for the Committee to see that the way in which this is done is the best possible way.

2.29 p.m.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD MERTHYR)

My Lords, I think your Lordships are accustomed to expect a few words on a Motion of this kind from the Member of the House who holds my office. First of all, I should like to say that if this were one of those instructions which are mandatory by nature—that is, if it were an instruction which would compel the Select Committee to do something, such as to leave out a clause in the Bill, or to do the reverse, then in my judgment there would be considerable objections to passing the Motion. But I should like to make it clear, as is indeed apparent, that the proposed instruction to the Committee is not of a mandatory nature. All that it instructs the Committee to do is to consider a question—namely, "whether or not it is in the public interest" and so on. They are instructed to consider that question.

I have looked up precedents which govern this matter and they all point in the direction that the Chairman of Committees usually advises the House (and I so do this afternoon) that it would be wise to accept this Motion, because, as I have said, it does no more than ask the Committee to consider the point. Perhaps I may be forgiven if I read a few lines from one of the Petitions against the Bill. I hope to show that in reality it will make just about no difference whether or not this Motion is passed.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

Then why move it?

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

My Lords, I am not moving a Motion; I am only advising the House. The Motion says that: The Committee … should satisfy themselves whether or not it is in the public interest to give the powers … May I read three lines from paragraph 14 of one of the three Petitions against the Bill? The words are these: Your Petitioners respectfully submit that the grant of these powers to the company would not be in the public interest as is alleged in the Preamble to the Bill. I noted what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, and he is, of course, quite right in saying that, generally speaking, Select Committees do, as in duty bound, consider all the relevant points in a Bill. But there are opposed Bills (and this is one) where the Petitions are directed only to certain clauses in the Bills; and in that event in this House the Select Committee do not consider the other clauses. That, however, does not apply to this case, as I apprehend, because, as I have already said, the point at issue is going to be raised in any event by at least one of the Petitioners. That being so, I feel that I am justified in saying, as I already have, that in my judgment there is really not going to be any difference in the result whether this Motion is passed or is not passed.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

My Lords, if we accepted the suggestion of the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees, the effect upon local opinion surely would be that we were, in this House, specially directing the Committee—in a way, projecting the point made in the opposing Petition. I think it is quite unreasonable for the House to do so; and if public interest has to be considered because of the Petition, there is no need at all for the Motion to be moved in this House.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

My Lords, on that I can only repeat that the Motion directs the Committee to: satisfy themselves whether or not"— and, as I have said, I am not moving this Motion but dealing with it as I believe the holder of my office should. The words "whether or not it is in the public interest" do not indicate the opinion of your Lordships' House this afternoon.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

By Lords, then why move it?

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

My Lords, as I have said, the precedents point to the advice being given by the Chairman of Committees that this is a Motion, not being a mandatory instruction, which might well be passed. But if it is your Lordships' wish not to pass it, then, as I have said twice already, I do not think it will make any difference.

VISCOUNT RUNCIMAN OF DOXFORD

My Lords, in view of what the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees has just said and the fact that the point to which I wished to draw attention has been amply covered by what has been said this afternoon, I shall be very happy, if your Lordships so desire and will give me leave, to withdraw my Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.