HARBOURS BILL

HL Deb 16 April 1964 vol 257 cc608-50

5.0 p.m.

House again in Committee.

Clauses 20 and 21 agreed to.

Clause 22 [Powers of inspection, etc., in connection with schemes established by control of movement orders]:

LORD CHESHAM

This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 26, line 6, leave out ("section 19(3)(c)") and insert ("paragraph (d) of subsection (3) of section 19").—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CHESHAM

This, also, is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 26, line 11, leave out ("any such order") and insert ("such provision of such an order as has or, as the case may be, had effect by virtue of that paragraph").—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to

Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 23:

Defence available to persons charged with offences under control of movement orders

23. In any proceedings for an offence consisting—

1. (a) in a failure to comply with a direction given, under a provision of a control of movement order having effect by virtue of paragraph (c) of subsection (3) of section 19 of this Act; or
2. (b) in a failure, in the case of a ship, to comply with a provision of such an order having effect by virtue of paragraph (b) of that subsection or a contravention in the case of a ship, of a prohibition imposed under a provision of such an order having effect by virtue of paragraph (d) of that subsection;

it shall be a defence for the person charged to prove that he had reasonable ground for supposing that compliance with the direction, provision or prohibition in question, would be likely to imperil the ship or to prove that in the circumstances compliance with the direction, provision or prohibition in question was impracticable.

LORD GARDINER moved to omit all words after the end of paragraph (b), and to substitute: a person charged shall not be convicted unless the prosecution proves that in the circumstances compliance with the direction, provision or prohibition in question was practicable and that the person charged had no reasonable ground for supposing that compliance with the direction provision or prohibition in question, would be likely to imperil the ship.

The noble and learned Lord said: This deals with another one thought out by the gentlemen in the Department! It was a Member of your Lordship's House who in a famous case described as "a golden thread which runs through the whole of our criminal law" the requirement that the onus of proof is throughout on the prosecution. There are some exceptions to that, because occasionally there is some fact that it would be virtually impossible and quite unreasonable to expect the prosecution to prove. This, I suggest, is not one of them. Here is a provision that a master is to have put upon him the burden of proving his defence. This envisages a situation in which the harbour authority—and again it may be a relatively minor official—gives a direction, and the master finds himself (assuming for the moment that imprisonment remains as a possibility) in a situation in which he feels that to comply with the direction would be hazarding his ship. Here he is, in this difficult position, torn between his duty to the owners on the one hand, and the fear that unless he can persuade lay justices on what is essentially a maritime navigational question he may be sent to prison.

I do not know whether or not it is thought that there may be many of these cases. I would have submitted that a direction should not be given by an official regarding, for example, the movement of a particular ship unless he, if necessary, was able to satisfy a court that that direction could have been complied with without the master having reasonable grounds to think that to do so would be likely to imperil the ship. I suggest that such an order ought not to be given unless the authority is in a position to satisfy a court that that is so. It is quite wrong to place upon the master the onus of proving his innocence, particularly when, after all, it is essentially a question of navigation and is being decided by justices, either in petty sessions or quarter sessions, who have not necessarily themselves—any one of them—any maritime experience. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 26, line 41, leave out from beginning to end of line 46 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Gardiner.)

5.4 p.m.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I never take any exception at all—I should like to make that clear—to any Member of your Lordships' House or anyone raising questions with regard to the onus of proof, because I think that where there is any question of putting the onus of proof on the defence the case for doing so requires to be made out. I cannot here agree with Lord Gardiner's presentation of the matter. The charge against the master or person who failed to comply with the direction—and that will be a direction of someone controlling the movements of vessels in the harbour area—will be of failure to comply with those directions. That will be a matter which will be within the power of the prosecution to establish. That is the offence: failure to comply with the direction.

Clause 23, on the other hand, produces a special matter of defence. It provides this: that even though there be failure to comply with the directions, the man accused cannot be convicted if he shows that there was reasonable ground for supposing that compliance with the direction, provision or prohibition in question would be likely to imperil the ship, or can prove that to comply with the direction, provision or prohibition in the circumstances was impracticable. It is a matter of excuse. It is not part of the ingredient of the offence. The approach in this Bill is, in my view, right; because those matters are matters particularly within the knowledge of the person on the ship.

Really, I cannot accept the view that if there is going to be any enforcement before the courts of the provisions of a movement control order—any prosecutions at all—it should be incumbent on the person in control of movements in the harbour, who is not on the ship, who does not know what is the position on the ship, to establish beyond reasonable doubt that there was no reasonable ground for supposing that compliance would have been likely to imperil the ship and no reasonable ground for considering that the direction was impracticable. That is putting the onus on the prosecution of proving beyond reasonable doubt two particular negatives; and the prosecution is not likely ever to be in a position to discharge that onus.

Clause 23 provides a particular defence. As the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, knows, there are many precedents in the Statute Book of the provision of similar defences. I would remind him first of all of the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887. The Larceny Act of 1916 is another quite good example. The noble Lord will remember that under Section 28 of that Act (as amended): Every person who shall be found by night— … having in his possession without lawful excuse (the proof whereof shall lie on such person) … any … implement of housebreaking … shall be guilty of a misdemeanour … It is there for the prosecution to establish that he has in his possession an implement of housebreaking; and then, because he knows better than anyone else why he has it in his possession, it is up to him to show he has a lawful excuse for having it.

There are other Acts which provide similar provisions: the Mines and Quarries Act, the Oil in Navigable Waters Act, the Children and Young Persons (Harmful Publications) Act, the Agriculture (Safety Health and Welfare Provisions) Act and the Office, Shops and Railway Premises Act, 1963. In this case I think the provision is right and should be retained in its present form.

But we must bear this in mind, too: that the burden of proof on the defendant of establishing his defence is a very different burden of proof from the burden of proof on the prosecution of establishing guilt. To establish his defence, the defendant has only to show that on the balance of probability there was this likelihood of the ship's being imperilled or that, on the balance of probability, the direction, provision or prohibition was impracticable. I need not refer the Committee to the recent judgment of the Lord Chief Justice on what must be shown; but I think that what I have said the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, will find is in accordance with what he said in the case of The Queen v. Patterson, decided in 1962. It is for those reasons that I cannot advise the Committee to accept this Amendment.

The noble Lord, for some reason I was at a loss to understand, for the second time to-day suggested that this particular provision has been thought out by members of the Department. Quite what he meant by that I do not know. All I would say to him is this: Ministers are responsible for the Bills they present to Parliament. Their civil servants help them a great deal, but the Ministers are responsible. That responsibility is accepted by my right honourable friend, and we feel that the Bill is right in its present form.

The noble Lord made some reference to these matters being tried before justices who are laymen. We have two kinds of tribunals in this country. Sometimes the tribunals consist of experts and sometimes we have tribunals which listen to the evidence given by experts although they are not experts themselves. I do not believe that the justices, properly advised as they will be by their clerks, will have any more difficulty in adjudicating, should any case under this provision come before them, than they do in respect of other instances of criminal offences where the ingredients which have to be established by the prosection are clearly laid down and where also it is provided specifically that if certain matters can be shown by the defendant, then the defendant shall not be convicted. I believe that this provision is right and should remain in the Bill. If the noble Lord presses it to a Division, I would ask your Lordships to reject the Amendment.

LORD GARDINER

I have made my protest, and I would ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.11 p.m.

LORD TEYNHAM moved, after "imperil the ship" to insert: "or endanger the life of any person on board". The noble Lord said: I suggest that it is wrong in principle, where there is a case of dangerous illness, that the master of a ship should be faced with the alternative of either obeying the law, and possibly risking the life of his passenger, or of breaking the law and relying on the discretion of the court, as would be the case under the Bill as it is drawn. It was suggested by Her Majesty's Government in another place that a master might well welcome having the decision taken out of his hands. I would say that this shows a complete lack of understanding of how a normal person would react in a crisis of this nature.

This Amendment is designed to provide for the sort of case I have just mentioned. Already this afternoon we have debated whether, under the control of movement clause, a ship would be prohibited from entering a harbour if not fitted with certain equipment. I pointed out that very few yachts are provided with V.H.F. radio control instruments, which cost something like £300, at a minimum price. It is difficult to imagine the stress of mind of the master of a ship not fitted with this equipment who, for that reason, was unable to land a seriously injured member of the crew, or perhaps it might be a yachtsman, with a desperately ill wife or child, who knew that he could not land the invalid without committing an offence. I maintain that some provision ought to be made for these circumstances, and that it is not enough for Her Majesty's Government to say that, if an offence were committed under these conditions, no prosecution would arise. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 26, line 44, after ("ship") insert ("or endanger the life of any person on board").—(Lord Teynham.)

LORD CHESHAM

I do not think that anyone would wish the life of anybody on board ship to be unnecessarily in danger, and no one would wish to be other than sympathetic with the anxiety and state of mind of the master of any ship if he had serious illness on board. But it is a question of the assessment of risks. Are we to regard it as more important not to endanger one life on board a vessel or no t to endanger many lives by refusing to allow the vessel in harbour in say, conditions of bad visibility, or when its presence and movements in the harbour are unknown to the harbour authority and also, probably, to the other vessels moving in the harbour?

I think that this risk would arise only in exceptional circumstances. It could be only in harbours for which a control of movement order had been made, and I imagine that they would not be many in number. It would apply only when that control was enforced, which might not be all the time, but only in conditions of low visibility or bad weather. It would apply, as the noble Lord said, only to vessels that were not equipped with V.H.F. radio or some other means of communicating with the harbour authority. It all boils down to being almost a yachting matter. That being so, I think that it would be reasonable to say that in most harbours, even with a control of movement order, the likelihood would be that it would apply only to the deep-water channel, to which control would probably be limited, and there would be an area in which craft without V.H.F. and very small craft could move without committing an offence. I think that in including these words, there is a greater risk of providing a "get-out" for the unscrupulous, who are always with us in every fold. Moreover, despite my noble friend's comment that he did not think much of this argument, I think that anyone with a genuinely serious casualty, whose life was really in danger, would find that this would be taken into account as an extenuating circumstance. I do not think that we ought to make this Amendment.

LORD TEYNHAM

I appreciate what has been said by the Minister in charge of the Bill, that control might be limited to the deep-water channel and that it would be possible for yachts in harbour to keep well clear of the deep-water channel. In that case, any loss of life is likely to be in the yacht and not in the merchant ship, should there be a collision. But in view of the noble Lord's explanation that this power may be limited to the deep-water channel, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 23 agreed to.

Clause 24 agreed to.

Clause 25 [Charges of certain harbour authorities]:

5.18 p.m.

LORD CHESHAM moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "charges" where that word first occurs, and insert "dues". The noble Lord said: As we come to a part of the Bill which deals with harbour charges, perhaps, before I ask your Lordships to consider my first batch of Amendments to Clause 25, I may make a few short general remarks about charges as they are dealt with in the Bill. First of all, I would distinguish between the charges which are called in the Bill, "Ship, passenger and goods dues" and other charges, such as those for loading and unloading vessels, warehousing, supply of water and for moorings. Under the Bill as it is now, harbour authorities will be at complete liberty to do what they like about ship, passenger and goods dues. They are free from all existing statutory restrictions or prohibitions on varying these charges, upwards or downwards, as they please. This freedom is subject only to the right given in Clause 29 to port users, or bodies that represent them, to object to a particular due, the objections to be heard by the National Ports Council.

Provision is also made in Clause 30 for the possibility of an overall review of charges in a particular port, which will be presented by the National Ports Council to the Minister, who can make an order, if he thinks fit. As for charges other than ship, passenger and goods dues, the Bill, as at present drafted, provides that these should be what the harbour authority think fit to charge. I would refer your Lordships to the closing words of Clause 25(2). The idea behind the Bill was to give harbour authorities the maximum practical freedom to adjust their charges as they thought right and proper in carrying out their duty in running their ports efficiently.

However, in another place there was strong criticism about the proposal that they should have this freedom in respect of charges other than ship, passenger and goods dues. It was argued that this would leave users much too much at the mercy of harbour authorities, sometimes when they would have no choice about using the services and facilities that those authorities provided, and, therefore, users would be worse off under the provisions of the Bill than they are at present. The reason why they would be worse off is that now the majority of charges, other than ship, passenger and goods dues, are either specified in local legislation, which means that they can be appealed against to the Minister, or subject to the requirement that they be reasonable, which means that the user who thinks he is being asked too much can take his case to the court. On thinking this over, the Government came to the conclusion that there was substance in these criticisms, and the Amendments I am about to move are designed to meet them.

I have to admit to your Lordships that the rather large number of Amendments in my name look formidable, but their purpose is quite straightforward. So far as ship, passenger and goods dues are concerned, then, the position remains unchanged as I have described it; but charges other than ship, passenger and goods dues will, in general, continue to be subject to the requirement that they must be reasonable. There are at the moment some such charges which are entirely at the discretion of the harbour authority, and it has been decided that these should continue on this basis. They are, however, comparatively few, and the great bulk of charges will be subject to the requirement of reasonableness. We think that this gives to harbour authorities a fair degree of freedom in charging, and at the same time protects the legitimate interests of the users. Basically, what we are trying to do is to restore the status quo about these charges, and although it has turned out to be a more complicated exercise than we expected—and this fact is reflected in the size and number of the Amendments—I can assure your Lordships that this is the effect which will be achieved if your Lordships accept the Amendments I shall be moving.

So I come to the first of these Amendments, No. 50, and the ten Amendments related to it, which are those up to and including No. 60. Their purpose is to introduce the necessary drafting changes to make Clause 25 apply to only ship, passenger and goods dues, instead of to other charges as well which, as I have just explained, will now be separately dealt with. They will in fact be dealt with in Amendment No. 61, which is a new clause for this purpose, and this I will move in a moment. At the moment I am dealing with Amendment No. 50 and the ten following and related Amendments. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 27, line 39, leave out ("charges") and insert ("dues").—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved—

Page 27, line 40, leave out ("making of a charge") and insert ("levying of a due").—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved—

Page 27, line 41, leave out ("charges to be made") and insert ("ship, passenger and goods dues chargeable").—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved—

Page 27, line 45, leave out ("charges to be made") and insert ("dues to be levied").—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved—

Page 27, line 46, leave out ("charges") and insert ("dues").—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved—

Page 28, line 3, leave out ("charges") and insert ("dues").—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved—

Page 28, line 4, leave out ("making of a charge") and insert ("levying of a due").—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved—

Page 28, line 5, leave out ("charges") and insert ("ship, passenger and goods dues").—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved—

Page 28, line 6, leave out from ("aforesaid") to end of line 8.—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved—

Page 28, line 25, leave out ("charges") and insert ("ship, passenger and goods dues").—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved—

Page 28, line 29, leave out ("charges") and insert ("dues").—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.

LORD CHESHAM moved, after Clause 25, to insert the following new clause:

Certain charges of certain harbour authorities to be reasonable

.—(1) In place of any limitation imposed, by a statutory provision made with respect to them in particular, on the discretion of a harbour authority as to charges (of any kind other than excepted charges) that may be made by them at a harbour which, in the exercise and performance of statutory powers and duties, they are engaged in improving, maintaining or managing (not being a limitation by way of expressly providing for freedom from charges or in any other manner prohibiting the making of a charge or by way of providing, by what form of words soever, that the charges shall be such as may be reasonable), there shall, by virtue of this subsection, be imposed the limitation that the charge shall be such as may be reasonable.

(2) For the purposes of the foregoing subsection the following shall be excepted charges, namely,—

1. (a) ship, passenger and goods dues;
2. (b) charges ascribable to the running of a ferry service in or from a harbour;
3. (c) contributions which, by virtue of a provision included in an order under Part IV of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1923 by virtue of section 38(1)(d) of that Act, fall to be assessed on several fisheries or the owners or occupiers thereof;
4. (d) duties on licences granted under section 61 of the said Act of 1923 to fish;
5. (e) charges in respect of licences under the Water Resources Act 1963 to abstract water or in respect of water authorised by such licences to be abstracted.

(3) In this section 'harbour authority' has the same meaning as in the last foregoing section.

The noble Lord said: Having removed all these charges other than those relating to ships, passengers and goods from Clause 25, we proceed to put them back again in the new clause, subject to the requirement that they shall be reasonable. I do not think there is much I need say, except that I think I ought to point out to your Lordships that subsection (3) of the clause provides that it shall not apply to the undertakings referred to in subsection (5) of Clause 25, which means broadly that it applies to the non-nationalised harbours, and the nationalised harbours are dealt with on a precisely similar basis later in the Bill under Amendment No. 80. I explained the position that the charges which have been specified or required to be reasonable would from now on all be reasonable. This new clause does exactly what I said in my explanation, so that those charges that are at present reasonable and at the discretion of the authority remain so, and the status quo will thereby be preserved which I think is what is wanted. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 25, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Chesham.)

LORD HOBSON

Are we to assume from the noble Lord's remarks that, whereas previously Clause 25 removed any restraint whatever on the authorities in regard to charges, and, indeed, gave them what was tantamount to complete carte blanche, we now have that limited by use of the word "reasonableness"? Is that the situation?

LORD CHESHAM

Slightly oversimplified, yes. Clause 25 originally did not give them complete carte blanche. It gave it subject to certain safeguards, which I described a few minutes ago, and I am sure the noble Lord does not want me to repeat the explanation.

LORD HOBSON

No.

LORD CHESHAM

The other charges, except the comparatively small number which always have been and continue to be at the discretion of the authorities, are subject to the limitation of reasonableness, which, of course, in any given case is a matter for the courts to decide.

LORD HOBSON

I want to assure the noble Lord that I am of far too generous a disposition to ask him to define "reasonableness".

LORD CHESHAM

That is why it goes to the courts.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 26 [Repeal of provisions limiting charges at certain harbours owned or managed by nationalised transport bodies]

LORD CHESHAM

This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 29, line 3, leave out ("charges made") and insert ("ship, passenger and merchandise dues chargeable").—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 27 agreed to.

Clause 28 [Duty of harbour authorities to make available for inspection, and to keep for sale, copies of lists of certain charges]:

LORD CHESHAM

The next five Amendments, Nos. 63 to 67, inclusive, all hang together. They are not much more than drafting, and what they do is to line up the provisions of the Bill for both nationalised and non-nationalised harbours with regard to the matter of the publication of their charges. There is a small anomaly between the Bill and the Transport Act with regard to charges, and obviously they must all be the same. These Amendments rectify this anomaly. I beg to move No. 63.

Amendment moved—

Page 29, line 35, after ("exigible") insert ("(a)").—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendments moved—

Page 29, line 38, after ("managing") insert ("; or (b) by virtue of section 43 of the Transport Act 1962 by any of the Boards at a harbour specified in Schedule 9 to that Act;")

Page 30, line 6, leave out from ("exigible") to ("are") in line 8 and insert ("as mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (1) above shall be levied by, as the case may be. the harbour authority or Board concerned if, at the time at which it is exigible, the authority or Board")

Page 30, line 21, at end insert ("(other than any of the Boards)")

Page 30, line 23, after ("work") insert ("or by any of the Boards at a harbour specified in Schedule 9 to the Transport Act 1962").—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 29 [Right of objection to ship, passenger and goods dues]:

5.32 p.m.

LORD TEYNHAM moved to leave out subsections (2) to (6) and to insert instead: (2) Before increasing any charges or imposing a new charge to which this section applies the harbour authority shall publish in such newspapers as the Council may require a notice stating—

1. (a) the charge which it is proposed to impose or increase and (where applicable) the amount of the increase; and
2. (b) that within a period of twenty-eight days from the date of the first publication 621 of the notice any person having a substantial interest or any body representative of such persons may object to the increase by giving notice to the Council accompanied by the grounds of his objection with a copy to the harbour authority.

(3) (a) If before the end of the period of twenty-eight days referred to in the last foregoing subsection notice in writing of an objection is received by the Council from any person appearing to the Council to be affected by the charge and the objection is not withdrawn, the Council shall either—

1. (i) cause a local inquiry to be held, or
2. (ii) afford to the objector and to the harbour authority an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by a person appointed by the Council for the purpose;

(b) subsections (2) to (5) of section 290 of the Local Government Act 1933 (which relates to the power of government departments to direct inquiries) shall apply to any inquiry held under this subsection as it applies to any inquiry held under that section and for the purposes of such application—

1. (i) for references to the department there shall be substituted references to the Council; and
2. (ii) in subsction (4) of that section the words 'either as a debt to the Crown or' shall be omitted.

(4) Where a charge has been objected to under this section the Council after effect has been given to subsections (2) and (3) above shall either—

1. (a) approve the charge but set a limit (not being later than the expiration of twelve months from the date on which they approve it) to the period during which the approval is to be of effect, and give to the authority written notice that they have approved it, stating the limit set; or
2. (b) give to the authority such direction with respect to the charge as would meet objection thereto (whether that is or is not the ground, or is or is not included amongst the grounds, on which the objection whose lodging gives rise to the proceedings is expressed to be made)."

The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to ensure that before any alteration is made by a harbour master in the charges in respect of ship, passenger or goods dues, the proposals for alterations shall be published in a newspaper and an opportunity given for an objection by the people upon whom the charges are to be levied. It can be argued that in most cases the users of harbours will be employees of large organisations, which usually retain in the various harbours concerned agents who, of course, take care keep their organisations informed of the alterations. On the other hand, I suggest, there might be many other small users who do not have this service and who will not know in advance what the charges are going to be. Nor will they have an opportunity of objecting to them until they have been in force for some time. That is the position.

I would point out that Parliament has supported this principle for more than a hundred years, because it is implicit in Section 30 of the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act, 1847. I should like to point out to your Lordships the difficulty of the national authority of yachting, the Royal Yachting Association, in connection with charges at ports. Hitherto, the Royal Yachting Association and its member clubs have always received notification by advertisement of any proposals for the alteration of maximum charges in harbours, as well as an opportunity to make objections and have them ventilated at local inquiries. This opportunity has been afforded to yachting interests as, of course, to all other interests concerned. Under this Bill, no notice of such an alteration is to be given. Although objections may be raised to ship, passenger and goods dues under Clause 29, local yachting clubs still may not become aware for some time of the alteration; and, in particular, it will be difficult to safeguard, to the extent that has been possible hitherto, the interests of cruising and visiting yachtsmen, or yachtsmen living some distance from the harbour. The position would be met if the Ports Council could, and would, forward a list of such charges to the national authority, the Royal Yachting Association, when they have been produced. In those circumstances, I think the matter would be in order. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 30, line 37, leave out subsections (2), (3), (4), (5), and (6) and insert the said new subsections.—(Lord Teynham.)

LORD COTTESLOE

I am sorry to differ from my noble friend Lord Teynham on this Amendment. As he has said, it would require harbour authorities to give public notice of intended increases in charges. That is had enough, but it would also enable the appeal procedure to be set in operation and carried through before the increases could come into effect. That may sound very reasonable, but that would be (I am not speaking of yachts; I am speaking of commercial vessels) disastrous to harbour authorities. If the opportunity is given to create substantial delay some months before increased charges can be brought into effect, it will naturally be taken advantage of constantly, and there will always be delay in bringing into effect increased charges, however urgent it may be that they should be brought in. In large ports the effect of the delay may be measured in very large sums of money.

In my opinion, this provision would have disastrous effects. The appeal procedure embodied in the Bill is already, I think, sufficiently effective and time-consuming. It may be that members of the Committee are not aware of the current procedure, which has worked well in the past and, no doubt, will be continued. When a port proposes to increase charges, the practice is to notify the traders, merchants and the harbour co-ordinating committee, which represents both merchants and shipowners, and also, in most cases, local chambers of commerce and others. A case is made out, objections are discussed, and in the enormous majority of cases, probably 99 per cent., the users, after discussion, will accept the position. If they do not wish to do so when the Bill becomes law, the appropriate body can always lodge an objection, under Clause 29, as soon as the new rates are brought into force; and certainly if they gave notice in any particular case of their intention to do so, the harbour authority would make great efforts to reach agreement. Indeed, it always does so now. I am bound to say that I hope very much that the Minister will not accept this Amendment.

LORD CHESHAM

On balance, I fear that I have to choose in favour of my noble friend Lord Cottesloe rather than my noble friend Lord Teynham. I should perhaps hasten to reassure my noble friend Lord Teynham that at least I have realised that Amendment 72 went with this one. In my view, frankly, the procedure he would like to introduce by this Amendment would be administratively burdensome and rather a clumsy one for harbour authorities. I shall say no more on that point, as I am more concerned with the fact that the Amendment is opposed to the funda- mental aim of the charging provisions of the Bill, which is to give harbour authorities the maximum freedom in charging and, therefore, in being able to vary charges quickly to fit changing circumstances with no more restriction than is necessary to preserve the legitimate interest of port users.

In fact, to be honest, the Amendment suggests a system of control which the Rochdale Committee condemned as inconsistent, incomplete and to a large degree no longer serving any useful purpose. Secondly, if accepted, it would give the port user an opportunity to object only when a new due is imposed or a due is increased subject to the necessary notice, and he would, therefore, as I see it, lose the rights he has at the present time and under the present provisions of the Bill, under which he can object at any time if he feels that a due is excessive.

I know that my noble friend Lord Teynham, again principally has yachting interests in mind, and I am not sure that there is not some misapprehension about this, because this clause deals only with ship, passenger and goods dues and does not, as I understand it, deal with charges for such things as moorings, which must be a major interest to that community. Therefore, I do not think that in any case it does entirely what the noble Lord wants it to do. But I take the point that what the noble Lord and the interests he has in mind are principally concerned with, is getting notice of what is likely to happen. I understand that this difficulty of theirs has been referred to the National Ports Council, and I am sure I am right in saying that the Council will consider sympathetically advising some means whereby the yachting interests will receive the information they want about charges in the main yachting ports. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend Lord Teynham can perhaps be content with my explanation.

LORD TEYNHAM

I appreciate what has been said by the noble Lord in charge of the Bill. He says that the National Ports Council will perhaps look at this matter in a sympathetic way. Of course, personally, I should like to see a direction to the Ports Council. I should like to look at this matter again before the Report stage, and in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.45 p.m.

LORD HOBSON moved, after subsection (5), to insert: (6) If, where written objection is made to a charge under subsection (2) above, the Council are satisfied that under the circumstances then existing it is proper so to do, they may when considering the charge the subject of the objection also consider all or any of the other charges imposed by the authority to which this section applies: Provided that the Council shall not proceed to consider any such other charges except after consultation with the authority and such other persons, or bodies representative of such other persons, appearing to the Council to have a substantial interest.

The noble Lord said: I think probably it would be an advantage if I addressed my remarks to the three Amendments which are inter-related, and certainly I think this would make my task infinitely easier. In practice, all anybody can do with regard to charges in this Bill is to raise an objection against the National Ports Council, and then, presumably, the Council considers the charges and can either eliminate them, confirm them or lower them pro rata. Our Amendment seeks to deal with the narrow but important point that the Council's order or direction is confined to the particular charge to which the objection refers.

In practice, where, say, a tariff which applies to particular goods in transit is going to be reduced, the Ports Council can effect that reduction. But there is a dilemma as the Bill now stands. Take a hypothetical case of the importation of iron ore. Let us say that a ton of iron ore is imported and the charge is 20s. One would presume that for a half ton the charge would be 10s., and for a quarter ton 5s. But at present, as the Bill stands, the Ports Council could make the charge for a half ton 11s. instead of 10., and, likewise, for a quarter ton 6s. instead of 5s. In other words, at the present moment the price may be reduced or increased for a given quantity, but when it comes to a proportion of that quantity there is nothing to prevent the Board from not effecting a pro rata reduction, and that is what we seek to deal with.

I think your Lordships will agree that the situation to which I have referred would be rather unfair. Therefore, there should be opportunity with regard to quantity to have pro rata reductions in the port charges. At the present time this cannot be done, and this is what these Amendments seek to provide for. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 32, line 6, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Hobson.)

LORD COTTESLOE

I am sorry to be opposing an Amendment brought forward by the noble Lords, but this also is an Amendment with which I find myself unable to agree. The effects of this Amendment, and, indeed, I think its object, would be that where a single objection to a rate was made the Council could extend their consideration of the appeal to any or all other rates. The result of that could be, though would not necessarily be, to produce an overall reassessment of rates by the Council under the Clause 29 procedure without any appeal to the Minister, so that the Council could in fact do under Clause 29 what the Minister is empowered to do under Clause 30.

I think it may be that the proposers of this Amendment are not really informed about the way in which rates are fixed and how the appeal procedure is likely to work. There are two cases. The first is an appeal against the whole rate schedule, and that is the case that gives rise to no particular difficulty. The second is an appeal against a single rate on the grounds that it is incorrectly related to other rates, and that is the case that is particularly involved here.

When an objection of that kind is notified, people who deal in analogous or competitive commodities will of course come along and say, "If this rate is to be brought down, this or that other rate ought to follow". In fact, the port authorities themselves, who are naturally anxious to preserve a proper relationship between their customers, may on occasion, and do on occasion, put forward proposals of that kind, and that can be done within the procedure laid down in Clause 29; it is, I believe, one of the objects of all the notices and the consultations. It seems to me that there is really no ground whatever for the Council, who will not have the detailed knowledge for the purpose, to try, off their own bat, to extend the scope of any rate adjustment that is asked for. I hope your Lordships will not approve this Amendment.

LORD CHESHAM

I was glad to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Hobson, what was in his mind as the object of these Amendments. Up till then, I was not quite sure what was his underlying purpose, because I could not believe that it was really what it is my duty now to explain would be the effect of these Amendments. Therefore, I was pleased to know what it really was; and it was, as I had expected, a reasonable kind of proposition. I do not think I need go ino great detail. I should have thought that the safeguards built into the Bill for objection by any port user to any due gave the necessary protection which the noble Lord seeks. After all, the right of objection to the Ports Council to a given due does not mean that the right of objection is confined to just one due. Therefore, in objecting to one you may also object to another, and there is nothing then to stop the Ports Council from considering the other dues that are charged in that port. I think that is right.

But I consider it is wrong to go further and give them the power not only to consider all the other dues in the port but to come to a decision on them, as well as any decision they may come to on the one due which has been objected to. I think it is too much, on the objection to one due, to give them the power to act on all the others. As I say, there may be cases where it is a good idea for the Council to consider other dues when they are considering the objection to one, but I equally think there will probably be a number of occasions when one objection can be considered in isolation. The effect of these Amendments would be that the Council could, without the agreement of the port authority or of the Minister, without reference to anybody, introduce any changes they wished, either upwards or downwards, in any of the dues imposed by the harbour authority, once an objection had been lodged to one due. In considering the rate for, as the noble Lord mentioned, iron ore, they could consider that and could also consider the rate for bananas and motor cars and everything else in the port, and they could change them all.

That is not really the end of the story, because they would then be in a position, under these Amendments, to fix dues on everything, even where there has been no objection to any of them; they could change them all and fix them without any possibility of appeal. That upward or downward revision could extend over the entire range of that port's rates. That would, to say the least, create a very undesirable overlap with the powers of the Council under Clause 30 to propose to the Minister, for his approval, general revision of the dues. I do not think it would be at all consistent with the intention of the Bill to give the harbour authorities a fair measure of freedom to fix their dues. The noble Lord must also remember that if the Council used those powers in that way it would effect a freezing of dues for a period of up to one year. I think he will accept from me that it would be much better to carry out the overall revision according to the procedure in Clause 30 and not as a by-product of an objection to a single due under Clause 29. That is all I have to say, and I wait to hear whether the noble Lord thinks my argument is reasonable.

LORD HOBSON

I thank the noble Lord for that explanation, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 29 agreed to.

LORD TEYNHAM moved, after Clause 29, to insert the following new clause

Power of Minister to vary notices or directions given by Council under section 29

.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, where the Council, by virtue of section 29 of this Act, approve a charge imposed at a harbour and, after notice of such approval has been published by the Council in pursuance of the said section, a representation is made to the Minister that the charge so approved was imposed by the harbour authority at the instance of the Council, or by agreement between them and the authority, the Minister may give a direction requiring the Council to give to the authority such different notice or direction, within the terms of the said section, as the Minister thinks fit, and the Council shall comply with the direction.

(2) The Minister shall not give a direction under the foregoing subsection unless—

1. (a) the representation mentioned therein in made to him within a period of twenty-eight days from the date of publication by 629 the Council of their approval of the charge which is the subject of the representation;
2. (b) the representation is made to him by a person or body who lodged with the Council, in pursuance of the said section 29, an objection to the charge as subsequently approved by the Council; and
3. (c) he is satisfied that the said charge was imposed by the harbour authority in the circumstances referred to in the foreging subsection."

The noble Lord said: This Amendment is designed to cover a case where the National Ports Council might instruct a harbour authority to impose a charge or agree with them that it should be imposed. As the Bill is drawn at present, the only appeal against such a charge would be to the National Ports Council themselves, who would thus become judge in their own case, and this Amendment would allow an appeal to be made to the Minister. At present ship, passenger, and goods dues are subject to fixed maxima and can be revised, either by application to Parliament by Private Bill or to the Minister of Transport. Under this Bill the National Ports Council would be able to apply to the Minister for a revision of charges levied by a harbour authority, but users would be excluded from doing so. Surely it is wrong that the Council should be the final arbiter in a case which has arisen possibly at the instigation of the Council itself, all the more so since the decision of the Council could be given without even an inquiry being held into the objection.

I should like to point out that owing to the rather involved nature of the clauses in this Bill dealing with harbour authorities it is difficult to draft a self-contained Amendment without tackling a very large number of consequential Amendments. I hope Her Majesty's Government will be prepared to accept the principle and will themselves set down the necessary Amendments on the Report stage of the Bill. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 29 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Teynham.)

6.0 p.m.

LORD CHESHAM

I might as well tell my noble friend straight away that I cannot respond to his beguiling invitation to accept this clause and do all the rest of the work myself. This clause, complicated as it is and even without any question of the necessary consequential Amendments, unsuitable as it is in its wording, in fact cuts across what has all the way through been the clearly designed policy in the Bill: that the National Ports Council should be the final arbiter of objections made by users to ship, passenger and goods dues under Clause 29.

it is possible to conceive some circumstances in which the Council might be the objector. I confess that they do not come freely to my mind, and I do not see the Council as judge and jury in their own case. But what I do see out of this is something that has been the subject of more than one attempt (in fact, two in another place—and this I think is the third one, with a slightly different approach) to get some kind of right of appeal to the Minister.

I imagine that those who seek this right of appeal, whether by frontal attack, or—I will not call it by the back door, but by the side door, must perhaps fear that the Council, who we know will have close links, as they are supposed to have, with the port authorities, presumably may be biased against the port users in their decision. This seems to assume that the Council will not be a body responsible enough to be fully objective in their decisions on objections. Quite frankly, that is an assumption that I should be most reluctant to make. The Amendment also tends to ignore the procedure in Clause 29, for dealing with objections, with the provisions for advertisement. While what the noble Lord said is true—that the Council are not obliged to hold an inquiry—I feel that it would be most unlikely that they would not do so in any important case of objection.

I know that the Minister is involved (this is the only time that he is on these charging matters) when an overall revision plan is put to him under Clause 30. But any extension under Clause 29 is undesirable, because I believe that this should be a matter within the ports industry which, after all, it is our aim to make as fully independent and commercially-minded as we can. I do not think that there is any case for giving this right of appeal to the Minister, now that the industry has virtual freedom from statutory control, which of course it used to have in full measure when it was much more appropriate that it should go to the Minister. I think that the set-up will be much better, and will work better, if we leave the Bill as it is.

LORD SHACKLETON

We accept the need to avoid undue complications. What concerns me a little, in trying to think of an analogy for this particular situation is that I cannot think of one, and I am wondering whether the noble Lord can help us. In regard to other transport fields, such as the railways, bodies that deal with railway rates are not themselves directed involved in any way in management, or in exercising influence over the conduct of a particular undertaking; and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Teynham is on to a point here.

It is difficult to see how it would work out. There is clearly a possibility of conflict between the Ports Council and an individual authority, and there may be a time when, so to speak, they are the two parties to a dispute. This is liable to happen in any situation. But I am wondering whether some sort of appeal procedure, perhaps with rather more obstacles to it than are contained in this Amendment, might be appropriate. I should be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary could indicate whether there is any parallel to this, or whether he regards the National Ports Council as merely on all fours with any other rate-fixing body, and whether there are other circumstances in which an appeal to the Minister is allowed. I think this is a special case, and one to which I should have thought it was worth giving a little more consideration than we have had.

LORD CHESHAM

I will be quite frank with the noble Lord. I cannot immediately call to mind any comparable case—though that does not mean there is not one. If, in due course, I can think of something, certainly I will let him know, if necessary by letter. But off-hand, I cannot. Perhaps I did not make myself as clear as I should have done. We took the view—and still hold to it—that the Council will be a responsible body, independent and, furthermore, able to take a quasi-judicial role in adjudicating upon this question of dues. As I said, it is our policy to do everything possible to encourage and establish full independence of the ports, and indeed of the Council. I think that if one is again to take this power away finally from the Council in the way that has been envisaged, and give it back to the Minister, it will detract from that conception of independence for the industry.

LORD SILKIN

There is nothing new in the conception of an appeal against the decision of a tribunal, and it certainly is not derogatory to the body making the original decision that there should be a right of appeal. After all, there is an appeal from a High Court Judge to the Court of Appeal, and from the Court of Appeal to the House of Lords; and nobody thinks any the less of the High Court Judges or of the Lords Justices of Appeal because of that fact. Moreover, the noble Lord may remember that a Committee—the Franks Committee—was set up some years ago to consider this question of appeals against decisions of tribunals. That Committee recommended strongly that wherever possible there should be a right of appeal from the decision of a body of this kind. However eminent this body may be (and I do not challenge the fact that the Government will seek to set up as eminent a body as possible), they may go wrong in their findings, and the person who is the subject of those findings ought to have an opportunity of presenting his case to the Minister.

I cannot see what the objection to the Amendment can be and I hope that the noble Lord will be prepared to consider this. He says that the wording is defective. I am quite prepared to believe that. I have never known an Amendment put down by a private Member that was in perfect order. But I think he ought to be prepared to reconsider the principle of an appeal against the decision of this Council. I hope he will.

LORD CHESHAM

When I hear that kind of argument presented to me I feel I should be rather dim-witted not to accede to it. I am certainly prepared to look at it again, provided your Lordships understand that I am undertaking no commitment as to what I may find—that I am not looking into it with a view to putting down an Amendment of some kind. I may do no more than confirm the feelings that I have to-day. If it appears to be the wish of the Committee, I will certainly undertake to look at this point again.

LORD SHACKLETON

I am sure we are all very grateful to the Minister. Would he at the same time consider how this rate fixing, so to speak, is going to be done? A great deal of this sort of thing is done by a semi-judicial tribunal. It rather looks as if at some stage there is going to be almost a semi-judicial function here, and I find it a little difficult to see, from the background of the constitution of the Council, how they are going to discharge it. If it is a matter of sending experts in and coming to a conclusion, that is straightforward, but once they act in a judicial rôle conceivably some slightly more formal procedure is necessary. Interested parties in other rate-fixing episodes are able to call counsel, and so on. I do not know whether the Ports Council will work like this.

It may all go very well, but I am sure that all Members of the Committee are with my noble friend Lord Silkin in saying that we must be alert to the possibility of oppression by tribunals. This is one of the weaker points. In the absence of the sort of appeal procedures which exist in other countries—and there is no question of an appeal to the courts in a matter of this kind, and there is no Ombudsman to refer to—I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, will look at this matter carefully. We are grateful to him. I do not ask him to say anything more, because he has come a long way to meet the point, and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, on raising it.

LORD CHESHAM

The noble Lord need have no fears about the methods of work of the Council, because they will have to work closely with the port in-industry in any case. The situation will be such that they will naturally proceed in the kind of manner he mentions, particularly as it is not up to them to do the original rate fixing, as the noble Lord calls it, but only to hear objections against it. On the subject of oppression by tribunals—and nobody wishes anyone to be oppressed by a tribunal—there is the fact that this matter of charges is their sole executive function. It is their sole "tooth" and they have been supplied with it simply because they seem so outstandingly able a body to do the job. Having said that, I will say no more pending consideration of what has been said to-day.

LORD TEYNHAM

I am sure that the noble Lord in charge of the Bill will take note of the fact that there has been a good deal of support here for a right of appeal to the Minister to be embodied in the Bill. At any rate, he has said that he will look at the matter again, and no doubt we shall be able to return to it on Report stage. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 30 [Power of Minister to revise ship, passenger and goods dues at harbours other than fishery harbours or marine works]:

LORD CHESHAM

This Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 34, line 45, after ("confirmed") insert ("in the form in which it is confirmed").—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 30, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 31 agreed to.

Clause 32 [Provisions supplementary to sections 29 to 31]:

LORD CHESHAM

This Amendment is also a drafting one. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 38, line 28, after ("of") insert ("the operation of").—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CHESHAM

This, again, is drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 39, line 44, leave out from ("charge") to ("shall") in line 45 and insert ("the suspension").—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 32, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 33 [Application of sections 29, 30 and 32 to local light dues]:

LORD CHESHAM

This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 42, line 40, after ("32(1)") insert ("and (2)").—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CHESHAM

This, again, is drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 43, leave out lines 1 to 7.—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 33, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 34 agreed to.

Clause 35 [Exclusion of certain charges from section 25]:

LORD CHESHAM

This is merely consequential on the "reasonable charges" Amendments. The clause is now redundant and can be deleted. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 43, line 21, leave out Clause 35.—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 36 [Special provisions with respect to certain aviation charges]:

LORD CHESHAM

This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 45, line 8, at end insert ("(Certain charges of certain harbour authorities to be reasonable) and").—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 36, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 37 [Repeal of sections 30 and 47 of Harbours, Docks, and Piers Clauses Act 1847]:

LORD CHESHAM moved to leave out Clause 37 and insert the following new clause:

Repeal of sections 30 and 47 of Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847 and certain other provisions as to charges.

".—(1) The following provisions shall cease to have effect, namely,—

1. (a) sections 30 (power to vary rates) and 47 (list of rates to be set up) of the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847 (both as originally enacted and as incorporated in any Act or order);
2. (b) any statutory provision (other than the said section 47 or one in this Act) applying to a harbour authority in so far as (however it is expressed) it requires a list of charges imposed by the authority in the exercise of their powers as such to be published;
3. (c) section 17 (rates to be equally levied) of the General Pier and Harbour Act 1861 Amendment Act and any other statutory provision applying to a harbour authority in so far as (however it is expressed) it prohibits the authority from discriminating 636 in the matter of charges imposed as aforesaid against any person in favour of any other person.

(2) In the foregoing subsection 'harbour authority' does not include any such person as is mentioned in section 25(5)(c) of this Act.

(3) The Shipping Dues Exemption Act 1867 (which precludes the according of certain exemptions from shipping dues and empowers the Minister to abolish dues from which an exemption exists) is hereby repealed."

The noble Lord said: I think I ought to say a word on this, since the Amendment itself is so long. The matter is reasonably simple. As at present drafted, Clause 37 provides that Sections 30 and 47 of the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act, 1847, shall cease to have effect, but certain harbour authorities do not incorporate the provisions of that Act in their local legislation but have provisions of like effect in their local legislation. Therefore, the clause needs to be revised to cover comparable provisions to those two sections. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Leave out Clause 37 and insert the said new clause.—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 38 [Amendments of Acts consequential on sections 25 to 37]:

LORD CHESHAM

This Amendment is consequential and drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 45, line 25, leave out subsection (3) and insert: ("(3) For paragraph 5 of Schedule 9 to the Transport Act 1962 there shall be substituted the following paragraph:— '5.—(1) The charges made by any of the Boards for the use of services or facilities provided in, or in connection with, a harbour specified in this Schedule (other than ship, passenger and goods dues, charges for the carriage of goods or passengers, charges for the use of a railway or charges in respect of railway wagons) shall be such as may be reasonable. (2) In this paragraph the expression "ship, passenger and goods dues" has the meaning assigned to it by section 55(1) of the Harbours Act 1964'; and in paragraph 6(2) of that Schedule for the words 'for which the charges are regulated by' there shall be substituted the words 'specified in'.").—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CHESHAM

This, also, is drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 45, line 46, at end insert— ("(5) In section 23 of the Harbours, Piers and Ferries (Scotland) Act 1937 the words ' Part III of ' shall be omitted.").—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 38, as amended, agreed to.

LORD CHESHAM moved, after Clause 38, to insert the following new clause:

Harbour services and facilities provided by certain harbour authorities

".—(1) A. harbour authority shall have power to make the use of services and facilities provided by them at a harbour which, in the exercise and performance of statutory powers and duties, they are engaged in improving, maintaining or managing subject to such terms and conditions as they think fit except with respect to charges as to which their discretion is limited by a statutory provision (whether by specifying, or providing for specifying, charges to be made, or fixing or providing for fixing charges, or otherwise).

(2) In this section 'harbour authority' has the same meaning as in section 25 of this Act."

The noble Lord said: This Amendment is consequential and drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 38, insert the said new clause. —(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clauses 39 and 40 agreed to.

6.20 p.m.

LORD MERRIVALE moved, after Clause 40, to insert the following new clause:

Exclusion of certain harbours from application of certain provisions of Act

". In any case in which the Minister is satisfied that the interests of a particular trade or industry are being adversely affected by the application to any harbour, used wholly or mainly for the purposes of that trade or industry, of any of the provisions of this Act, he may on application being made to him, by order (made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament) direct that such provisions or any of them shall not apply in relation to such harbour or shall apply thereto subject to such modifications as may be specified in such order."

The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to enable the Minister, on an application being made to him, to consider the interests of a particular industry or trade at ports wholly or mainly used by such an industry or trade. I have particularly in mind some of the 300-odd minor ports of varying size and importance which are to be found around the coasts of this country, and which provide, in the words of the Rochdale Committee Report: an important service for particular industries". Here I would stress to your Lordships, as I mentioned on Second Reading, that the small port members of the Dock and Harbour Authorities Association were never consulted by the Rochdale Committee; nor were they ever asked to submit evidence. I would mention, too, that one of the recommendations of the Committee was that: Minor ports should in general be maintained only if they are financially self-supporting Well and good, but I feel that the Minister should also have a permissive power to consider the interests of an industry or trade mainly served by a specific port. May I also remind your Lordships of paragraph 66 in the Report, which says: Many of the minor ports play a very important rôle in the country's coasting and short sea trade. Indeed, they sometimes offer better and cheaper facilities even to oceangoing ships than do the major ports. Such better and cheaper facilities could —and I stress the word "could"—be impaired by certain provisions of the Bill: for instance, Clauses 9, 18(2)(e) and 30 which, again, could be to the detriment of the competitiveness of an industry or trade in the export markets of the world.

LORD SHACKLETON

May I interrupt the noble Lord? He seems to be speaking on behalf of a number of small ports, but the clause as it is drafted seems to follow very closely his earlier Amendment which he said was confined entirely to the port of Par. Would he exemplify these other ports which are used wholly or mainly for the purposes of trade or industry?

LORD MERRIVALE

I was coming to that. There are other ports which I had in mind, and although the port of Par would be included in this Amendment, I am not referring to that to-day. I was going on to say that any increase in port charges or ship and goods dues could limit an industry's ability to compete abroad.

I now come to the point of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and will consider specific industries and ports other than the Port of Par. For instance, the port of Workington in the North-West region handles mainly the traffic of adjacent iron and steel works, exporting pig iron and steel and importing iron ore. The port of Blythe in the North-Eastern region owes its existence to the coal mining of the district. Maryport is another coal exporting port. Hartlepool sends out Durham coal and imports iron ore. I would also mention Port Talbot, near Swansea, with very large local iron exports.

In moving this Amendment, I trust that I may be fortified by certain remarks which the noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale, made on Second Reading. I trust that I am entitled to quote his exact words [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 256 (No. 55), col. 1180]: What we were trying to do was to control major development, which is, after all, the major matter that affects the port industry as a whole; and, provided that we had control to be able to say where the major development was to be, it did not really seem to us to matter what the little ports did, as long as they did not get swelled heads". I am fairly confident that neither the industries nor the small ports to which I have referred have any swelled heads.

With regard to the steel industry, for instance, as one of the conclusions of the Report is that all terminal development should, in the main, be financed and undertaken by the industry itself, is it not right that such an industry should have the power to apply to the Minister if such a need ever arose? It may well be that such a power would not be necessary. It is only a permissive power for which I am asking your Lordships' approval. Coal is still considered an important cargo, especially for some ports. One could go on with regard to these points. I agree with your Lordships that this is purely a permissive power which may never be required, but I feel that it would benefit some industries if ever the need arose. In these circumstances, I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 40, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Merrivale.)

VISCOUNT FALMOUTH

I should like to support this Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, has moved so eloquently. I must say that I am speaking as a Cornishman about the port of Par, but I know that we are not separatists in Cornwall as perhaps the noble Lord might suggest. I am interested in this port myself as chairman of companies which run clay works and export through this port. We fear that development could be frustrated by powers under this Bill, and we also fear that under Clause 20 increases in charges could be made by the authority. Our great advantage in Cornwall lies in the fact that the sea is only six miles away from the best clay formations. This is of enormous help in competing in the export markets of the world, and we fear very much any interference which means that our transport costs are increased. I would ask Her Majesty's Government to give this Amendment most careful consideration.

LORD CHESHAM

In dealing with an Amendment he moved last Monday, I said to my noble friend Lord Merrivale that he was shooting holes in one of the basic principles of the Bill, which it is of the greatest possible importance to preserve. Having accepted that I did not like his shooting holes in the basic principle, he has gone off and brought back a dirty great cannon and tried to blow the principle completely to smithereens. Whether or not the noble Lord is right in thinking that the proposed power in this Amendment is permissive, it is certainly technically permissive—but, my goodness!, you wait for the pressure that is going to build up under this permission. One successful application and the floodgates would be straining at the seams, if not actually bursting.

I think the Rochdale Committee regarded it as most important that the private ports, the one-industry ports, and so on, should remain within the scope of the Bill, because the noble Lord was perfectly right when he said that he was not talking only about Par when he moved this Amendment. He has brought in the crude oil terminals which belong to the oil companies, and he has brought in Fawley. Yes, the noble Lord has; it is no good his shaking his head.

LORD MERRIVALE

Not to-day.

LORD CHESHAM

In this Amendment.

LORD MERRIVALE

Yes.

LORD CHESHAM

He has not mentioned them to-day. I did not say he had mentioned them, but he has brought them in by means of this Amendment, and it applies to Milford Haven and Fawley. This shoots the biggest hole in the most valuable principle of the Bill. I will not go so far as to call it a wrecking Amendment, because I am sure it is not—

LORD HOBSON

It is worse.

LORD CHESHAM

—but it is really, I am afraid, totally and utterly unacceptable.

LORD MERRIVALE

I thank my noble friend for those remarks. I could not ever imagine that anything which the National Ports Council did could adversely affect the power of the petroleum industry.

LORD CHESHAM

If I may interrupt, in reply to my noble friend behind me I would say that I cannot think of anything it would do to the detriment of the port of Par, either.

LORD MERRIVALE

I thank my noble friend for his remarks in reply to this Amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clauses 41 and 42 agreed to.

Clause 43 [Penalisation of furnishing false information]:

LORD CHESHAM

This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 50, line 25, after ("section") insert ("4 or")—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 43, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 44 [Restriction on disclosing information]

LORD CHESHAM

This Amendment is consequential, and I shall say no more except to observe to your Lordships that it picks up completely the point which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, made the other night about commercial confidence and security. If the noble Lord will have a quick look at Clause 44, on page 50, he will see that the point he raised is most adequately covered. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 50, line 40, after ("section") insert ("4 or").—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 44, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 45 to 50 agreed to.

Clause 51 [Saving for telegraphic lines]:

LORD CHESHAM

This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 56, line 36, leave out ("exercise") and insert ("execution").—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 51, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 52:

Orders and regulations

52.—

(2) A statutory instrument containing an order under section 4, 9(1), 18(7), 19 or 58 of this Act or regulations under section 22 or 40 thereof shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

LORD COTTESLOE moved, in subsection (2), after "19" to insert "30". The noble Lord said: This Amendment is, I think, the shortest of the 108 on the Marshalled List, but it is certainly not the least important. The Amendment refers to Clause 30. Under that clause, the Minister takes power to confirm by order a scheme for the revision of ship, passenger or goods dues, overriding, on the advice of the National Ports Council, the judgment of the port authority concerned. That is a very strong power, and one that could be justified only in exceptional circumstances. After all, the port authority is responsible for the finances of the port generally, and for ensuring that it pays its way and gives a service to the public at the most economic cost. That its charges should be overridden by someone with no responsibility for its results is a very strong order. It might in some circumstances be justified, but I think very rarely.

If my understanding is correct, it is envisaged that such a power would be exercised, if it is exercised at all, not for the purpose of reducing the dues charged but for the purpose of increasing them, where the National Ports Council consider them to be inadequate and the Minister endorses that view. It is evident that an exceptional power of that kind ought not to be exercised without the fullest inquiry. That is provided for in the Bill, but it seems to me also that it is most desirable that such a power should be treated in the same way as the exceptional powers in other clauses of the Bill, which under Clause 52(2) are made subject to the Negative Resolution procedure. Such clauses are, among others, Clause 9(1), which gives the power by order to control harbour development; and Clause 19, with power to order control of movement. Those are very exceptional powers, and the powers in Clause 30 are also very exceptional. I hope that the Minister will be willing to accept this Amendment and agree to the inclusion of the exceptional powers given him under Clause 30 among those that are made subject to the Negative Resolution procedure. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 56, line 44, after ("19") insert ("30").—(Lord Cottesloe.)

LORD CHESHAM

I must say that I should not like to accept my noble friend's suggestion. Incidentally, I thought I understood him to say that the Minister's powers of revision in this case related only to revision upwards. That is certainly news to me.

LORD COTTESLOE

If I may correct the noble Lord, that was not, I think, what I said. What I said was that my understanding was that it was likely to be exercised in that way, rather than in the other.

LORD CHESHAM

That is a matter of guesswork. Things nowadays tend to go up more than down, I agree; but I should not like the impression to get around that revision can be only upwards; because it can, of course, be upwards or downwards. Neither do I entirely agree that this is an exceptional power. It is a power, or something very like it, which the Minister has had for some time under Section 6 of the Transport Charges, &c. (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1954, which provides that a non-nationalised harbour authority or port user may apply to the Minister for the revision of any of the charges which the undertaking is authorised to levy, and the Minister's power to make an order to that effect has not been subject to the Negative Resolution procedure. He had similar powers, under Section 51 of the Transport Act, 1962, in relation to the nationalised ports. And that power, too, is not subject to the Negative Resolution procedure. I know that if one wants to be strictly accurate one could say that those powers are not exactly on all fours with what is in the Bill; but they are pretty wide. They have never been subject to the Negative Resolution procedure, and I do not see the real force of the argument that they should be so now.

But I have another point. A scheme under Clause 30 could relate either to a lot of dues or to one or to very few. The factors the Minister will have to take into consideration will be matters of very considerable detail, such as the validity of financial estimates of revenue and expenditure, whether or not proper provision is made for depreciation, and the viability of proposed expenditure by the authority. I do not think the Minister is really going to get bound up with any matters of broad policy. These schemes, where the decision will usually depend on detailed judgments on sets of figures, are not really such as should be before Parliament.

I very much doubt whether any proposal under Clause 30 is likely to be other than contentious, and I consider it unlikely that the Minister will decide on the matter without a public inquiry. I think there will be every opportunity in an inquiry like that to ventilate every aspect of the case which would be subject to examination and cross-examination. The whole matter would be considered and reported on by the inspector. I think that this is a better way of dealing with such detailed matter than by throwing it back at Parliament; and I hope the Committee will agree to leave the Bill alone in that respect.

LORD COTTESLOE

I am sorry that the Minister is unable to see his way to accepting this Amendment, and I am bound to say I am not greatly surprised. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD CHESHAM

This is a consequential Amendment; but I ought quickly to point out that the Amendment does not actually consist of the words on the Paper. That is the reference to an Amendment earlier made, and at the moment of printing it was not known what the appropriate number would be. That will be reprinted in the draft.

Amendment moved—

Page 56, line 44, at end insert ("(Compensation for loss of office, &c. in consequence of orders and schemes)").—(Lord Chesham.)

Clause 52, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 53 and 54 agreed to.

Clause 55 [Interpretation]:

LORD BURDEN

This Amendment and the next one have been put on the Order Paper following a discussion in the Committee stage in another place. At that time it was argued that the definition contained in the clause was too widely drawn. At that stage the Minister considered that if a form of words could be agreed upon with the Dock and Harbour Authorities' Association an Amendment could be put down at a later stage. I understand that these Amendments have been agreed to, and in the circumstances I beg to move the first.

Amendment moved—

Page 61, line 43, after ("harbour") insert ("(but not including charges in respect of any services rendered or facilities provided for them)").—(Lord Burden.)

LORD CHESHAM

These Amendments are rather more than drafting; they are for clarification. I do not know whether they have been agreed to, but I hope they will be now.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BURDEN

I was endeavouring to get through quickly. I should have said the Amendments, according to my information, were agreed to by the Association and the Minister. That, I hope, will put me right with the Committee. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 61, line 44, leave out paragraph (c)> and insert— ("(c) charges in respect of goods brought into, taken out of, or carried through the harbour by ship (but not including charges in respect of work performed, services rendered or facilities provided in respect of goods so brought, taken or carried)").—(Lord Burden.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CHESHAM

This Amendment is consequential.

Amendment moved—

Page 62, line 29, at end insert— ("(4) Any reference in this Act (elsewhere than in the foregoing provisions of this section or in section 38) to ship, passenger and goods dues shall be construed as including a reference to charges payable by persons using a ferry which is a marine work.")—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

On Question, Whether Clause 55, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?

6.47 p.m.

LORD MERRIVALE

Could my noble friend define the meaning of harbour land, which in the Bill is said to mean land adjacent to a harbour and occupied wholly or mainly for the purposes of activities there carried on;"? What exactly is meant by "adjacent"? And what are the activities to be carried on there? Also, as this definition seems to be widely drawn, could he say whether the National Ports Council will have any jurisdiction over firms involved in manufacturing processes on that land? In other words, would manufacturing premises come under the provisions of this Bill? Surely such manufacturing should not come within the definition of "harbour operations". It could involve some small firms or some of the poorer members of the National Association of British Manufacturers in expensive litigation which some of them could ill afford.

Secondly, with respect to the handling of goods on harbour land, which comes under the definition of harbour operations, am I right in assuming that in the event of any redundancy occurring due to a reorganisation scheme under Clause 18, men who are employed on manufacturing processes could still be employed for the handling of goods or the unloading of ships, as I understand is now the practice?

LORD CHESHAM

My noble friend has asked one of his famous multiple questions on a number of subjects. I am afraid I have not managed to follow it all in my head. But on his query over harbour land, I would say that I do not see how I can be expected to define the activities there carried on. I suspect that he has mistakenly applied the word "there" to the land and not to the harbour. If you apply it to the harbour, it makes the whole thing very much clearer. The second query, as I recall, was to do with firms operating in the harbour area. Of course they are not included.

LORD MERRIVALE

This is not an important point, but the Association of British Manufacturers are concerned about it. I may take it, then, that the premises of firms interested purely in manufacturing process, manufacturing firms, would not come under the jurisdiction and provisions of this Bill, or under the jurisdiction of the National Ports Council.

LORD CHESHAM

No, they would not. They would have the normal relationship with the harbour authority if they rent premises or something of that kind, but so far as what I may call private organisations and individuals in those circumstances are concerned, these provisions slip over their heads.

LORD MERRIVALE

I am very glad of that assurance.

Clause 55, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 56 to 60 agreed to.

Clause 61 [Short title, extent, repeal and commencement]:

LORD CHESHAM

This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 64, line 16, after ("38") insert (",(Certain charges of certain harbour authorities to be reasonable) and (Harbour services and facilities provided by certain harbour authorities)").—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 61, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Schedule 2 [Objects for whose achievement harbour revision orders may be made]:

LORD CHESHAM

This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 67, line 3, after ("them") insert ("for the purpose of its being used").—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CHESHAM

This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 67, line 4, at end insert ("or for some other purpose of the harbour").—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CHESHAM

This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 67, line 18, at end insert— ("10A. Empowering the authority to levy at the harbour charges other than ship, passenger and goods dues or varying or abolishing charges (other than as aforesaid) levied by them at the harbour").—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 3 [Procedure for making harbour revision and empowerment orders]:

LORD CHESHAM

This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 70, line 43, after ("he") insert ("unless all persons interested consent,").—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 4 [Submission and confirmation of harbour reorganisation schemes]:

LORD CHESHAM

This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 82, line 35, leave out ("who") and insert ("that").—(Lord Chesham.)

LORD COTTESLOE

These are drafting Amendments, of course, but I think that we should all agree that "them who" in this Amendment and "they who" in the next Amendment are unsuitable. If we are going to alter them, as we should, I hope that we shall not alter them to read "them that", which is a particularly ungainly and ugly phrase. Cannot we alter the "them" to "who", which would be the correct phrase and would have exactly the same meaning?

LORD GARDINER

I was going to ask the noble Lord which language this was, because obviously it did not seem to be English.

LORD CHESHAM

I must confess to a fault here, in that, as your Lordships will not be surprised, having discovered that this was a drafting Amendment, I did not actually check it on a grammatical basis. I feel that I should apologise to your Lordships for that. In view of what has been said, I had better look at it again. Perhaps the Amendment can be made as it is at the present time, subject to putting down another one, if it is required.

LORD COTTESLOE

I thank the noble Lord.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CHESHAM

This Amendment is also a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 82, line 38, leave out ("they who") and insert ("them that").—(Lord Chesham.)

LORD CONESFORD

I take it that the noble Lord's undertaking applies also to this Amendment.

LORD CHESHAM

It is intended to apply to both.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 5 agreed to.

Schedule 6 [Enactments repealed]:

LORD CHESHAM

This is a tidying Amendment, to repeal the provisions that no longer apply. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 87, line 3, at end insert—

("24 & l25 Vict. c. 47.	The Harbours and Passing Tolls, &c., Act 1861.	In section 2 the definition of 'differential dues.'
		Sections 10, 14, 15 and 16.
25 & 26 Vict. c. 19.	The General Pier and Harbour Act 1861 Amendment Act.	Section 17.
30 & 31 Vict. c. 15.	The Shipping Dues Exemption Act 1867.	The whole Act.")

—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CHESHAM

This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 87, line 9, column 3, leave out line 9 and insert—("Section 12. In Section 23, the words ' Part III of ' Section 25.")—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CHESHAM

This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 87, line 12, column 3, leave out line 12 and insert— ("In section 6(1), paragraphs (a) and (e), and in paragraph (c) the words 'Part III of'.")—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CHESHAM

This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 87, line 26, leave out from ("in") to ("and") in line 28 and insert ("subsection (2), the words from 'but shall not give preference' onwards").—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CHESHAM

This Amendment is consequential and drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 87, line 33, column 3, at end insert ("In section 50, in subsection (1), the word 'port', and subsection (3)").—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CHESHAM

This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 87, line 45, after ("at") insert ("where first occurring").—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD CHESHAM

This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 87, line 52, leave out ("5") and insert ("6(1)").—(Lord Chesham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported with Amendments.

House adjourned at two minutes before seven o'clock.