HARBOURS BILL (Hansard, 14 April 1964)

HL Deb 14 April 1964 vol 257 cc393-446 393

§ 4.35 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 Chesham.)

§ On Question, Motion agreed to.

§ House in Committee accordingly.

§ [The LORD STRANG in the Chair.]

§ Clause 1:

§ The National Ports Council Establishment of National Ports Council, and principal duties thereof

§ 1.—(1) There shall be a Council to be called the National Ports Council (hereafter in this Act referred to as "this Council") which shall be charged with the following duties that is to say,—

§ VISCOUNT SIMON moved, in subsection (1) to insert as a new paragraph (a): (a) preparing an overall plan for the development of the harbours of Great Britain;". The noble Viscount said: The purpose of this Amendment and the next (they hang together) is to get into Clause 1 of the Bill the basic purpose of the National Ports Council, which is to prepare an overall plan for the development of the harbours of Great Britain. On Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, explained the difficulty which had been felt about including this provision in the clause, which was that it might be argued that, with that provision included in the Bill, any action of the National Ports Council taken before the overall plan had been produced could be challenged.

§ I confess to finding it very difficult to follow this argument. Clause 1 is not an operative clause: it expresses general intentions. I think that during the discussion in another place the point was made that the wording was perhaps not very important; but what I have endeavoured to do, in putting forward this Amendment, is to suggest a form of words which will make it plain that the National Ports Council can consider, examine and produce plans for individual ports provided they are directed towards 394 an eventual overall development plan. I think it is agreed in all quarters that that is the object of the Bill. I know that the non-statutory council which is at present sitting has been invited by the Minister to examine certain proposals, and I believe they are doing so, but I am quite sure they are examining them in the context of a national plan. They are not going to recommend certain courses only to find, later on, when the national plan arrives, that what they have recommended does not fall in with that plan.

§ I think it is important to get this provision into Clause 1, for two reasons. One is that when this Bill becomes an Act it will be the terms of reference of the National Ports Council. Although the intention has been made clear in Parliament during debates, after all, it is not written into the Bill, and the future National Ports Council or a future Minister may well ignore completely the need to produce a national plan because it is not written into the Bill. It is not at all likely to happen in the immediate future, because everybody knows what is intended, but I should have thought it was a sound principle to put this provision into the Bill, if it can be done, in order to remind the National Ports Council of this very important duty.

§ The second reason why I think it is important is this. I want to see, and I think we all want to see, the National Ports Council get on with the production of an overall national plan, because as the general plan of the Bill is that harbour development will be controlled by the control of capital expenditure until the national plan is produced, the individual port authorities will have to put forward their proposals on a more or less trial and error basis, and a considerable waste of effort and a certain amount of frustration may arise. As soon as we can get the national plan, then I conceive that the port authorities will see the role which each is intended to play and will produce their plans in order to develop within the role which has been assigned to them, and we shall get rid of this possibility of wasted effort and of frustration. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will feel that these words will permit, as I feel sure they do, the National Ports Council to get on with dealing with general matters before they 395 have actually issued their national overall plan, but will at the same time keep constantly before them the need to go ahead with the overall plan as soon as they can. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 1, line 9, at end insert— ("(a) preparing an overall plan for the development of the harbours of Great Britain;").—(Viscount Simon.)

§ THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM)
The noble Viscount quite correctly stated what I had said on Second Reading: that there is no objection of principle that I have to raise against what he is seeking to do. I also pointed out, if he remembers, that from the purely legal point of view I am informed that the actual object which he has put before us is, in fact, covered in the reference to formulating comprehensive plans; because I believe it is perfectly good to say that the plural includes the singular in this case. At the same time, I am not trying to argue that that is not necessarily desirable, because it is—as he is quite correct in saying—the real, primary purpose of the National Ports Council.
I must admit, however, that I am a little worried about the impact of importing these words into the Bill. I have given some consideration to this matter and it has been extremely difficult so far to work out a form of words which does not have a limiting effect on the necessary planning functions of the Council. I am sorry to say that that would be the unfortunate effect of the form of words which the noble Viscount has put to us. By requiring that all the Council's planning should be—and I use his words—"with that object in view" (that is, with national planning in view) it would make it necessary for the Council to show in the period when they were drafting a national plan, which I think the noble Viscount will agree will probably take some time, that any plan they produced in the meantime demonstrably had a bearing on the national plan. The noble Viscount may think that that is a rather legalistic argument, and, indeed, it is; but we are, after all, writing legislation to-day, and I think it is important to make the matter perfectly clear as against the possibility of 396 some challenge in the courts in the years to come.
What concerns me even more is that it could then be argued, if we were to adopt the noble Viscount's wording, that when the national plan had been produced the Council's principal function would be finished. That is certainly not what the Government intend. Obviously, the Council will want to see all port development related to the national plan; but there will be new requirements arising in due course and modification will have to be made to suit them. I do not think the port authorities themselves would want to cater for that kind of change. The intention is, and always has been, that the Ports Council shall be continuing in their activities; and I should not want to risk their planning activities being brought to a standstill on completion of the overall plan. Therefore, my main concern, although I can see nothing wrong with the basic principle, is that we do not get any wording into this clause which will inhibit the Council in their planning activities, either at the stage when they are developing the national plan or in their continuing function when they have done so. Therefore I hope the noble Viscount will think about that point and not press his Amendment to-day.

§ LORD COTTESLOE
It appears to me, though I may be mistaken, that the objections we have heard to these two Amendments all relate to the second of them. I wonder whether it might not be possible for the first Amendment to be accepted. The second Amendment does not appear to me to be essential at all. The first Amendment would, I think, stand by itself, if the Government are prepared to accept it. Perhaps the noble Lord would consider that.

§ LORD SHACKLETON
I think we have to accept the noble Lord's objections to the Amendments as they are drafted; but I should like to ask him to think again. It is perfectly possible to argue—and I accept what he says—that the clause as drafted will enable the National Ports Council to do what the noble Viscount asked. But we have run into difficulties in the past in the particular functions of national bodies—the noble Lord will agree that we have had some trouble over the precise rôle of the air corporations—and I should have 397 thought the case for this Amendment had been made out by the fact that the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, thought it was necessary to move it. If anybody is going to be presumed capable of understanding this clause and the Bill and the purposes of the Bill, it must surely be he; and he is not content with it.
Since I think there is no difference in principle as to what we wish to achieve, I would urge the Minister to think again and see whether he can find a form of words, not restrictive, as he suggested this form might be, and accept that, and make it clear that the purpose, among other things, is an overall plan rather than comprehensive but possibly individual plans. I should have thought it very important to set out in this particular clause, in not purely legal language, what the purposes are. It seemed to me that the noble Viscount made his case on this occasion and on Second Reading; and, indeed, the noble Lord accepts this.
I am sure the noble Lord will appreciate that it is always difficult, when you are carrying something out, if you have to argue about your terms of reference. It may be perfectly possible for the National Ports Council to remind itself all the time that this is its function; but it might be challenged in certain of its activities. I do not know how serious this objection is; but I see considerable advantage in getting something along these lines into what are really the principal intentions of the Bill. Perhaps the noble Lord would consider that and, in particular, consider the point which was just made by the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe.

§ LORD CHESHAM
I do not think there is much I would add to my argument. I am grateful that noble Lords who have spoken are prepared to accept that there is strength and importance in what I have said. The only thing I would add, which I am permitted to do, is that the National Ports Council, as set up at the moment, share the concern about possible difficulties such as I mentioned in the future. But I will say no more than that, because I am not arguing against what the noble Viscount and other noble Lords wish to do but merely against the form in which it is done at the present time. If it would help the Committee, 398 I would be quite prepared between now and the next stage to have a look at this matter again, as the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, suggested, and see whether we cannot find a form of words—though I cannot guarantee to do so, I will do my best—which meets both the noble Viscount's point and my own point.

§ LORD SHEPHERD
I wonder whether the noble Lord, in his consideration of the points that have been made, will also consider whether we should not put into this first clause a requirement that when they are preparing this overall plan (as I think they will have to) they will be required not only to have discussions with the Minister, and obtain his consent, but also to have close and continuing discussions with the Railways Board and other organisations in transport, and, in particular, with the organisations that the Government are now setting up for the development of industry and trade in special localities.
I think we may well find that we have too many ports and that some are not particularly well sited in relation to the development of industry in the next fifteen or twenty years. It seems to me that while the Minister is giving consideration to the principle, which I think the whole House accepts, that there must be an overall plan prepared by the National Ports Council, he should see that this is related, not only to the needs of the shipping interests, but also to the development of industry, especially in the new localities in the North-East and Scotland.

§ LORD CHESHAM
The noble Lord has raised a fresh issue. I should have thought that the National Ports Council is to be there precisely not to consider merely the interests of the individual ports. I do not want to say more than that now, but naturally I will look at what the noble Lord has said and consider it before the next stage, and perhaps have a word with him in due course.

§ VISCOUNT SIMON
I am greatly obliged to the noble Lord for the offer he has made to look at this point again. I am also greatly obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, for putting the point so clearly. With your Lordships' 399 permission, I will withdraw the Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Clause 1 agreed to.

§ Clause 2 [Constitution of the Council]:

§ 4.52 p.m.

§ LORD HOBSON moved to add to subsection (1): and of the members of the Council three including the chairman shall be full-time members. The noble Lord said: I raised this point on the Second Reading of the Bill and I think that this Amendment is well worth considering. The chairman, of course, is to be full-time, and there will be from seven to not more than eleven other members of the Council. The Council has been entrusted with large and responsible duties, and it seems to us essential, if they are to do the job adequately, if they are to prepare an all-over plan and see to its implementation, that there should be more full-time members than just the chairman.

§ Let us look at the time that will be taken to study the plan. Is it to be done quickly at small meetings, with the chairman's views just rubber-stamped, or is there to be full discussion? I envisage that this is going to take a great deal of time. There is also the question of taking the professional advice which the Council will have to take in the building of new ports and in the modernisation and grouping of ports. Frankly, I do not think that this can be done by one full-time man. I think it is giving him somewhat the powers of a dictator. Those who serve on committees know full well that, in view of the time factor involved, the word of the chairman and the full-time officers usually goes. There is a further complication in the amount of travel that is bound to be involved. The ports in Britain are situated North, East, South and West, and to get around them is going to take time.

§ There is no question here of an Amendment to provide "jobs for the boys", about which we hear so much. If this Amendment were accepted, there would still be a majority of part-time members on the Council. I think that that is a good requirement. I have 400 held the view for a long time, from by experience in industry and in nationalised industry, that it is far better to have the majority of a board who are not functional members. For their experience and knowledge, they can bring sound common sense to bear on decisions. I am not prepared to be as cynical as a former Prime Minister of France, M. Clemenceau, was, when he said that experts were usually wrong in large things and right in small matters. But in view of the work that is involved, particularly in the initial stages, I feel that it is essential that at least three members of this Council should be occupied full-time, devoting the whole of their energies and knowledge to a scheme which is—I will not use the word "grandiose", but, at any rate, very large.

§ This is the first time we have undertaken an all-over plan for the docks and harbours of this country. We should have three full-time men, backed up with people of vision and industrial experience, who would still be the majority. There is no intention here of "empire-building", or anything of that sort. I think that this Amendment is eminently practical, and I look forward to hearing the views of the noble Lord on whether he is prepared to accept it. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 2, line 20, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Hobson.)

§ LORD CHESHAM
Before I begin to deal with the Amendment, I think I ought to say that the noble Lord is under a misconception when he refers to the chairman as being full-time. In fact, the chairman of the National Ports Council is not full-time, nor does the Bill require him to be, though I can well believe that the present chairman is devoting practically all his time to this work. I thought that I had better put that point straight, for the sake of the Record. I know from the proceedings in another place that this is something about which noble Lords opposite feel strongly; but frankly, if the noble Lord, Lord Hobson, will allow be to say so, I am still at a loss to understand why. The important point is that the Council is not an executive body running an industry, like the British Railways Board. 401 Even in that case, there is no requirement in the Act that either the chairman or any of the other members shall be full-time.
If I may direct your Lordships attention again to Clause 1, the terms of reference of the Council are to formulate comprehensive plans, to promote the execution of such plans and, in general, to act as guide, philosopher and friend to the harbour authorities. The Council is essentially a planning and advisory body, and I do not see that there is a place for two or three compulsory full-time members. Surely what they will primarily be doing is coming to decisions on matters of major policy. The material for those decisions, much of which will be statistical and factual information, will have been prepared for them by the Director-General, who, of course, is full-time himself, and his full-time staff.
In that set-up, I do not see exactly what would be the function of the two or three full-time members of the Council. I think there might be a certain amount of tumbling over themselves and overlapping with the work of the Director-General and his senior staff. There are in other Statutes, apart from the British Railways Board that I have already mentioned, plenty of precedents for no actual requirement of full-time Board members: I quote the Iron and Steel Board, the British Transport Board, the Docks Board, the Atomic Energy Authority, the National Coal Board, the Gas Council, the Cotton Board and the White Fish Authority. The only contrary precedent I can discover—I must be fair about this—is the electricity industry, in which it is only the chairmen of the Central Electricity Generating Board and the Electricity Council who are required to be full-time.
I appreciate that there may be merit in having some full-time members, and I would say to the noble Lord that there is nothing in the wording of the clause to prevent the Minister from appointing a full-time chairman, and as many other members of the Council as he wants to be full-time members, if at some time in the future it seems to be desirable to do this. I think it may well be that when the Council have been functioning for some time, and have a clearer 402 idea of how they are going to go about their work and discharge their duties, they will come to the conclusion that one or more full-time members may be desirable.

§ LORD CHAMPION
Before the noble Lord leaves this point, can he tell me where I find a reference to the Director-General?

§ LORD CHESHAM
There is no reference to the Director-General. I was telling your Lordships that the Director-General was there full-time to prepare the material for the Board to consider. There is no reference to the Director-General in the Bill. This was a piece of information that I was putting forward in support of my argument.

§ LORD SHACKLETON
Has the Director-General been appointed; and, if so, who has appointed him; and, if not, how does he know the Council are going to appoint him? They appoint their officers do they not?

§ LORD CHESHAM
As I think the noble Lord knows, because I said so on Second Reading, the Council are now operating on a non-statutory basis. It is the intention of my right honourable friend, when he has power to do so— that is, when this Bill reaches the Statute Book—to appoint them on a statutory basis; and I understand the intention is that the Director-General will also be appointed on this basis. I think that makes the matter quite clear.
What I am saying now is that if the Council find they are having to deal with a heavy and increasing amount of the kind of work which the noble Lord, Lord Hobson, suggested they would find themselves faced with, they might well decide it would be useful to have one or more or a majority of their members full-time; and if they came to this view, and represented it to the Minister, it is difficult to see how the Minister of the day, whoever he might be, could refuse to accede to the Council's request and appoint such full-time members. I think it would be better to leave the matter like that, because the situation is fully covered if it turns out to be as the noble Lord, Lord Hobson, has suggested.

§ LORD SHACKLETON
I must say that the noble Lord is helping us by one or two revelations, and perhaps he can 403 tell us a little more about what the Council have already decided on. I may have misunderstood him, but I thought he said that the Director-General was being appointed by his right honourable friend. Did I misunderstand the noble Lord on that?

§ LORD CHESHAM
The noble Lord did misunderstand me.

§ LORD SHACKLETON
So I take it that this non-statutory body have appointed a non-statutory Director-General under their powers in Clause 8 to appoint a secretary and such other officers, and the Director-General will in effect be the chief executive of this body. I should like to urge, whether we put it into the Bill or not (and this is clearly an opportunity to discuss the composition of the Council), that there should be, in practice, a full-time chairman. There is a reason why I think it is necessary in this particular Council. The Council will have to operate a great deal on the basis of co-operation and consent. It will be the public relations within the industry which are going to be extremely important if they are to get the willing co-operation of the various port authorities involved.
I am not sure whether the arguments in favour of a part-time chairman or part-time members, whether they go into legislation or not, are entirely valid. I take it that the noble Lord was talking about statutory bodies of a kind that are not exercising executive powers, because, if I understand correctly, certain heads of the airline corporations work as full-time chairmen, even if they are not supposed to be. Perhaps the noble Lord could clear my mind. Was he talking of a different type of authority?

§ LORD CHESHAM
I was. I tried to draw a definite distinction for the type of body (whether you call it "authority", or whatever it may be) which has executive functions. I went on to say that the majority of the nationalised Boards which have precisely that kind of authority do not have any requirement, with the exception of the electricity industry, to which I referred, that any of the members should be full-time. I appreciate what the noble Lord is saying, but, quite frankly, I cannot understand why it is 404 considered so essential to write into the Bill that the chairman shall be full-time. I do not see a great difference of effect, if he gives his time to the work, whether or not he is called statutorily full-time. My main point is that, if it turns out to be necessary that he and/or others should be full-time, that can be arranged.

§ THE EARL OF SWINTON
May I suggest that the particular reasons which the noble Lord opposite has given, and with which I agree, about the importance of these posts, the qualities which are needed and the co-operation that will be necessary, make it wiser to leave this matter at large? One can easily suppose that you might find an ideal man, with all the qualities which we should all agree are necessary for this post, but who has other interests as well, who would be willing to take the chairmanship on a part-time basis, but would not be willing to give up all his other interests and take it as a full-time job. If it is left at large, you have the opportunity of taking on a part-time basis a man like that, who would certainly give all the time that was necessary to the job; or, if it were found desirable to have a full-time chairman, this could be done. From experience of appointments of these kind, I think it is wise to leave a wide discretion to the Council itself and to the Minister of the day.

§ LORD HOBSON
In reply to the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, the fact of the matter is that if this work is going to involve the whole time of the chairman, what on earth is wrong with putting it into the Bill? That seems to me a very sound reason for doing so. Let us define what his overall duties are. He can have his other interests but we do not want his other interests to be business interests outside his chairmanship of the Docks Board. We have very goods examples of this. If we take our great companies such as English Electric, I.C.I., Dunlop and Unilever, they have a full-time chairman and the companies take good care that they are appointed as such because of the amount of work and responsibilities involved.
I was interested to hear about the "revelations"—the word which my noble friend Lord Shackleton used—with regard 405 to the Director-General. We shall know that his right honourable friend the Minister of Transport has appointed him, and that he is responsible to him and to him only. Is that the position? Could we have more clarification? Is it the intention that the present Director-General should be the chairman of the new Ports Council? These are questions which should be answered.

§ THE EARL OF SWINTON
The noble Lord said there is no reason to have a whole-time chairman and to let him have an outside interest. But he would not be able to have an outside interest if it were laid down in the Bill that he should be a whole-time chairman. That is why it is unwise to put such a stipulation into the Bill.

§ LORD CHESHAM
I am sorry that there seems to be so much obscurity on this matter; but the noble Lord, Lord Hobson, has, I think, misheard me again. I did not say that the Director-General was appointed by the Minister: I said that he was appointed by the Ports Council. There is no question of his being appointed chairman of the Ports Council, because the noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale, holds that post. I think that is the answer to the question which the noble Lord asked. I do not really see—perhaps I am being dumb—where the obscurity is.

§ LORD HOBSON
We are grateful for that information. But to come back to the main words of the Amendment, the reason why we think that the chairman should devote his whole time to the work of the Ports Council, assisted by other full-time people, is precisely because of the duties which the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, enumerated and which are contained specifically (I do not wish to weary your Lordships by reading them out) in Clause 1(1), paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). Any one of those three paragraphs involves a vast amount of work and responsibility. If those duties are given to the Council by the Minister, I think it absolutely essential not only that he should be a full-time chairman, but that he should be aided and assisted by two other members of the Council who are full-time. I think that is the only effective way in which the work can be done.
The noble Lord referred to the other nationalised undertakings, and he came 406 round at the end and said that there is the one exception of the Electricity Council. I submit that the duties of the Electricity Council are not so great as the new duties which will devolve on the new chairman of the Ports Council. In view of that, I feel that Her Majesty's Government ought to reconsider this point and meet us on it. From the noble Lord's speech, I do not think that his mind is entirely closed. There is to be a full-time chairman of the Council, and I think that on further consideration, particularly of paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (1), he will find that our suggestion is good practice and will lead to sound administration and efficiency.

§ LORD CHESHAM
Beguiling as that invitation may be, I frankly do not feel inclined to accept it, because I think I made my position perfectly clear. For the reasons put forward with great clarity, as usual, by my noble friend Lord Swinton, I think the position will be much better safeguarded, under the arrangements proposed in the Bill (including safeguarding the majority of points which the noble Lord, Lord Hobson, has put forward), if we leave things as they are. If experience shows it to be necessary, then it will be possible to appoint full-time directors. I do not think I can say any more than that.

§ LORD HOBSON
I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Clause 2 agreed to.

§ Clause 3 [Promotion by the Council of research, and training and education]:

§ 5.15 p.m.

§ VISCOUNT SIMON moved, in subsection (2), to omit "in such manner as may be so specified". The noble Viscount said: This is a very small Amendment, but I could not see why the Minister, in being given powers to issue directions in regard to training (and perhaps I may remind your Lordships that this does not affect the training of persons in the actual performance of doing work, a matter dealt with by the National Dock Labour Board, but refers to other forms of training), should specify not only direction for training, 407 but also the manner in which the training should be carried out. This seems to be putting upon a Minister a matter of detail which is surely far better dealt with by people who are to undertake the training.

§ Amendment moved— Page 3, line 32, leave out ("in such manner as may be so specified").—(Viscount Simon.)

§ LORD CHESHAM
AS the noble Viscount says, this is a small matter. I would only say that, from a strictly legal point of view, it would be difficult for the Minister to specify the manner of training. But from a practical point of view, especially as he has first to consult with the Council before he makes a direction, I think it most unlikely that there would be any disagreement about it. The reason for including that phrase, however, is that it was felt that from time to time we might want to ask the Council to carry out some Government policy on training—for example, the Minister of Education's policy on night classes or training courses, or something like that. I do not think there would ever be much difficulty.
But this is not a point on which I want to make any kind of stand, because I think we must agree that the Council are better qualified to form a judgment. It was not intended that there should be strict supervision in this way of their activities on training. I had not thought that the words which the noble Viscount wishes to remove carried the implication that there was to be strict supervision of training, and so on. If he feels, and your Lordships feel, that the words do carry that implication, I should be quite prepared to see them go.

§ LORD CHAMPION
The only point I would raise in this connection is that I wondered whether these words actually appeared in the Industrial Training Act; whether they have been lifted out of that Act completely so as to bring this Bill into line with the Industrial Training Act in which certain duties are laid on employers' boards, and so on, and the Minister is empowered to issue instructions to the various authorities. I wondered whether these words were lifted out of that Act.

408

§ LORD CHESHAM
I do not think I can answer that question without notice.

§ VISCOUNT SIMON
I can, because I particularly looked at that point: the words are not in the Industrial Training Act.

§ LORD CHESHAM
I had not thought they were, because, quite frankly, if they had been, their implications would have been stronger than I said they were. They were not intended to have any potent magic, so far as I understand it, and that is why I am prepared to see them go.

§ VISCOUNT SIMON
I am in the hands of the Committee, but I should like to press this small Amendment.

§ LORD CHESHAM
Perhaps I should have been more formal; but what I had intended to say was that I am prepared to accept the Amendment.

§ LORD SHACKLETON
I take it that the noble Lord has also considered the later reference to persons specified falling within subsection (1)(b.) I wonder if that could go too. If we are to leave it as a general power (I know it does not arise on this Amendment, but it is the same clause) to promote in such manner as may be specified the training of persons falling within subsection (1)(b) above of such class as may be so specified … could it not be left as to promote the training of persons falling within subsection (1)(b)"? Has the noble Viscount considered that point? Because if we are trying to simplify the legislation and make it broader, the present words may not be necessary. However, I appreciate that this is a different point.

§ VISCOUNT SIMON
I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. I did consider that point, and I think the second reference is all right, because that is providing that the Minister could issue directions, let us say, for the training of managers or for the training of electricians, or something like that. I think that is probably all right. The words I mainly objected to were those concerned with the manner in which the training should be performed.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

409

§ LORD CHESHAM
This is an Amendment to clarify the wording of subsection (5) of Clause 3, to ensure that it clearly precludes the Council from charging workers in the industry for training and education which the Council may promote. I think it was the view of the Opposition Members in another place that the present form of words did not clearly exclude individual workers from being charged, and an undertaking was given to do something about it. This is that undertaking. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 4, line 21, leave out from ("person") to end of lint; 23 and insert ("in respect of his receiving any such training or education").—(Lord Chesham.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ 5.25 p.m.

§ VISCOUNT SIMON moved to add to the clause: (7) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to prevent the establishment of an industrial training board for the harbour industry under the provisions of the Industrial Training Act, 1964, and if such an industrial training board is established, the preceding provisions of this section, in so far as they relate to training, shall cease to apply.

§ The noble Viscount said: This is an Amendment which is really designed to clarify a statement which has been made on several occasions during the discussion of the Bill, that there is nothing in it which prevents the establishment of an industrial training board and the control of training under the provisions of the Industrial Training Act, if that is so desired. The Amendment is not designed to prejudice in the least whether such a decision should be taken, but I thought it wise first of all to probe whether it is quite clear on the existing wording that an industrial board can be set up, because this legislation is a little difficult to follow, If I am assured on that point, then it may be said that the first half of this Amendment is unnecessary.

§ I still suggest, however, that it is necessary to have the second half of the Amendment, because if an industrial training board were to be set up, the supervision of training would be under the control of the industrial training board, with further powers in the hands of the Minister of Labour, whereas, of course, under this Bill the training is 410 under the control of the National Ports Council and the supervising authority is the Minister of Transport. If it were decided to set up an industrial training board it seems to me that it would be a very bad form of administration to have dual control over what happened. I do not think I need say more than that. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 4, line 26, at end insert the said subsection.—(Viscount Simon.)

§ LORD CHESHAM
I am glad to be able to give the noble Viscount the assurance he wants about the first part of his Amendment. I have had this point examined very carefully indeed in view of what he said on Second Reading. I am certainly advised that there is nothing in the section for the application of the Industrial Training Act to the industry that precludes the establishment of an industrial training board. Therefore, the noble Viscount is quite right in thinking that the first part of his Amendment is, in fact, superfluous.
I do not, I am afraid, agree with him a bit about the second part, and for this reason. I do not deny for a moment (and I am quite with him on this point) that one would not want a complete overlap and duplication of responsibility in this matter, but I think the important point is, that in the ports industry—and we must remember here that the responsibilities of the National Ports Council are confined to management training, if I can call it that, because the actual training for dock work remains with the Dock Labour Board—

§ VISCOUNT SIMON
May I intervene for a moment? Is there not something between the two? May there not be the training of other persons employed in the industry, not directly in dock work but not necessarily in management?

§ LORD CHESHAM
It might be possible to find such a categorisation, but that is not the rule. One would broadly describe the training functions of the Council as being managerial. In fact, the Bill clearly specifies that they shall not overlap with the existing responsibilities of the Dock Labour Board. This is a slight diversion, but their work would in fact be even more, not interfered with, but affected, if there were 411 an industrial training board. In view of the fact that their training responsibilities are managerial, and of the very wide range of training that may be required, I should have thought the justification was, in the event of an industrial training board being established, to retain the provisions for training in the Bill, because the Council, so far as their responsibilities go, particularly on the managerial side, still have a most useful function to perform in filling in the gaps. I do not believe it is realistic to look at this question as a sort of battle of overlaps between an industrial training board and what one might call the residual functions of the National Ports Council. I think we can assume a certain amount of common sense in these matters, and I believe we might live to regret the gaps that might be left by taking away their powers. I hope, therefore, that the noble Viscount will see it like that.

§ LORD HOBSON
I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Chesham. The provision of training is provided for in this Bill and it is also provided by the Dock Labour Board in connection with the docker. I think that the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, probably has in mind the ancillary or auxiliary workers, like fitters and electricians. Presumably the bulk of these are already skilled men and will already have had industrial training in the firms they were with before being employed by the Dock Labour Board. I think the whole point, therefore, was met.

§ VISCOUNT SIMON
I am greatly obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, for his help over this matter. I agree that we do not want to leave a gap. I am very satisfied with his assurance that an industrial training board can be set up, and I think I should feel content to let this thing work itself out. As the noble Lord said, people are going to be sensible about this. I do not know whether anybody with greater industrial training experience than mine would like to add anything before I withdraw the Amendment.

§ LORD SHACKLETON
I fully take the points of the noble Lord. I am just wondering whether in all circumstances 412 sense will apply. Vested interests do build up. I am just wondering whether under this clause the Minister has power to direct them not to carry out training, if it is necessary. I would hope this is not necessary. I do not ask for any assurance, but perhaps he would consider the points made a little further. The whole industrial training situation is rather in the melting pot, and I am not quite convinced that even the ancillary trades will always be taken care of by their particular industrial board. This is the difficulty that concerns me. I am sure the noble Lord will think further, but I am certainly not asking for an assurance.

§ VISCOUNT SIMON
With your Lordships' permission, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clause 4:

§ Provision of funds for the Council

§ 4.—(1) It shall be the duty of the Council to impose on harbour authorities, by means of a scheme or schemes made by the Council and submitted to and confirmed by the Minister in accordance with the following provisions of this section, such charges as will enable them to meet any expenditure incurred, or to be incurred,—

(a) in the exercise and performance of their powers and duties under the last foregoing section or in the discharge of liabilities in respect of money borrowed by them;
(b) in respect of remuneration or allowances to, or pensions to or in respect of, members of the Council; or
(c) in respect of the administrative expenses of the Council;

in so far as it cannot be met by revenue accruing to them in consequence of the exercise of powers conferred by other provisions of this Act.

§ (3) A scheme under this section may—

§ VISCOUNT SIMON moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "authorities" and insert "operators". The noble Viscount said: This is the first of fourteen Amendments all of which hang together, and the object of them is to make it possible for the levies that can be raised on the authority of the National Ports Council for meeting expenses to be spread more widely than simply to the harbour authorities themselves. So far as training is concerned, 413 I could get that out of the way at once. In so far as other interests benefit from the provision of facilities for training, it is possible for recoveries to be made under Clause 3(5); therefore I do not think we need worry about training.

§ So far as administrative expenses of the Council are concerned, I think it is arguable that the harbour authorities alone should provide those, although I do not think there is complete agreement about it. But the point I want to make is most clearly exposed if I refer to the proposed levies for research. There are many activities carried out in harbours. The noble Lord, Lord Rea, mentioned them on Second Reading. He was at that time rather anxious that they should be excluded from the Bill, but for this particular issue I think it is important that they should be kept in. Might I, for instance, direct your Lordships' attention to research in cargo handling. Improved cargo handling will be for the benefit of shipowners, stevedores, master porters and other people engaged in similar activities. In many cases the port authority is not engaged in that business at all and would have nothing to do with it; certain port authorities are engaged in it, but by no means all. It seems to me it would be quite reasonable that these other bodies concerned in cargo handling should contribute by means of levy to the costs of research into cargo handling.

§ These Amendments are not mandatory; they are purely permissive. Your Lordships will have seen that there is already provision in the clause for the levy to be raised on a different basis from different classes of harbour authority, and with these Amendments there will be similar provision for the levy to be on a different basis for different harbour operators. There will be plenty of flexibility. The harbour operators other than the authorities need only be brought in in appropriate cases, but in those cases it seems to me reasonable that there should be a provision, which is only permissive, for the other harbour operators to contribute to such a levy. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 4, line 28, leave out ("authorities") and insert ("operators").—(Viscount Simon.)

§ LORD CHESHAM
I did not imagine that the noble Viscount would move this 414 series of Amendments without bringing forward good reasons for them, and that I think he has done. Certainly there is some merit in his proposition, but unfortunately there are two sides to every coin and there are some rather telling things to say against accepting these Amendments. Of course, it is true that all the multifarious people providing porterage, lighterage, cargo handling services and so on would benefit, but the extent to which they would benefit, particularly from research, would vary very greatly indeed. It would vary from a concern to provide cargo handling service, which would get considerable benefit from it, to another concern which merely warehoused their own goods on a wharf, which might not benefit at all. Will both of them be harbour operators for this purpose? I think that an attempt to assess the benefits which would accrue to them amongst the very numerous and extremely varied bodies of people concerned would be a virtually impossible task.
Even without any attempt to apportion benefit—and I have looked at this very carefully—the difficulties of trying to bring harbour operators within the scope of the levy scheme would be truly enormous. Where harbour authorities are concerned it is possible to envisage various forms of levy based on such things as total dues collected, or tonnage of goods passing the harbour, or gross annual revenue, or something which could be used to produce a reasonably equitable split of the Council's expenses among the various harbour authorities according to the size of their operations, although even that itself is proving to be quite difficult enough. But with the enormous number, and extension in the variation, of harbour operators—if there is to be such an extension—I think there would be an administrative problem in that it would be almost impossible to design a procedure and then to carry it out. This is a matter that I think has not come up before in the passage of the Bill—not that I have anything to say against that whatever. But I think a lot of people might not feel very happy about it, and I do not know whether they would have had, or would be said to have had, sufficient time to consider the matter. I think that is true. But that is not the really important point. The really important point is the quite inordinate difficulties and tremendous 415 administrative problems it would produce. I hope the noble Viscount can accept that from me.

§ VISCOUNT SIMON
I agree very much with the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, that what I propose would be extraordinarily difficult. But, as I said, there is provision for different classes of operators to be charged on a different basis, which I think deals with the point that some people might be affected and others might not. As the noble Lord said, the same difficulty arises with the port authorities themselves; some are engaged in cargo handling and others are not. If research is conducted into cargo handling, are those who do not engage in it to contribute to the levy? We shall have to take some very difficult decisions, and if one has difficult decisions to make there is a good deal to be said for not making them more difficult.
The noble Lord said he thought the matter had not been raised before. I am speaking from recollection, but I think it was raised in another place on Committee stage, not quite in this form; the suggestion was made that it would be much simpler to raise the levy from harbour authorities, and surely the harbour authorities could pass on their share to the other interests concerned. But that suggestion is made without a correct understanding of the position, because if one takes people like stevedores and master porters they are not under any contractual relationship with the harbour authority and the harbour authority does not exact any charges from them; so there is no way of spreading the load in that way.
I should just like to mention a fact of some interest as an example of the kind of thing that might happen. Considerable researches are about to be undertaken into the handling of timber in unit packages. Under the discussions that are now going on, this is going to be contributed to by the timber trade, by shipowners and by the port authority. But it seems to me that once this Bill is on the Statute Book the other parties might say, "If we sit back and do nothing about it, they will have to pay for it all because that is all that will happen under this provision." I do not say that people would do that because, naturally, they themselves have consider-416 able interest in getting this research moving, but I do not like the idea that these other interests can, if they wish, escape.
I am just wondering whether, before the next stage of the Bill, the noble Lord could look at the possibility of introducing into Clause 3(5)—that is the provision that the Council may make charges in respect of training and education—the power that they may make charges in respect of research. Naturally, I would not ask the noble Lord to make any comment on that now, but perhaps that could be looked at. Otherwise, I do not think that I should detain the Committee further and I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ 5.42 p.m.

§ LORD CHESHAM moved, in subsection (3), after paragraph (b) to 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.

§ The noble Lord said: This Amendment places harbour authorities under an express obligation to supply any information that is required by the Council to enable them to assess the amount of any charges to be imposed on a harbour authority under a levy scheme. I should tell your Lordships that this Amendment has the agreement of the National Ports Council, who were rather worried whether they would be able to get sufficient information in order to ensure that any levy scheme was properly apportioned and fair. It had been thought that the Council would be able to rely on the powers under Clause 39 to get the information they required. But it is now clear that the Clause 39 procedure involves a most cumbersome administrative process in getting that information, and it would have been necessary to give notice in writing, if necessary, on each individual item to each one of the many harbour authorities that would be affected.

417

§ The idea, therefore—and this is what makes the Amendment more a tidying operation, than anything else—is that it will be practicable to prepare a scheme placing on harbour authorities, in the classes where affected, an obligation to provide the necessary information. Except to say that naturally, the information to be provided can be required only for use for the purposes of the levy scheme, I do not think I need say any more. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 5, line 16, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Chesham.)

§ LORD HOBSON
We on this side readily accept the Amendment. It is sound common sense and practicable.

§ LORD SHACKLETON
May I just raise a point? I was a little surprised that Clause 39 was not considered to be sufficient. Merely as a technical point, I rather dislike having this sort of provision in two places in the Bill, even though it is within a limited field. Obviously, this is a desirable provision and we accept it; and probably it is not necessary to have it elsewhere. I wonder whether it might have done better if it had gone in under Clause 39, but no doubt this has been considered by the draftsmen.
There is one other small point. My recollection is that there is usually some provision for the security of such information. I think that in all other Bills where information is sought from individuals or private groups there is some provision that, apart from the inspectors who go in to investigate, or some other authorised person, the information is to be secret to the authority. I am not saying that it should always be. There may be occasions when a great deal of that type of information is necessary and can be properly published. We are concerned that we should have the good will of the various port authorities. The noble Lord may like to consider those points. There may be no merit in them.

§ LORD MERRIVALE
Before my noble friend answers;, may I say that I think it a little strange that this has not been thought of before—or perhaps I am a little suspicious in believing that the Government are trying increasingly to bring small harbours within the 418 scope of the Bill. What is worrying me a little is that a port may be operating mainly for a particular industry, and such information may be inexorably tied up with the business of a parent company. My noble friend will not be surprised if I refer to the port of Par. The industry there is an important one, and merits the consideration of Her Majesty's Government. At times it may be a little difficult to arrive at the detailed information which may be required.
I must say, in another respect, that I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has referred to the necessity for preserving secrecy for the information supplied by the port authorities.

§ LORD CHESHAM
I feel that my noble friend has a rather nasty, suspicious mind to-day. I, too, think that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton has raised a point at which I shall be delighted to look. What I shall find, I do not know; but I will certainly look at it. I think the suspicions of my noble friend have on this occasion gone a little too far, because there is no sinister implication in this move. As I explained, it is to avoid a cumbersome and more expensive administrative process. If he refers to the Amendment he will see the words, such information as the Council may require for the purposes of the scheme". That is as far as the power can go. Whilst I appreciate my noble friend's concern for the port of Par, there is really nothing to fear here. It is a choice between whether the scheme should incorporate the requirement for information, or whether a stream of letters is received asking for information under Clause 39 of the Bill. I merely advocate that the way in this Amendment is a much better method of doing it, at much less trouble, and I think that it is the way we should do it. I hope that I have set my noble friend's fears at rest.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD CHESHAM
I beg to move the next Amendment.

§ Amendment moved— 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 419 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.")—(Lord Chesham.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clauses 5 to 8 agreed to.

§ Clause 9 [Control of harbour development]:

§ LORD CHESHAM
In moving this Amendment, I should like to apologise to your Lordships for not having said earlier that Amendments 14 and 15 went together. Your Lordships were good enough to take them as such. Amendment No. 23, which I now beg to move, is a drafting Amendment.

§ Amendment moved—

§ Page 8, line 13, leave out from ("for") to end of the line and insert ("use in the execution of any such works as aforesaid or for use as mentioned in the last foregoing paragraph").—(Lord Chesham.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clause 10 [Enforcement of control of harbour development]:

§ LORD CHESHAM
Odd as it may seem, this Amendment also is drafting. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 10, line 21, leave out ("the") and insert ("a").—(Lord Chesham.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clause 11 agreed to.

§ Clause 12 [Grants for execution of harbour works, &c]:

§ On Question, Whether Clause 12 shall stand part of the Bill?

§ VISCOUNT SIMON
This is a very small point to which I have drawn Lord Chesham's attention. It seems to me that the important proviso at the bottom of page 11 of the Bill, which reads provided that, in the case of assistance in respect of expenses incurred, he"— that is the Minister— is satisfied that the expenses are such as ought properly to be regarded as being of a capital nature 420 is not, judging by the present wording, imported into Clause 12, although I am sure it is intended to be. For in Clause 12(1)(a) the words are in respect of expenses incurred by them such as are mentioned in paragraph (a) of Section 11(1) of this Act but the proviso is outside paragraph (a). Could the noble Lord clear my mind on this point?

§ LORD CHESHAM
I am grateful to the noble Viscount for having told me about this. It was left out of Clause 12 deliberately. The reason was that the provisions in Clause 12 for grants are intended for use only in quite exceptional cases usually associated with emergency—things like flood relief or disasters of that kind. It is true that they would be for purposes covered by Clause 11(1)(a), but I think the Minister will have more scope to help disaster cases if his assistance is not restricted to expenses "of a capital nature". He could thereby make a grant for maintenance works if in exceptional circumstances he wanted to do so. That is the idea behind leaving it out of Clause 12.

§ Clause 12 agreed to.

§ Clause 13 [Maximum amount of loans and grants under sections 11 and 12, and cesser of certain other powers to give financial assistance]:

§ 5.54 p.m.

§ LORD HOBSON moved, in subsection (1), to omit all words after "exceed" and to insert: £100,000,000 or such larger sum as is provided by a resolution of the Commons House of Parliament". The noble Lord said: We brought up rather strongly on Second Reading the point as to the question of raising the available capital from £50 million to £100 million. Let me hasten to assure your Lordships that it is not our intention to divide on this matter, for reasons which are obvious. I hope that the noble Lord and his right honourable friend have considered our request very seriously. Nothing would give us greater pleasure than if he accepted our Amendment.

§ The urgent need for modernisation of our ports has been proved beyond any doubt. Not only has the question of modernisation to be considered, but 421 there is a tremendous amount of reconstruction to be done. An enormous amount of work will also be involved in the re-grouping of ports, and this cannot be done without the spending of money. It is a question of applying a certain percentage of the national cake to a very important function, the function of improving our ports—because it is by trade that this nation lives. We cannot continue to lag behind the great European ports of Rotterdam, Hamburg and Antwerp, all of which have been reconstructed. Even in the case of modern ports, those re-equipped prior to 1938, or rebuilt as a result of the bombing, right up to 1950 and 1955, we are now faced with much larger ships. The length, beam and draught are much greater, and this of necessity involves a tremendous amount of dock reconstruction. We cannot escape this. It is urgent capital expenditure required for the trade, commerce and the well-being of this country.

§ There is also the question of new discharging plant. With labour at a premium, and very costly, it is necessary to have modern equipment. This cannot be provided without the spending of a great deal of money on cranes and other ancillary equipment. In view of the urgency of the requirement, we feel that £50 million is a very modest sum to be included in the Bill, and I hope that the noble Lord will be able to give us an encouraging reply. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 13, line 3, leave out from ("exceed") to end of line 4 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Hobson.)

§ LORD CHESHAM
I am certainly not going to disagree with the noble Lord as to the necessity, if we are going to do this sort of thing, of doing it as soon as possible, and properly. I am sure he will also agree with me that it is a standard practice nowadays, when Ministers are given powers to come to the assistance of particular industries, for the upper limits; of the amount of such a system to be written into the relevant Acts. The precedent for the present provision is to be found in the Transport Act, 1962, which set specific limits to the amounts which could be borrowed by, or made available to, the various Boards set up under that Act.
422 This Amendment would leave the Exchequer commitment quite open-ended. I do not feel that it would be quite right for there to be a Resolution in another place to allow for any amount to go on and on, without their having to go back for any specific legislation for it. To a certain extent I agree with the noble Lord that it is difficult, until the Ports Council has completed its overall plan and submitted it to the Minister, for anyone to say how much will be needed for the rehabilitation and modernisation of the ports which the noble Lord and all of us want, and which it is the object of the Bill to secure.
Secondly, it is not possible to say how much of this will have to be found from Exchequer sources by way of loan or grant, in the exceptional cases of a grant being used, and how much can be financed from the internal resources of the ports or through ordinary borrowing from the market. Having said that, the information that we have endeavoured to collect from the port authorities about their investment plans suggests—and this was the basis for the imposition of these limits—that the amounts specified in the clause ought to meet requirements for assistance in the foreseeable future. I should like to remind the noble Lord and the Committee that, in other words, this is as realistic a guess as can be made at the present time. I would also remind the Committee that in reckoning this up we discount the money which will be needed for the nationalised ports, because that comes, of course, by other means and would not be included in this total. I think that is rather an important fact, because the picture looks quite different with that light on it.
With great respect, I do not think it is necessary to put in a higher figure at the present time. I do not think it will help matters along at the moment, as if £50 million is found not to go very far in the early stages of development, it is perfectly easy to raise that up to £100 million; a Resolution will do that. If it turned out in the years to come that more than £100 million was required for this, I do not think it would be very difficult to find ways and means of providing it. I think that we really ought to leave it to be decided at that time, in view of the figures we have en- 423 deavoured to get in coming to this limit, rather than try to decide it now. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will agree with me.

§ LORD CHAMPION
The noble Lord told us that the Government had made some inquiries about the possible amounts that might be spent under this clause. I wonder whether he has any idea of the proportion of loan and possible grant, as a result of his inquiries.

§ LORD CHESHAM
No, I have not. We were collecting information about proposals as best we could to-day, and, no port authority is able to say whether there will be a loan or grant. This is the cost of what they propose to do, and how it is met is not something that can be formulated in advance. I repeat what I said on the last Amendment, that the grant is intended to be used only very exceptionally.

§ LORD HOBSON
We accept the detailed explanation given by the noble Lord, Lord Chesham; and, of course, as I have just been reminded, there is nothing to preclude the introduction of a short Bill to increase the borrowing powers. In view of that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ LORD CHESHAM
This is a very small Amendment. Its object is to make it clear that fishery harbours and marine works are also excluded from the provisions of paragraph (b). This is because it is intended that no changes shall be made in the existing arrangements, and that fishery harbours and marine works shall continue to qualify for financial assistance from the Public Works Loan Commissioners under both the Harbours and Passing Tolls, etc., Act, 1861, and the Public Works Loans Act, 1875, as they have been up till now. As your Lordships know, different arrangements are being made for other harbours, but these are excluded from the provisions of the Bill. It is necessary to insert these words to make sure that these works continue to qualify for the usual help. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 13, line 17, leave out ("harbour or pier") and insert ("or pier elsewhere than at a harbour which is not for the time being a 424 fishery harbour or marine work or for the purposes of a harbour which is not for the time being a fishery harbour or marine work.")—(Lord Chesham.)

§ LORD SHACKLETON
Am I to understand that the effect of this Amendment is that loans and grants will be made available for these particular fishery harbours or marine works? And, if so, might there not be a conflict with other authorities who may be supporting them? I have in mind the particular support in certain areas of Scotland.

§ LORD CHESHAM
No; I do not think there is any conflict at all. This is not much more than a clarifying Amendment. The position is that up till now the Acts I mentioned have been applicable to all the harbours which will come within the scope of the Bill, and for which new arrangements for assistance are being made. Fishery harbours and marine works are being taken out, and this is just to make it clear that they will continue to get the same loan assistance as they have had before.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clause 14 [Minister's power, on application of harbour authorities or others, to make orders for securing harbour efficiency]:

§ 6.7 p.m.

§ LORD TEYNHAM moved to add to subsection (1): but nothing in this section or in the said Schedule shall authorise the making of an order which would enable the harbour authority to require the registration of vessels not used for the carriage of goods or passengers for reward which use the harbour in relation to which the order is made".

§ The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to ensure that the harbour authorities will not require the local registration of vessels which are really pleasure craft; and, of course, pleasure craft would mean yachts and dinghies. The imposition of a system of compulsory registration on pleasure craft would discourage sailing and power-boating, by increasing the expense beyond that which is reasonable for those of limited means, and would impose unnecessary and burdensome restrictions on the owners of small craft. I would remind your Lordships that a petition against a Bill promoted recently 425 by the Dover Harbour Board, with regard to the registration of pleasure craft, was successful and provisions for dealing with registration were withdrawn.

§ There is no doubt that yachting to-day is a great national sport, engaged in by people of all ages and incomes, and many thousands of them are afloat in their small cruisers and sailing dinghies. I suggest that it would be a great mistake if anything were done to discourage this healthy sport by the local registration of craft with, of course, the consequent charges. Are we to have small boats and dinghies covered with large white figures for the purpose of registration? I think that would be quite an impossible thing to consider. There would be a multiplicity of local registrations and charges in the different harbours, and I think it would be a nightmare to yachtsmen. But if registration is deemed absolutely necessary, I would say that it must be on a national basis. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 13, line 27, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Teynham.)

§ LORD CHESHAM
What the noble Lord seeks to do here, I gather, is to exclude from harbour revision orders schemes for small-craft registration. I had every reason to realise that this was a yachting matter, and I may say that it is a fairly controversial yachting matter, because, as with everything else, there are two sides to this particular coin, of which my noble friend has presented only one. I understand, however (I am not going to present it, because it is not my business to do so), that there is an opposing school of thought about the desirability of such schemes of registration. My feeling is that, as between these two schools of thought, we ought not to prejudge this issue by writing it into the Bill in this form.
It would, I agree, be possible for a harbour authority to apply for a revision order proposing a local craft registration scheme. They could do that under paragraph 16 of Schedule 2; but there is nothing in the Bill—no slant, no bias—to suggest that that kind of registration is desirable, or that the Minister should be in any way committed to the principle. If a harbour authority made such a proposal, 426 the yachting interests would be able to raise their objections to it, first, under the quite stringent objection procedure set out in Part I of Schedule 3. They could also object later, when the order is laid before Parliament, under the Special Parliamentary Procedure, when any petitions of objection would be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses, and a Motion to annul the order could be moved. So they would, in fact, have just as much opportunity to have their objections considered as they have now, if the harbour authority made propositions for such a scheme in a Private Bill, as in fact has been done on two occasions—in the cases of Great Yarmouth and Bristol.
I think I am right in saying now, even if I was not before, that this is the first time that this point has cropped up in the passage of the Bill. I should have thought that the real way to proceed would be for those who hold opposing points of view to discuss them. Naturally, I do not speak for them, but I am told that the Dock and Harbour Authorities Association, on the other hand, favour such a proposal. I should have thought that it was a matter that would be suitable for discussion between the two interests and any other bodies concerned, and that it would be wrong to imply that schemes of local registration of craft are undesirable by writing it into the Bill now, without having given the matter a good deal more consideration from all points of view. In view of the fact that, as I say, there is nothing that slants the Bill towards the desirability of doing this, and that there would be ample opportunities for objection to any order, if one were made, I feel that I should recommend your Lordships not to accept this Amendment.

LORD TEYNHAM
In view of the explanation given by the noble Lord in charge of the Bill—as I understand it, that the yachting interests will still have an opportunity under the Bill to voice their objections—I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ 6.14 p.m.

§ LORD MERRIVALE moved to add to subsection 2(b): or of facilitating the efficient and economic transport of goods or passengers by sea.

427

§ The noble Lord said: I have put this Amendment down with a view to discouraging monopolies and facilitating efficiency in transport services by competition. At certain harbours in Great Britain certain rights and privileges are enjoyed by only one operator. For instance, in Section 130 of the Dover Harbour (Consolidation) Act, 1954, there is an absolute right of priority given to one operator to operate shipping services to the exclusion of all other operators. Such a right acts as an effective deterrent to operators wishing to run new services from that port. However, in paragraph 13 of Schedule 2 one of the objects for which a harbour revision order may be made is—and I quote: Varying or extinguishing any exemption from charges levied by the authority at the harbour or any other right or privilege enjoyed thereat. Under Clause 14, subsection (2)(b), on an application received by the Minister he would be empowered, as I understand it, to make the order only if he were satisfied that the order is desirable in the interests of securing the improvement, maintenance or management of the harbour in an efficient and economical manner. As the Bill stands, he does not have to take into consideration the question of facilitating efficient and economic transport services, as he does have to with regard to new harbours under Clause 16, subsection (5).

§ I feel that the facility for greater competition at existing harbours, or at an existing harbour, could lead to a more efficient and economic harbour by increased business arising out of a greater variety of competing services. For instance, an operator may wish to provide a more efficient and economic transport service by putting into service a new ship, whilst the priority operator, conscious that the Minister has to consider only the efficiency and economic operation of the harbour, may exert his right (that is, the priority operator's right) and offer a less economic and efficient service for goods and passengers by putting into service an older ship. One example of that which comes to mind is the fact that British Railways have refused to allow Townsend Ferries to operate a new service with a new ship, and have pre-428 ferred to bring back into service the old "Falaise". It is for these reasons that I beg to move this Amendment.

§ Amendment moved— Page 13, line 40, at end insert the said words.—[Lord Merrivale.)

§ LORD CHESHAM
I think my noble friend may wish to know exactly what was the reason for using different ground for harbour empowerment orders from that which is in the Bill for harbour revision orders. It was that the pre-requisite used for revision orders—that is, in the interests of securing the improvement, maintenance or management of the harbour—was inappropriate to an empowerment order, which presupposes that there is not a harbour anyway, and that you are going to make a new one. One can hardly improve, maintain or manage something which does not exist. Other words, therefore, had to be found. I must admit that, although there were other words, they were not regarded as having any very great significant difference of meaning. It had been our opinion all along that Clause 14(2)(b) provided sufficiently wide grounds for assessing the merits of a harbour revision order; and, quite frankly, I do not really believe that the proposed Amendment adds anything really very significant to the clause.
However, I would tell my noble friend that, if he wishes to have these words put in here, I am happy to accommodate him and accept his Amendment. But I must emphasise that I did know about the activities of the Townsend Ferries and that, if I accept my noble friend's Amendment, he must be perfectly clear that this is a matter of principle only and has nothing to do with anything he may have said about Townsend Ferries. It is on a matter of principle only that I accept these words. So long as he is clear about that, I am glad to accept his Amendment.

§ LORD HOBSON
The noble Lord has raised a very interesting point. I accept his explanation, but I am under the impression that any ship can leave a British port, go to her destination and come back to that port; and that the only power the Minister would have is in so far as these would be regular sailings involving regular use of that port. Surely there is nothing to preclude a ship from going from Dover to Calais, whether 429 it be owned by British or French Railways; there is nothing to prevent that from happening. It could be prevented if it were a regular service; but the Minister could not preclude a ship from going irregularly—as in the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale—from Southampton to Le Havre as in the case of the "Falaise."

§ LORD MERRIVALE
I am grateful to my noble friend for accepting my Amendment and the principle behind it, because it seems to me logical that if one has the words or of facilitating the efficient and economic transport of goods or passengers by sea", when the Minister is considering harbour empowerment orders, there is no reason why the Minister should not consider the same things when he is considering harbour revision orders. Whether you are talking about new or old harbours it is important that the transport services to and from these harbours should be efficient and economic. For this reason I am grateful to my noble friend.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD CHESHAM
Amendment No. 29 is linked with No. 35, and they are drafting Amendments for clarity. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 14, line 1, leave out ("penal provisions") and insert ("but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing words, penal provisions and provisions incorporating, with or without modifications, any provision of the Lands Clauses Acts or any other enactment").—(Lord Chesham.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD CHESHAM
Amendment No. 30 goes with Nos. 31 and 32. I find myself in a slight difficulty in describing them as "consequential". In fact, they are, but to an Amendment which we have not yet come to. Therefore, whether I can describe them to the Committee as "pre-consequential," I do not know. The fact is that they are consequential in themselves on Amendment 92 which we shall come to in due course. If it is agreeable to the Committee, I would suggest that we say anything we are going to say about that Amendment when we come to it; and if by any chance the Amendment is not accepted I should have to move these consequential Amendments out again. I beg to move.

430

§ Amendment moved— Page 14, line 16, after ("16") insert ("and 10A")—(Lord Chesham.)

§ LORD SHACKLETON
I think the word the noble Lord is seeking is "paving", not "pre-consequential", and I am not sure that he should not tell us something of what the Amendment is paving to. I take it that Amendment No. 92 is one that the noble Lord thinks will go through very easily.

§ LORD CHESHAM
I am not anticipating a great deal of difficulty with it.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD CHESHAM
I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 14, line 18, leave out ("and").—{Lord Chesham.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD CHESHAM
I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 14, line 18, at end insert ("and the second reference in paragraph 10A").—(Lord Chesham.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clause 15 agreed to.

§ Clause 16 [Minister's power, on application of potential undertakers, to make orders conferring powers for improvement, construction, &c, of harbours.):

§ LORD CHESHAM
Amendment No. 33 is another "presequential" Amendment.

A NOBLE LORD
Anticipatory.

§ LORD CHESHAM
I am grateful to the noble Lord. It is anticipatory—except that it follows from something that has not happened. I do not feel that "paving" is quite the right word.

A NOBLE LORD
It is "antediluvian".

§ LORD CHESHAM
No—not that. But, whatever it may be, this Amendment is little more than drafting. It is to remedy a small deficiency in the Bill which will arise from later Amendments to the charges clauses which, as the Committee will know from their study of proceedings in another place, are to do with reasonableness—a concept imported into the Bill in another 431 place. This stems backwards—if one can stem backwards—from those Amendments.

§ Amendment moved— Page 15, line 40, after ("compulsorily") insert ("and to levy charges other than ship, passenger and goods dues").—(Lord Chesham.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD CHESHAM
I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 16, line 22, after ("or") insert ("of").—(Lord Chesham.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD CHESHAM
This is the Amendment that hung with No. 29, which was a drafting Amendment, for clarification. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 16, line 45, leave out from ("of") to ("but") on page 17, line 1, and insert ("Lands Clauses Acts or any other enactment").—(Lord Chesham.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clause 17 agreed to.

§ Clause 18. [Harbour reorganisation schemes]:

§ 6.30 p.m.

§ LORD MERRIVALE moved, in subsection (2), to add to paragraph (e): Provided that this paragraph shall not apply to any fixed or movable property used by any person for carrying out harbour operations at a harbour which is maintained and managed wholly or mainly for the purposes of a particular trade or industry and which is not comprised within the limits of jurisdiction of, nor otherwise subject to the control of, any other person or authority maintaining and managing a harbour in pursuance of statutory powers and duties.

§ The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to provide that any person who is carrying out harbour operations wholly or mainly for the purpose of a particular industry shall not come within the provisions of the Bill in so far as harbour reorganisation schemes—in other words, amalgamation of harbours—are concerned. Should noble Lords feel that this is asking too much, I would mention that the scope of the Amendment has been greatly narrowed by the insertion of the provision that it would apply only to a person that did not come under the control of a body who was managing a harbour in 432 pursuance of statutory duties or powers. For example, the port of Fawley, which is a non-statutory port, would not be affected by this Amendment: it is dependent on the Southampton Harbour Board's by-laws.

§ On Second Reading, I drew your Lordships' attention to what I think is the undesirability of the amalgamation of a general-cargo port with a specialised port mainly concerned in handling bulk traffic. That the Government are not averse to certain exemptions for certain industries is apparent from the fact that marine works are excluded from the provisions of the Bill; and under Section 31 of the Harbours, Piers and Ferries (Scotland) Act, 1937, a "marine work" means any harbour, pier, and ferry or boatslip which in the opinion of the Secretary of State and the Ministry of Transport is principally used or required for the fishing or agricultural industries. My contention is that a special case can be made out for another industry, the china clay industry. This industry is vital to Cornwall, providing employment for a large number of persons. The English China Clay group of companies employ around 3,600 persons on production and another 2,600 in their offices and within allied industries. Furthermore, the china clay industry meets over £250,000 of the total rate burden of the county. Ancillary industries—for instance, road transport and railways—benefit in consequence of the prosperity derived from this main industry of Cornwall.

§ Compared with the port of Fowey, the port of Par has various advantages for the efficient loading of china clay ships. For instance, it is in closer proximity to the clay-drying and processing plants, and it also has rapid loading facilities. There is both road and rail access to the port, whereas at Fowey access is limited to railway only. The port of Par is developed entirely for the benefit of, and to meet the needs of, this specific industry. Finally, within the context of the country's economy, the industry's exports are second in tonnage only to those of the coal industry. I feel that here there is a special case.

§ Noble Lords may wonder why I specifically mention the port of Par, but I believe that, if accepted, this 433 Amendment would be applicable only to the port of Par. I do not want to make this into a Hybrid Bill, and I do not think that by this Amendment I am dong so, because it might apply to some other harbour; but in effect the port of Par is the only one at the moment which would be affected by the provisions of this Amendment. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 19, line 42, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Merrivale.)

§ LORD CHESHAM
My Lords, without any discussion on the hybridity of the Bill, it had occurred to me that the purpose of my noble friend's Amendment was to exclude the port of Par from this Bill. In general, I think that his fears on behalf of the port of Par are exaggerated. Also, I do not think that it is right that my noble friend should do, what he has confessed to doing, something for the port of Par by importing into this Bill a question of principle which may have much wider implications that he believes to be the case.
My noble friend told us that, so far as he knows, the port of Par is the only one in this particular position. That may well be so; I would not try to dispute it. What is certain is that other private ports (if I may call them that) very nearly come within this specification, and once the principle has been breached, no doubt we shall be under heavy pressure to widen it a little more. If we do that, then we are really abandoning the principle which the Rochdale Committee laid down and which the Government have accepted and incorporated in this Bill.
My noble friend does not want the port of Par or any other similar port in a reorganisation order. A reorganisation scheme is to be the means of improving the efficiency at a group of harbours, and I do not see any justification for laying down statutorily that, if one of the harbours concerned is operated for private industry, it must be left out of the scheme. I think that that would be wrong.
If I may come to my noble friend's fears about the port of Par, when a scheme is put up to the Minister where there is clearly no merit in including a harbour in the scheme, the Minister can 434 amend the scheme so as to exclude the harbour in question. There is ample opportunity in the procedure which is set out in Schedule 4 to the Bill for making objections when schemes are submitted, and the harbour reorganisation schemes are subject to Special Parliamentary Procedure, so that it would be possible to move a Motion in Parliament to annul an Order. I think that all this really affords ample protection for the case my noble friend has in mind.
I would only add that, so far as I can see, as a practical consideration, there seems to be no prospect that the port of Par will be involved in any harbour reorganisation scheme, because it simply does not form part of any natural group of harbours. But even so, I do not think it provides justification for putting it, and any others that may be in the same position, out of the Bill and thereby breaking a rather important principle.

§ LORD SHACKLETON
I still do not quite understand why the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, has moved this Amendment and what his particular preference is for the port of Par. We are well aware that there are ancient separatist feelings in Cornwall, and that the River Tamar really divides Cornwall from the United Kingdom. But this seems to be an even narrower interest. I must confess that I always thought Par was a railway junction, but I gather that it is a private port. I can imagine circumstances in which other harbours, possibly even St. Austell, might wish to be excluded; I do not know. It seems to me quite impossible—and I am at one with the Minister on this—to exclude one particular group from the operation of the Bill. There are ample provisions in the Bill for protecting interests, and I think the noble Lord will have to make a very special case for us even to contemplate his Amendment at all seriously.

§ LORD MERRIVALE
While I thank my noble friend for what he has had to say, it did not quite meet my point. I am glad that the noble Lord mentioned the port of Fowey, because the principle underlying this Amendment was that Fowey should not be amalgamated with Par, should the Minister so desire, because in effect at the moment Fowey can take ships only 435 up to a tonnage of 10,000 tons. It was felt that if the china clay industry, through their subsidiary, the port of Par, wished to extend their facilities by building there a jetty which would take bulk carriers of the tonnage of around 16,000 tons, it would be more economical and more efficient, in view of all the facilities already there, that Par should be developed and not Fowey, in the event that the Minister or British Railways felt that increased business should go through Fowey.
At this stage I do not wish to press the Amendment, but there is one thing I should like to ask my noble friend. As we are considering harbour reorganisation schemes and amalgamations, would he agree that it is undesirable to amalgamate a general cargo port with a port which handles mainly bulk traffic? I think that was one of the recommendations of the Rochdale Committee, and I should like my noble friend to say whether he agrees with that recommendation.

§ LORD CHESHAM
I do not think one can easily agree or disagree with it. I should have thought—and this, I think, was the real bite in the Rochdale Report—that one had to look at cases on merits.

§ On Question, Amendment negatived.

§ LORD CHESHAM
This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 20, line 29, after ("including") insert ("but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing words").—(Lord Chesham.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.

§ LORD CHESHAM moved, after Clause 18, to insert the following new clause:

§ Compensation for loss of office, &c. in consequence of orders and schemes

§ .—(1) The Minister shall by regulations make provision requiring such person or body, being a person or body subject to any of the provisions of a harbour reorganisation scheme, as may be determined by or under the regulations to pay, subject to such exceptions or conditions as may be prescribed by the regulations, compensation to, or in respect of, persons who are or, but for any national service of theirs would be, the holders of any such situation, place or employment as may be so prescribed and suffer loss of employment or loss or diminution of emoluments or 436 pension rights in consequence of any of the provisions of the scheme.

§ (2) Where it is proposed to make a harbour revision order or a harbour empowerment order, the Minister of the Crown by whom the order is to be made shall consider whether any person, who is, or but for any national service of his would be, holder of any situation, place or employment with a person or body subject to any of the provisions of the order, might if the order were made, suffer any loss of employment or loss or diminution of emoluments or pension rights in consequence of any of the provisions of the order; and if it appears to that Minister that such a person who is or would be the holder of such a situation, place or employment would suffer any such loss or diminution in consequence as aforesaid and that compensation should be paid in respect of that loss or diminution, he shall not make the order unless he is satisfied that it secures the payment of compensation to or in respect of that person comparable with, but not more than, that payable by virtue of regulations made under subsection (1) of this section to or in respect of the holder of a similar situation, place or employment, in respect of similar loss or diminution suffered in consequence of any of the provisions of a harbour reorganisation scheme.

§ (3) Different regulations may be made under subsection (1) of this section in relation to different classes of persons, and any such regulations may be so framed as to have effect from a date earlier than that on which they are made, so however that so much of any regulations as provides that any provision thereof is to have effect from a date earlier than that on which they are made shall not place any person other than a harbour authority in a worse position than he would have been in if the regulations had been so framed as to have effect only as from the date on which they are made.

§ (4) Regulations made under subsection (1) of this section may include provision as to the manner in which and the person to whom, any claim to compensation is to be made, and for the determination of all questions arising under the regulations.

§ (5) In this section "national service" means any such service in any of Her Majesty's forces or other employment (whether or not in the service of Her Majesty) as may be prescribed by regulations under subsection (1) of this section.

§ The noble Lord said: This Amendment seeks to introduce a new clause I which does two things. First of all, it covers the case where a harbour reorganisation scheme transfers rights or powers, and so on, to a person or a body. Subsection (1) of the clause requires the Minister of Transport to make regulations providing for the payment of compensation by such person or body as is set out in the regulations. It will be paid to persons who suffer loss of employment, or diminution of emoluments 437 or pension rights, as a result of the scheme. Secondly, subsection (2) of the new clause requires the Minister making a harbour revision order or harbour empowerment order to consider whether anyone will suffer loss of employment, or diminution of emoluments or pension rights, as a result of the order. If so, and he decides that the case is one where compensation should be paid, he must ensure that the order provides for payment of comparable compensation to that which would have been payable under regulations made under Clause 1 for a reorganisation scheme. This Amendment has been put down to honour an undertaking given by my honourable colleague in another place, and it follows the precedent already existing in the Water Resources Act, 1963, and in the Transport Act, 1962. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— After Clause 18, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Chesham.)

§ LORD BURDEN moved, as an Amendment to the above Amendment, in subsection (2), to leave out "would" and insert "might". The noble Lord said: This new clause, which I am glad to say in its general approach is acceptable to the National and Local Government Officers' Association, is, I think, framed in an unusual way. Under subsection (1), as the Minister has said, there is the usual provision for regulations covering compensation, and this provision satisfactorily deals with compensation arising out of harbour reorganisation schemes under Clause 18 of the Bill. I think the noble Lord made that point quite clear. In relation to harbour revision orders, under Clause 14, and harbour empowerment orders, under Clause 16, apparently the Ministry of Transport formed the view that it would not be satisfactory to cover this by regulations, and that each order under these powers should itself contain the necessary provisions for compensation. I think I have that right. Of course, this is contrary to the Water Act, 1945, but so long as satisfactory compensation is provided for in some form or another the Association do not consider that the proposal to deal with the matter in each individual order is in itself objectionable. The intention of subsection (2) of the new clause is to make the necessary provision.

438

§ Now I come to a point of disagreement. The Association, in accordance with usual practice, were given an opportunity of considering the new clause in draft. At that time subsection (2) differed in two respects from the subsection as included in the Marshalled List. The word "might" in line 6 of the subsection, as printed in the Government Amendment, was originally "would". The Association pointed out that in the existing form subsection (2) would have applied only in a case where a Minister was able to say positively that compensation to someone was bound to be payable.

§ This, I submit—and I think the Minister would agree—is wrong in principle and contrary to past practice, since it is not always possible to tell in advance whether compensation will be payable in a particular case or not. In the Association's view, the right criterion was whether the order was of such a nature that it would give rise to detriment calling for compensation, even if it would not necessarily do so. This point was accepted, I am glad to say, by the Ministry. But the only alteration which they made was that in line 6 of the subsection. The words in line 11 of the subsection "would suffer any such loss" remain, and it appears to the Association that, despite the first alteration, if this wording remains in the latter part of the subsection the Minister would still be bound to include compensation provisions in an order only if he was certain that they would be required.

§ I submit to the Minister that no one can foresee, at a time when an order is made, all the possible repercussions of that order, and I am sure it is not the desire of the Ministry or the Minister to do any injustice to any person who may, as a result of the passing of this Act, suffer loss of payment, and so on, as might easily arise if the word "would" is retained in the subsection and is the operative word, and not "might", as obtains in the first part of the subsection. If I may put it to the Minister, as it reads now it is illogical. Which leg will the Minister stand on—the "might" or the "would"? I suggest that we should get the matter right and accept the word "might" in both instances, which will be acceptable to the staff who are no doubt watching this legislation very carefully. I beg to move.

439

§ Amendment to the Amendment moved— Line 11 of subsection (2), leave out ("would") and insert ("might").—(Lord Burden.)

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES
Your Lordships may find it convenient to have a general debate on these three Amendments together, but I cannot call the next one, No. 40, and will not put No. 39 until your Lordships have finished debating upon it.

§ LORD BURDEN
My Lords, I am quite prepared, if it would be for the convenience of the Committee, to develop what I have to say on the second Amendment, and then we could have a general debate.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES
It would be quite convenient for the noble Lord to do that, but I cannot yet call Amendment No. 40. The noble Lord can, if it is more convenient, debate all three together.

§ LORD BURDEN
I will deal with Amendment No. 40 now.

§ LORD CHESHAM
If I may say so, I think it would be more convenient to deal with them one by one. While they are connected, they are not on the same point. I suggest that we should deal with Amendment No. 39 and dispose of that, one way or the other, then with No. 40, and then revert to the main Amendment.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES
This is a matter of convenience, and it depends upon whether Amendment No. 40 is, or is not, on a similar point.

§ LORD BURDEN
They are not related.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES
From what has been said, I understand that it is not, so perhaps it would be convenient to take Amendments Nos. 38 and 39 together.

§ LORD HOBSON
We on this side welcome the new clause. It provides compensation owing to loss of office on amalgamation. It is characteristic of many of the nationalisation measures. One can only hope—and this is all I propose to say—that Her Majesty's present advisers will try to persuade industry to do likewise. If that 440 happened, I think industrial life in this country would be much happier. But we welcome the fact that the Government have put down this new clause dealing with redundancy.

§ LORD MERRIVALE
On Amendment No. 38—

§ LORD CHESHAM
I am sorry, but I think I am entitled to suggest that we should deal with Amendment No. 39 first, otherwise we shall have all three jumbled up together and shall get into a muddle. In view of what the noble Lord, Lord Hobson, said, I have no more to say yet about Amendment No. 38, except to thank him for what he said. Now may I turn to what the noble Lord, Lord Burden, said on Amendment No. 39? So far as this is concerned, it seems to me that there is nothing sinister here except drafting as between "might" and "would". Naturally, I much prefer to stand on a wooden leg than any other kind, so long as I do not turn out to have feet of china clay.

§ LORD HOBSON
You might. You would sink into that.

§ LORD CHESHAM
On this particular Amendment, I thought that the Minister was already under obligation, in line 3 of subsection 2, to consider whether anyone "might". The Minister having considered it, and having made his decision, we need the word "would" and not "might", because the element of uncertainty in the matter has by then gone. So "would" is the word there, and "might" in the earlier stage. Therefore, as it is the better drafting, I think we should leave it at that.

§ LORD BURDEN
I am not a lawyer and this has been put to me by competent Parliamentary draftsmen who feel there is doubt in regard to the point. If, however, it is clear and definite that the operative word for including in an order is that a person "might" suffer loss, et cetera, and it followed from that that the Minister "would" make the provision, and if that is the interpretation put on the subsection, that is one way of reading it. With the understanding that I shall consult my advisers in regard to it, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Amendment to the Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

441

§ LORD BURDEN moved, as an Amendment to the Amendment, in line 15 of subsection (2), leave out "comparable with, but not more" and insert "not less favourable". The noble Lord said: This Amendment, as was pointed out, refers to the words a little later in the subsection, which read "comparable with, but not more than". This subsection deals with the situation where compensation has to be covered in an order. We have moved on from the stage of saying it "should be" to the stage that it "is to be" provided. In its present form the subsection provides that the compensation is to be "comparable with, but not more than" is payable in relation to a harbour reorganisation scheme under subsection (1) of the new clause.

§ The National and Local Government Officers' Association have submitted to me that there are two objections about this form of words. The words used could be paraphrassd as "similar to, but not necessarily the same as, and not better than". In other words, while some difference between the compensation under the Order and the compensation under the regulations is not excluded, the form of words adopted appears to prescribe that if there is to be such a difference it must not improve the position of the person to whom the compensation is payable. It follows logically, therefore, from that, that any difference must be detrimental to that person.

§ I submit to the Minister that a provision of this kind is quite contrary to post-war practice and precedent. In the London Government Act, 1963, Section 85(3)(a), which deals with terms and conditions of employment of transferred employees, is in the following terms: so long as he continues in the employment of that other authority by virtue of the transfer and until he is served with a statement in writing of new terms and conditions of employment, he enjoys terms and conditions of employment not less favourable than those he enjoyed immediately before the date of transfer; Again, paragraph (b)(ii) reads: other terms and conditions of his employment, are not less favourable than those he enjoyed immediately before the date of transfer. Further, in relation to transfer, practically every order made under the Water Act, 1945, in recent years involving the 442 transfer of employees has provided that these terms and conditions of service after their transfer are to be "not less favourable "than those applicable before the transfer.

§ I readily admit that these examples are not entirely on all fours with the present provisions, which deal with compensation and not with terms and conditions of employment. The principle, however, is the same, in my view and in the Association's view, and the reason for the difficulty in finding a precedent on compensation is that compensation in the past has been dealt with in each enactment on a unified basis by the application of the same set of regulations.

§ I now come to a point which really one finds difficult to understand. If my Amendment is accepted, the new clause would be in every respect identical with the earlier version circulated by the Ministry of Transport. Why the change? I am told that the alteration was due to some representations made by the Treasury. I have a very great regard for our Treasury officers; they are some of the finest in the Civil Service; but why they have stepped into the field in this matter is difficult to see, since the compensation would almost always be coming from an independent statutory body and not from funds provided by the Treasury. We are bound to make a stand in regard to this particular alteration regarding compensation, because once this precedent is accepted and it is down on the Statute Book it can be quoted in regard to other instances.

§ I put it to your Lordships that local government officers to-day in the organisation of local government now in progress are deeply concerned and deeply worried with their future. Everyone will agree that if the new structure of local government and, if you like, the new structure as provided and as will be built up under this Bill when it becomes an Act is to function effectively, it will not always depend entirely on the people at the top who are giving orders but will depend upon the goodwill and the active co-operation of the officers right down the ladder of authority. Therefore, I beg your Lordships and the Minister not to confuse matters by introducing, as the Government have done in this clause, words which may cause anxiety 443 among the staff, anxiety which I have endeavoured to show is quite unecessary and which the Minister himself in his earlier draft recognised was unnecessary. I beg to move.

§ Amendment to the Amendment moved— Line 15, subsection (2) leave out ("comparable with, but not more") and insert ("not less favourable").—(Lord Burden.)

§ LORD CHESHAM
The noble Lord, Lord Burden, or, I should have said, his advisers in this matter, really seemed to me to be seeing ghosts and bogies about the place in a way which I cannot see myself. I think that they are seeing something very much greater in this and deducing that some deep principle is at stake, which I do not think is the fact at all. But I am not going to take it up at length, except to say this to the noble Lord: that, between now and the next stage, I will certainly look at what he has said very carefully to make quite certain that the ghosts and bogies are not in fact there, as I believe them not to be.
I am going to ask him to withdraw this Amendment now because I do not believe the situation is as he said. I am prepared to check that, but I do not think it is, and even if it was it would not be a good idea to try to put it right by making matters worse. I do not know whether his advice has gone right to its conclusion, because what the noble Lord has actually moved to do in his Amendment is to leave the Minister free to approve compensation provisions in revision and in Parliamentary Orders which are more favourable than provided in the regulations under subsection (1) in relation to harbour reorganisation schemes. I do not know why the noble Lord should wish to do that, because it does not seem to me the right thing to do.
First, I think he will agree that it has been Government policy to endeavour to standardise compensation provisions in Statutes to avoid discrepancies in the treatment of problems of an analogous kind in different industries. Secondly, it really does seem wrong that the provision for compensation in revision orders, which on the whole would not be expected to arise very often, should be on a more 444 generous basis than in reorganisation schemes, where I think there will always be problems of compensation. That does not seem to me right either. That is why I am going to express the hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment to my Amendment.
I would also ask him to remember—and I can certainly assure him of this—that in the cases he mentions there is nothing to stop any of the authorities concerned from making additional compensation arrangements outside the order or scheme made by the Minister. I think that is quite important. The accepted principle is that the Minister shall provide an acceptable minimum standard. The basis of the whole idea of making these provisions is that there is an accepted minimum standard; and that is what my new clause provides for, and it certainly is not to be regarded in any way as maximum.

§ LORD BURDEN
The Minister has made a very clever debating point, but he knows that in my speech I never said or implied in any way that we would expect an order to give compensation provisions better than those under subsection (1). The Minister obviously would not approve them. No one would ask him to approve compensation other than he would have power to do. That is not the point. The point is that he would never approve, and we should never ask him to approve, anything better than the general standard which would be laid down as operating under subsection (1). The Minister and his advisers know that. I congratulate the noble Lord on finding a clever debating point.
The real object of the clause as it stands is that the Minister will have power to approve something worse than the general standard which will operate under subsection (1). I take his word that he will look at the matter again to see that there is no loophole at all for the staff to think they may come off worse than under the provisions of subsection (1). I am prepared to ask leave to withdraw this Amendment, leaving myself free to look at the matter with the Minister at Report stage.

§ LORD CHESHAM
I will, of course, look at it again, as I said, but I do not think the noble Lord ought to make so 445 much of calling this a debating point. It is, in fact, the effect of the Amendment he had on the Order Paper, and if that is a debating point I am very surprised.

§ Amendment to Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ LORD MERRIVALE
Whilst I would sincerely agree that provision should be made for compensation for employees who suffer loss as a result of a reorganisation scheme under Clause 18, it seems to me quite unfair that a person who has his harbour transferred under subsection (2)(e) of Clause 18—that is, the transfer is against his will—should be required to compensate his employees for loss of employment. Surely, such compensation should be the responsibility of the authority who has initiated the transfer. Thai is all I wish to say on this new clause. Perhaps my noble friend could say who is to pay the compensation—the instigator of the transfer or amalgamation?

§ LORD CHESHAM
Would my noble friend be kind enough to check his reference again?

§ LORD MERRIVALE
I am looking at Clause 18, "Harbour Reorganisation Schemes". Paragraph (e) of subsection (2) reads: transferring to any of the relevant authorities or to such a body as aforesaid interests of a person in fixed or movable property used by him for carrying out harbour operations at a harbour that is comprised in the group or is adjacent to any of the harbours so comprised, not being a person engaged in improving, maintaining or managing that harbour in the exercise and performance of statutory powers and duties; In other words, such a person could be forced against his will, to be amalgamated with a harbour authority. Under these conditions I feel that it would be a little hard on such a person if, having been forced into such a thing, he were also to be compelled to pay the compensation. Surely it should be the instigator of the amalgamation or the reorganisation scheme who should be required to pay the compensation.

§ LORD CHESHAM
If my noble friend will look at the beginning of the new clause he will have his answer. It begins: The Minister shall by regulations make provision requiring such person or body, being 446 a person or body subject to any of the provisions of a harbour reorganisation scheme, as may be determined by or under the regulations to pay and so on. So there is the answer. It is the person concerned.

§ LORD MERRIVALE
In other words, the person who instigates the amalgamation?

§ LORD CHESHAM
No.

§ LORD MERRIVALE
Then it seems to me exceedingly unfair.

§ VISCOUNT SIMON
May I help here, because I think that I see Lord Merrivale's point? Surely, as the Minister has said, the provision is that the Minister "shall make regulations" for such "person or body", being one of the people who is concerned with the scheme, as may be determined; and clearly the Minister would not determine that the person who was losing his business should provide compensation.

§ LORD CHESHAM
The noble Viscount is correct. It is the instigator.

§ LORD MERRIVALE
I thank my noble friend and the noble Viscount opposite very much indeed.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD CHESHAM
I think this is generally agreed to be a good moment to cease our activities. So I beg to move that the House do now resume.

§ Moved according, and, on Question Motion agreed to.

§ House resumed.