§ 3.56 p.m.
§ Report of Amendments received (according to Order).
§ Clause 1 [Establishment of National Ports Council, and principal duties thereof]:
§
LORD CHESHAM moved, in subsection (1), after "charged" to insert:
with the duty of formulating and keeping under review, a national plan for the development of harbours in Great Britain and".
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, during the Committee stage the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, moved an Amendment—which found some favour with the noble Lords, Lord Cottesloe and Lord Shackleton—that something should be included in Clause 1 of the Bill to indicate that the National Ports Council's functions would include the very important one of working out an overall plan. At that time I said that I was in agreement with that in principle, but was worried about the possible inhibiting effect that could be imported into the Bill if we were not careful. I do not think there is any need for me to describe this again, and, after more thought than is reflected in what appears 1065 to be the rather simple wording which has been arrived at, I am now quite sure that we can do what the noble Lord wished without any of the unfortunate and dangerous effects. That is the substance of my Amendment which I hope your Lordships will approve. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 8, after ("charged") insert ("with the duty of formulating and keeping under review, a national plan for the development of harbours in Great Britain and").(Lord Chesham. )
§ VISCOUNT SIMONMy Lords, I should like to express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, and also to extend to him my congratulations on having found a form of words which evaded me and which brings this important duty to the notice of the public by getting it into the Bill without the inhibiting effects to which he referred.
§ LORD HOBSONMy Lords, we on this side welcome this Amendment. We are very pleased to see that the Government and the Parliamentary Secretary have seen fit to accept this form of words which, in our opinion, as was stated by noble Lords on this side, strengthens the Bill. We welcome it.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 3 [Promotion by the Council of research, and training and education]:
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, this Amendment is consequential and is purely drafting. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 37, leave out from ("workers") to ("and") in line 38.—(Lord Chesham.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, this is a further Amendment which I have put down in view of an undertaking I gave to the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, to look at his suggestion that Clause 3 should be amended to enable the Council to make charges in respect of research, just as they could in respect of training and education. On reflection it seemed to me that the suggestion was a reasonable one, and so this Amendment went down. The only point I need mention, which your Lordships will 1066 probably have noted, in any case, is that there can be a charge only with a person's or body's agreement, and only for research to which they have also agreed. I think that to take power to force it on them, so to speak, would be regarded by all your Lordships as unreasonable, and therefore the Amendment is in this form. I beg to move.
§ Amendment moved—
§
Page 4, line 15, at end insert—
("(5) The Council may make, in or towards satisfaction of expenses incurred by them in promoting research into any matter at the instance or with the consent of any person or body, charges of such amounts as may be agreed between them and that person or body.")—(Lord Chesham. )
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, I appreciate what the Parliamentary Secretary is seeking to do. I was rather wondering, from looking again at what we said on the last occasion, whether the Amendment was necessary and whether Clause 4, without the restriction of the later Amendment put into it, would not have provided the Council with funds. Is it because this is in the case of an undertaking to a particular individual authority that it is necessary to take this specific power? I fully accept that if the charge is always specific to an individual, it is right to get consent as opposed to a general levy.
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, the idea there is, of course, that this widening of the power to charge for research scoops in a great many more people than authorities themselves. That is its whole idea. We intended to bring underneath this particular umbrella all the people who were carrying on what we might call the ancillary trades. Therefore I think it is very necessary to have this provision in the Bill.
§ LORD HOBSONMy Lords, there is only one proviso that I would add. It is obvious that the firms who are willing and are going to take part in the scheme are going to benefit from research, but there will still be certain people left who will benefit from research by the contributions of others. I do not see how that can be avoided, but no doubt with the example of many joining they will ultimately follow.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
1067§ Clause 4 [Provision of funds for the Council]:
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, this Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.
§ Amendment moved—
§
Page 4, line 32, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
("(a) in the exercise of their powers uncle subsection (1) of the last foregoing section or in the discharge of a duty imposed on them by virtue of subsection (2) of that section;
(b) in the discharge of liabilities in respect of money borrowed by them;").—(Lord Chesham.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 9:
§ Control of harbour development
§
9.—
(11) The Minister may by order made under this subsection substitute for the sum of £500,000 mentioned in subsection (6) above such other sum as is specified in the order; but no order shall be made under this subsection unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, Amendment No. 5 links with No. 6 and both are drafting. I beg to move.
§ Amendments moved—
§ Page 9, line 3, leave out from ("it") to end of line 6.
§
Page 9, line 16, at end insert—
("(5) A person undertaking, or securing the undertaking of, a project under an authorisation for the time being subject to any conditions having effect by virtue of subsection (3) or subsection (4) above shall comply with those conditions.").— (Lord Chesham.)
§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, Amendments 7 and 8 are linked and they are drafting. I beg to move.
§ Amendments moved—
§ Page 9, line 36, leave out ("other than one")
§ Page 9, line 37, after ("above") insert ("otherwise than").—(Lord Chesham.)
§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, this Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.
§ Amendment moved—
§ Page 9, line 45, after second ("of") insert ("the execution of").—(Lord Chesham.)
1068§ VISCOUNT SIMONMy Lords, I accept of course that this is a drafting Amendment, but I was wondering whether the noble Lord could explain what it means. The words at present in the Bill are "undertaking of" works, and the Amendment says "execution of" works. So far as I can see, the only difference between undertaking and executing is, perhaps, that undertaking is starting something and executing is seeing it through to the finish. But if the clause bites on an undertaking, it does not seem to me necessary to include the word "execution". If it is only intended to bite if the works are executed, then the word "undertaking" should be left out. I really do not understand the purpose of the Amendment, and perhaps the noble Lord could explain.
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, it is not as complicated as the noble Viscount says. The purpose of the drafting Amendment is to introduce into subsection (7) a reference to the execution of works, which corresponds to similar references in subsections (1) and (9). It is merely to keep them in line.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ 4.8 p.m.
§ LORD REA moved, in subsection (11), to leave out "other" and insert "greater". The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment to alter one word is to allay what I think are the genuine fears of companies and others in the private sector of harbour works and ancillary undertakings of that sort. The ceiling of £500,000 in Clause 9 gives them a protection against what might be termed interference by any future Minister of Transport—and I am not, of course, talking of the present Minister—who might seek to use this clause to take charge of all harbour work and more or less nationalise it by the use of a lower figure.
§ Although the provision calls for an Affirmative Resolution of each House, I submit that the dangers of the £500,000 being reduced by some future Government, with possibly a majority obedient to the Party line, are such that the Minister ought not to be given a power to vary downwards, but of course he should have power to vary upwards. With increasing costs of labour and 1069 goods it is likely that it may be necessary at some future time to increase the amount of £500,000 within the spirit of this Bill, but I do not think it would be within the spirit of this Bill if that figure were reduced. I would therefore ask the Minister whether he would accept this small Amendment to-day.
§ Amendment moved—
§ Page 10, line 33, leave out ("other") and insert ("greater").—(Lord Rea.)
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, I am very sorry that the noble Lord has put forward this Amendment, because I think the effect of it is undesirably restrictive on what it is intended the Bill should contain. I believe that his fears on behalf of the interests he mentioned are exaggerated, as I think I shall be able to show in a moment. It has been recognised that without experience of operation of a system of capital development control it is not very easy to form a final view on what scope that control ought to have. This is a matter of a flat monetary limit on a variety of schemes. I suppose one could say that, with experience of operation of capital development control, there ought to be a sophisticated kind of differentiation between the limit that one applies to different classes of capital development, but I believe that, certainly at this stage, it would be very difficult and over-sophisticated to try to bring in a scheme like that.
I think it is most necessary to keep the Minister's power to vary the figure downwards as well as upwards, because it is possible, although I do not think it is very probable, that there might be attempts to evade the control by splitting schemes in two, each port coming to below the £500,000 mark and thereby avoiding control. I do not think it is very likely that that would happen, but I think the power ought to be there in case it did. All such limits are bound to be arbitrary to some extent, but we think that this limit is set about right and should prove effective for quite a long time.
The reassurance I should like to give to the noble Lord is this: first, that I am sure that neither the Minister nor the Ports Council would want to propose any variation in this unless there were 1070 very good reasons for doing SO; secondly, if they did propose any such variation, the order which the Minister would have to make for the purpose would have to be placed before Parliament and be subject to Affirmative Resolution. The noble Lord shakes his head, but I assure him it would. I think that that ought to provide a very adequate safeguard against anything there may be in the fears the noble Lord has expressed.
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, I am glad the noble Lord has dealt with this matter so clearly. I must say, to be frank, that I thought this, as did my noble friends, an absurd Amendment. I do not quite know why the noble Lord, Lord Rea, has brought such a suspicious mind to bear. We have well-established Parliamentary customs in this matter; and what justification there is for saying that any Government are going to try nationalisation—and I do not see how you achieve it in the way he suggested—by the back door, I do not know. But, in any case, as the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, has said, there is perfectly satisfactory Parliamentary control. I should like to see what would happen to a Government which did try to do it; and, in any case, I do not think they could.
§ On Question, Amendment negatived.
§ Clause 10 [Enforcement of control of harbour development]:
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
§ Amendment moved—
§ Page 10, line 46, leave out ("given") and insert ("granted").—(Lord Chesham.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, this, also, is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
§ Amendment moved—
§ Page 11, line 2, leave out from ("of") to ("prohibition") in line 4, and insert ("a contravention, or an apprehended contravention, of, or a failure to comply with, any such").— (Lord Chesham.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, this is another drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
§ Amendment moved—
§ Page 11, line 22, leave out ("constructing").—(Lord Chesham.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, this is a further drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
§ Amendment moved—
§ Page 11, line 38, leave out from ("of") to ("prohibition") in line 39 and insert ("a contravention, or an apprehended contravention, of, or a failure to comply with, any such").— (Lord Chesham.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 14 [Minister's powers, on application of harbour authorities, or others, to make orders for securing harbour efficiency, etc.]:
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, this is a drafting and consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
§ Amendment moved—
§ Page 14, line 1, after ("section") insert ("and to the following provisions of this Act.")— (Lord Chesham.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 16 [Minister's powers, on application of intending undertakers, or others, to make orders conferring powers for improvement, construction, etc., of harbours]:
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, this Amendment, also, is drafting. I beg to move.
§ Amendment moved—
§ Page 17, line 38, leave out ("modification, any provision of") and insert ("modifications, any provision of the").—(Lord Chesham.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 18 [Harbour reorganisation schemes]:
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, this is another drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
§ Amendment moved—
§ Page 20, line 32, leave out ("such a body as aforesaid") and insert ("a body constituted by the scheme").—(Lord Chesham.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ 4.16 p.m.
§
LORD REA moved, after subsection (2), to insert:
(3) Nothing in this section shall be construed as authorising the inclusion in any
1072
harbour reorganisation scheme of any provision which confers upon any of the relevant authorities the exclusive right to carry on in or in any part of the group to which the scheme relates a business the activities of which consist of or include all or any of the following activities, that is to say, the berthing, towing, moving or dry docking of a ship, the loading or unloading of goods or embarking or disembarking of passengers, or the lighterage, warehousing, sorting, sampling, weighing or handling of goods.
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am proposing this Amendment with the same voice as that which I used in respect of the last one, but the operative word here is in the fourth line, the word "exclusive". It is merely to have a provision that the harbour organisation shall not have the exclusive right to carry on functions like towage, wharfage, master porterage, stevedoring and so on. It seems only natural, in a Bill of this sort, that one would not wish to give them the exclusive right, and therefore I should like that to be made clear in the Bill. I beg to move.
§ Amendment moved—
§ Page 21, line 31, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Rea.)
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, I am sorry, but I do not greatly care for this Amendment moved by the noble Lord, either. Incidentally, I notice that he wishes to withhold this exclusive right not only from a whole group of harbours but from any part of the group. I am not sure how significant that may be, but I noted that both were decisively included. In their Report—and I would call your Lordships' attention to paragraphs 112 and 113, in particular—the Rochdale Committee discussed the advantages and disadvantages of amalgamating groups of ports where that was suitable. The Report does not, in fact, recommend or propose that exclusive rights should be conferred for the type of activity which the noble Lord mentions in his Amendment, and there is certainly no suggestion that this policy should be adopted in harbour reorganisation schemes.
I do not quite know whether I am strictly in order or not, but I have been told that the Ports Council certainly do not see, in terms of desirability or otherwise, that these things should be done in this way. They attach importance to the fact that perhaps they could be so done; that is the point. But, surely 1073 every scheme will have to be considered on its merits and bearing in mind the individual circumstances of each case. In a particular case there may be a strong argument for reducing the number of interests operating in a harbour or group of harbours; and even, for some purposes, for having only one authority. But I think it would be wrong to write into the clause (which is what the noble Lord wants), a quite inflexible provision to prevent anything of the kind from happening in any circumstances at all. It may well be, in fact, that granting a right of this kind may be a useful way of promoting the efficiency for which everyone is looking.
It does not necessarily mean that things become inefficient because an authority may have exclusive rights over certain activities in a harbour. In the new docks at Lackenby, on the Tees, the loading and discharging of vessels are the exclusive responsibility of the Tees Conservancy Commission, and this system is working very well. I think Manchester is another example where it works very well; and, as one of the recommendations of the Rochdale Report was that a new independent port trust should be established for the Tees, which would involve a harbour reorganisation scheme, I think it would be a great pity to undo the work which is being done, as of course would be the position if we accepted this Amendment.
Again I would point out to the noble Lord that under the Bill there is ample opportunity for objections to be made if anyone feels aggrieved. There is the provision in Schedule 4 that, where objections are substantive ones, an inquiry should be held by the Minister before a scheme is confirmed; and if it is confirmed, it is subject to the special Parliamentary procedure, with the possibility of further objection being taken by Parliament. That again, I should have thought, ought to cover the point that the noble Lord has raised.
§ LORD HOBSONMy Lords, I read this Amendment very carefully, and frankly, I am amazed to find this Amendment appearing on the Report stage. I should have thought it was something relevant to the Committee stage of the Bill. It is, of course, a wrecking Amendment; it is nothing more nor less. First 1074 of all, when moving his previous Amendment the noble Lord, Lord Rea, said that it had reference to the fact that he saw backdoor nationalisation in one section of the Bill. Now he is flogging the old liberal hobbyhorse of monopoly. I suggest to the noble Lord that when he considers many of our ports to-day, such as the Port of London Authority, or Hull, he will find that there is no monopoly whatever in the operating. There has been no attempt by the authorities to usurp power and take over every service. As the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, said—and I want only to stress, not to reiterate—there is every possible safeguard in this Bill where the schemes must come before Parliament for ratification.
§ On Question, Amendment negatived.
§ Clause 19 [Compensation for loss of office, &c., in consequence of orders and schemes under foregoing provisions]:
§
LORD CHESHAM moved, in subsection (2), to leave out the words after "a situation, place or employment" down to and including "not more than," and insert:
might suffer any such loss or diminution in consequence as aforesaid and that, if he does, compensation should be paid in respect thereof, that Minister shall not make the order unless he is satisfied that it secures that there will be paid to or in respect of that person, if he suffers any such loss or diminution in consequence as aforesaid, compensation corresponding, as near as may be, to".
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Burden, during the Committee stage raised two points on compensation at which I undertook to have another look. I had another look, a lot of careful thought and attention has been devoted to them, and it appeared that there was substance in the points the noble Lord made. Therefore I have put down this Amendment which scoops up both the points he raised in the one Amendment. What was wanted was that Clause 19 should expressly provide that the Minister should ensure that there were compensation provisions in any harbour revision or empowerment order in any case where there was any possibility that they might be appropriate.
§ The noble Lord's other point was to accept the fact—as I think we must—that compensation arising under Harbour Orders could be different from that under reorganisation schemes. Never 1075 theless, as far as possible compensation payable under Clause 19(1) should be the same as that payable under subsection 2. I think his wording is considerably improved and I believe it meets the points the noble Lord raised. I will not deny that its drafting has been difficult; but it has been done and I think it has been done successfully. I beg to move.
§ Amendment moved—
§ Page 22, line 34, leave out from ("employment") to ("that") in line 39 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Chesham.)
§ LORD BURDENMy Lords, first of all, I should like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for the time and trouble he has devoted to this problem since the Committee stage. I am assured that the wording will meet the point I ventured to raise then. I am glad the Minister has been able to accept the views which have been submitted to him, and, on behalf not only of myself but of the officers who may be involved, I would express appreciation and thanks.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, This Amendment is drafting. I beg to move.
§ Amendment moved—
§ Page 22, line 40, after ("holder") insert ("in similar circumstances").—(Lord Chesham. )
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 20:
§ Orders for establishing schemes for control of movement of ships in harbours
§ 20.—
§ (4) The provisions of a control of movement order having effect by virtue of subsection (3)(i) above shall not be so framed as to permit—
- (b) on conviction on indictment of a person of such an offence or of the master of a ship by reason of such a failure or contravention, of the infliction on him of imprisonment (whether in addition to, or in substitution for, a fine) for a term exceeding six months.
§ 4.25 p.m.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD DILHORNE) moved, in subsection 4(b) after "contravention" to insert:
- "(i) of the infliction on him of imprisonment except in a case where the offence was committed recklessly or wilfully or, as the
1076 case may be, the failure or contravention was reckless or wilful; or - (ii) in the said excepted case,".
§ The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, during the discussion in Committee we had a useful debate on the provisions of this clause and, in particular, as to whether or not there should be liability to a sentence of imprisonment, not exceeding six months, on trial on indictment for offences constituted by a control of movement order. It is, of course, the case that only the more serious offences are tried on indictment, and under this Bill the control of movement order will define what will constitute the offences; and the order, of course, when prepared, will be subject to Parliamentary control. In Committee I expressed the view that it was right to have a liability to a sentence of imprisonment not exceeding six months for the serious cases. I adhere to that view, for the reason that the risks which may ensue from a serious breach of a control of movement order may be considerably greater than even the risks on some of our highways to-day. Moreover, they may involve many more people and, indeed, property as well.
§
During that discussion, however, it became apparent that while, if I judged the sense of the Committee rightly, noble Lords were not opposed to such liability for the more serious offences, the Committee wished the generality of the provisions in the Bill, as it now stands, to be limited in some degree. I undertook to the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, to consider that matter; and I should like to inform your Lordships that the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, has told me he very much regrets that he is unable to be present here to-day, but that he entirely agrees with the Amendment I am proposing. The effect of this Amendment will be to ensure that no person charged on indictment for an offence under a control of movement order will be liable to have a sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him
except in a case where the offence was committed recklessly or wilfully or, as the case may be, the failure or contravention was reckless or wilful;".
§ Your Lordships may wonder why that second phrase is there. I understand the reason is that the failure may be wilful or the contravention reckless in disregard of a direction given under the 1077 control of movement order. It has, I gather, to be drafted in that way to be satisfactory. But the effect of this Amendment will be that no one will be able to be sentenced to a term of imprisonment on trial on indictment unless it is established that the offence was committed recklessly or wilfully. I hope that the Amendment meets my undertaking on Committee stage to look at the wording, to see whether it was possible to achieve that object, and that it will meet with the approval of your Lordships. I beg to move.
§ Amendment moved—
§ Page 26, line 8, after ("contravention") insert the said words.—(The Lord Chancellor. )
LORD TEYNHAMMy Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord very much for carrying out the undertaking he gave during the Committee stage of the Bill. However, I would point out, for the purpose of the Record, that to put noncompliance, even though it may be limited to wilful default, on the same basis as infringement of the Collision Regulations is open to objection, for two reasons. First, I would say that it is creating a precedent for less enlightened countries abroad, which I maintain is very dangerous and a serious matter. Secondly, the Collision Regulations comprise a code written down in black and white, whereas situations which could arise tinder a control of movement order are capable of considerable flexibility; and it is always the unpredictable and unexpected that arises at sea.
During the Committee stage of the Bill I drew your Lordships' attention to the fact that a control of movement order may involve the professional judgment of three people: the master of the ship, the pilot and the harbourmaster—or whoever is exercising control. Therefore there is all the difference between the rigid code of Collision Regulations and what might occur under a control of movement order. I would point out that it is easy to identify in a written code the serious consequences which could result from non-compliance by wilful default or gross recklessness; but wilful default in failing to observe a direction of movement order must depend on the nature of the direction or 1078 prohibition, as well as the circumstances in which it is given.
It would seem that Her Majesty's Government's case for retaining the imprisonment provision appears to be partly based on the fact that big ships carry such cargoes as explosives and inflammable material. During the Committee stage, the noble and learned Lord seemed to suggest that responsibility of a matter of, for example, a scupper tanker is in inverse ratio to the size of the ship and the nature of the cargo. I maintain that the reverse is the case. When an owner entrusts a very large ship to the care of a master, I certainly do not think that the fact that imprisonment is in the background will have any effect on the exercise of a master's judgment. I still maintain that this subsection ought never to have been inserted in this Bill. But I have made my point, and I do not propose to carry the matter any further.
§ LORD HOBSONMy Lords, we on this side of the House think that the Government have gone as far as we can reasonably expect them to do to meet the criticism that was raised on both sides of the House with regard to the imprisonment clause. This clause was drafted for the express purpose of increasing safety in harbour. Nevertheless, it has been admitted—indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, stated—that in view of the special cargoes that are now arriving at ports (and as a new example which will be coming along very soon, I would quote methane, which will not be in very large ships) accidents involving serious danger to surrounding people are made possible. In other words, the casualties are likely to be not only on ship but also on land. There save already been some unfortunate explosions, one in the Scheldt and two others off the coast of America, at Galveston and Mobile. While regretting that the Government have thought fit to retain imprisonment of up to six month, in view of the fact that they have qualified the provision by now inserting the word "wilful", to that extent we on this side feel that the Government have gone as far as can be reasonably expected.
§ LORD AIREDALEMy Lords, is it not the case that we cannot take a great deal of comfort from the use of the 1079 word "wilful", which to lawyers surely means little more than "on purpose"?
§ VISCOUNT SIMONMy Lords, I was going to raise a very similar point, and I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor could explain to us just what the significance of the word "wilful" is. If it embraces "intentionally", then the case which I think the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, wishes to escape is the case where a master, in the exercise of his judgment, having received an order, considers that it would be safer to disobey the order than to obey it. That would be a perfectly wilful act, though it would not be a reckless act. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord can explain what it means.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, so far as the last point raised by the noble Viscount is concerned, he must not overlook the provisions of Clause 24. Your Lordships will see that, under that clause.
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.So that I do not think that the particular problem to which the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, referred is, in fact, likely to arise.The question has been asked about the particular effect of the word "wilful". Of course, it entails a good deal more than that the court should just establish the fact that an act was intentional. It is hard to put it precisely in words. It would be for the court to determine in the circumstances of the case. But "wilful" is a word which is found in various statutory provisions and really means that the court, having regard to all the conduct as established in the evidence, would have to be satisfied that it was not only just an intentional disobeying, say, of a direction, but also a deliberate one, with perhaps some consideration of possible consequences. One is not here talking so much about what has to be proved to constitute an offence. It is only when the court is satisfied that the character of the offence established amounts to a wilful disregard of whatever 1080 it may be, or a reckless disregard of instructions, that the court will have power to impose a sentence of imprisonment. I think that this will work all right. I hope that no use will have to be made of this provision. Nevertheless, I think that it is desirable—indeed, right—that it should be in the Bill.
I would say to my noble friend Lord Teynham that, I have no doubt inadvertently, he has completely misrepresented, or not appreciated, what I said during the Committee stage. I would be the last person to suggest that the companies who owned these big vessels carrying these dangerous cargoes do not take the utmost care to appoint the most reliable masters of these vessels, nor would I suggest for one moment that the masters of these vessels do not take the greatest possible care for the safety of their ships and their cargoes. The point that I was trying to make was that a master of some big ship like this, which, after all, cannot be turned or stopped quite immediately, may easily be put into a position of considerable difficulty by a breach of some requirement of a movement control order on the part of the master of some very small vessel. He might get into a situation of emergency through the fault of some other vessel wholly unconnected with his own ship. And with so much shipping coming into our ports—and I hope that it will come in increasing quantity—it is surely right that power should be available to exercise strict discipline over those who use the ports.
That is, shortly, the argument for the Amendment. I hope that I have been able to explain it to my noble friend Lord Teynham, who, I think, has misunderstood my meaning. The last thing I was wishing to do was to cast any reflection on the masters and owners of the vessels to which he referred.
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has succeeded in getting himself and the Government out of a difficulty by the skill with which he adopted the suggestion of the noble Earl, Lord Swinton. The proposal which the noble and learned Lord has put forward certainly represents a compromise which we welcome, but I think it was the impression of many of us on the last occasion that, if the House had 1081 divided, it would have thrown imprisonment as a penalty for this offence out of the Bill. I still think it is a pity, for the reasons that were given by noble Lords, that in this day and age imprisonment is regarded as necessary as a sanction for this type of offence. It is merely on this ground that we object to this clause, which has been criticised from both sides of the House.
On the last occasion, the noble and learned Lord said that there are much more draconian penalties in the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894. The types of offences for which these penalties can be prescribed are clearly of a very serious kind. I still do not know—I hoped the noble and learned Lord would tell us—why the Act, particularly Section 220, should not have been reserved as an ultimate sanction for some really gross breaches of duty. I should have preferred to see, rather than "wilful contravention", something that involved wilful breach of duty. We acknowledge that the clause with the special defence greatly eases the situation, but even now I would ask the noble and learned Lord why we cannot rely, for these extreme offences, on the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, and not put this sort of penalty into a piece of modern legislation.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, I think that I can sneak again only with the leave of your Lordships. I can put the answer quite shortly. There may be some offences committed under the movement control order, which, of course, your Lordships will be able to see, do not constitute offences either under the Merchant Shipping Act or under the Collision Regulations. I thought that I had dealt with that last time. You could have conduct which is a breach of a movement control order, but is not a breach of the regulations. It may be perhaps equally dangerous.
What the noble Lord is really suggesting is that there should be an increased penalty, bigger than is proposed in the Bill—namely, a liability to two years' imprisonment. I am not in favour of that. I think this sanction of imprisonment must be kept as a last resort, but it is necessary to have it here. As I have said, the occasion for its use may never arise, and one would hope that it would seldom arise. As I 1082 said on the Committee stage, one could have perhaps adapted the penalty provisions of the Collision Regulations to movement control orders, but that would bring a liability to two years' imprisonment, and then under the present regulations it is a liability if there is a wilful breach—I think the word "wilful" is in there. I do not think I should take up your Lordships' time further on this, but I am willing to clear the noble Lord's mind on this point in any private discussion he may care to have.
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I still think the noble and learned Lord has not appreciated the difference between these two. I am not referring—nor was I on the last occasion—to the Collision Regulations. I am referring to Section 220, where the words are "wilful breach of duty". This is not intended to extend and bring into this field the two-year offence, but to make it even more stringent and more difficult to bring such a case. This would be in only the grossest kind of case, much grosser than is provided for in the new clause. I will not press this further, except to say that I do not think the noble and learned Lord has satisfied everybody on it.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 34 [Provisions supplementary to sections 31 to 33]:
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, Amendments Nos. 22 to 27 are linked together and are drafting Amendments. With your Lordships' permission, we might take them together. I beg to move.
§ Amendments moved—
§ Page 43, line 12, after ("or") insert ("if he").
§ Page 43, line 13, leave out ("the scheme") and insert ("it").
§ Page 44, line 4, leave out ("proposal") and insert ("proposals").
§ Page 44, line 16, at end insert ("if he").
§ Page 44, line 17, leave out ("the scheme") and insert ("it").
§ Page 44, line 17, after second ("the") insert ("said").—(Lord Chesham.)
§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.
§ Clause 39 [Amendments of Acts consequential on sections 26 to 37]:
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
§ Amendment moved—
§ Page 47, line 39, after ("passengers") insert ("on any railway").—(Lord Chesham.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 47 [Provisions as to inquiries and hearings]:
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, Amendments Nos. 29 and 30 are drafting Amendments. I beg to move.
§ Amendments moved—
§ Page 55, line 2, leave out ("the Minister") and insert ("him").
§ Page 55, line 24, leave out ("the Minister") and insert ("him").—(Lord Chesham.)
§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.
§ Clause 49 [Provisions as to ecclesiastical property]:
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, this is a further drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
§ Amendment moved—
§ Page 56, line 44, after ("Minister") insert ("or the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food").—(Lord Chesham.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Schedule 2 [Objects for whose achievement harbour revision orders may be made]:
§ LORD REA moved, in paragraph 3, to leave out sub-paragraph (c). The noble Lord said: My Lords, by Clause 25 harbour authorities are given a certain discretion as to the charges they can make. It is therefore possible, I think, to envisage a state of affairs whereby under paragraph 3(c) of the Schedule (which I am moving to delete) those who are carrying out any ancillary duties at harbours might have their charges controlled by a harbour authority which would itself have freedom in levying charges. I think it will be a hardship on people who are trying to make contracts ahead and looking well forward if they do not know how they are going to be affected by the harbour authority's suddenly descending on them and telling them what charges they are to make. This seems to be wrong, particularly as the harbour authority might be competing in the services offered; and there is no provision in the Bill which would prevent them from acquiring a monopoly—which 1084 I am surprised to hear the noble Lord, Lord Hobson, seems to welcome as not a bad thing. Therefore, I suggest that paragraph 3(c) of Schedule 2 ought to be deleted. I beg to move.
§ Amendment moved—
§ Page 60, leave out lines 24 to 26.—(Lord Rea.)
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, I have never quite known what is the opposite of the expression of taking a sledge hammer to crack a nut, but the noble Lord has here produced a nut in an endeavour to destroy the sledge hammer, if that is possible, because the part he wants to leave out is, I think, a very necessary provision to leave in, in that it covers a great many further and wider things than this, again, rather illusory problem which the noble Lord has put to us. The object of this paragraph is that a harbour authority may operate or abolish their existing power to regulate the conditions on which other people provide port facilities in their harbour. That is a power that exists in many cases at present in port Statutes, and I am certain that it would greatly limit the use of harbour revision powers if an authority were not able to vary their existing powers in these matters or to impose new ones—because the noble Lord's Amendment has a consequential effect upon new powers as well as existing ones.
The Rochdale Committee thought that there should be some increased regulation, and pointed out, as I have just done, that it was not unusual for port authorities to exercise some control over such private employment through their statutory powers. It would very much cut across the intention of the Bill if we were to accept the Amendment, because the real intention of the Bill is to provide a quicker and cheaper method of taking powers than is provided by the Private Bill procedure. That is really what all this is about. On that account, therefore, the noble Lord's suggestion would in any case be ineffective. All it would mean is that authorities would not be able to use this procedure, and would continue, if they so wished, to go through the much more cumbersome process of promoting a Private Bill and arriving at exactly the same place. That is why I say the Amendment cuts across the intention of 1085 the Bill, and I think it would be a pity to accept it. For the third time, I must point out to the noble Lord that there is provision for objections to be heard, including a Special Praliamentary Procedure, so that if anyone is aggrieved to that extent his grievance can be drawn to the attention of Parliament.
LORD REAMy Lords, I think there is certain force in what the noble Lord says, but the last few words here refer to activities on harbour land. It might well be that there is a warehouse, factory or even a shipbuilding centre on harbour land which has nothing much to do with the harbour authority. It would seem wrong that the authority should be given power to interfere with any businesses which were not part of their own activities.
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, I am glad to have the chance to reassure the noble Lord on this matter. The definition of harbour land is in Clause 57, and activities there carried on, as it says, refers to "activities for the purposes of the harbour". It does not extend to other activities carried on near a harbour, such as sugar refining, grain milling, warehousing or operations of that kind. Therefore the noble Lord can really sleep easy on that one.
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, I think the whole House is most interested in this sudden burst of Liberal initiative. Since the noble Lord has other Amendments down (I hope he will not bother to move the next one) I think we should be interested to know what has given cause for concern at this late stage of the Bill, when so much has been put into the Bill to protect the interests of parties who might be concerned. I think he ought to tell us why he is moving this Amendment. I really do not understand it. I hope he will not move the next Amendment. I am getting tired, and I think the Minister is, too, of giving and hearing the same explanation, time after time.
LORD REAMy Lords, in view of the Minister's explanation, but unaffected by the remarks of the noble Lord on my left, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
1086§ LORD REA moved to leave out paragraph 17. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I know I am on a sticky wicket this afternoon, but it seems to me that here we have quite a big Bill, with many things which are allowed, and many which are not allowed. Paragraph 17, which I should like to see deleted, virtually says, "and anything else we have not thought of can be done". I will leave it at that, and hope your Lordships will say that that is not a paragraph that ought to go into a Bill—that any object may be included which, although not falling within any of the foregoing paragraphs, appears to be appropriate to the Minister. No doubt some Ministers would find some things appropriate and others would not. I do not think we should give such a carte blanche to any Minister. I beg to move.
§ Amendment moved—
§ Page 70, line 41, leave out paragraph 17.— (Lord Rea.)
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, for my part I would certainly regard it as much more undesirable to take it out of the Bill. I will not repeat my explanation—the argument is very much the same—but we are trying to make things rather easier and simpler and more efficient and slicker. It is obviously quite impossible that we should write into the Bill all the possible reasons that might be required. There are some 300 harbour authorities in the country, and to attempt to anticipate all the possible requirements, including some which may only arise in the future, without a sort of sweeping up paragraph at the end, I think would be rather silly, because the Bill would then become extremely restrictive and would tend to defeat itself. Having said that, and with one fourth and final reference to safeguards to objections built into the Bill, both before and after an Order, the Special Parliamentary Procedure, and so on, I hope the noble Lord will not wish to press his Amendment.
§ On Question, Amendment negatived.
§ Schedule 3 [Procedure for making harbour revision and empowerment orders]:
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 71, line 38, leave out from ("which") to end of line 39 and insert ("their execution is proposed to be authorised or, as the case may be, of the land whose compulsory acquisition is proposed to be authorised").—(Lord Chesham.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, this is another drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
§ Amendment moved—
§ Page 75, line 30, leave out ("pier, wharf, quay") and insert ("wharf, quay, pier").—(Lord Chesham.)
§ LORD AIREDALEMy Lords, might I ask the noble Lord whether this Amendment has any other purpose except that of confronting the Deputy Speaker with a tongue-twister?
§ LORD CHESHAMNo, not really, my Lords.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
§ Amendment moved—
§ Page 76, line 23, after ("writing") insert ("(stating the grounds of his objection)").—(Lord Chesham.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Loan CHESHAMMy Lords, this Amendment is also drafting. I beg to move.
§ Amendment moved—
§ Page 80, line 39, leave out ("he") and insert ("the person served").—(Lord Chesham. )
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Schedule 4 [Submission and confirmation of harbour reorganisation schemes]:
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, this Amendment and the next are both drafting. I beg to move.
§ Amendments moved—
§ Page 84, line 10, leave out ("are severally engaged in improving, maintaining or managing") and insert ("between them are engaged in improving, maintaining or managing the several").
§ Page 84, line 26, leave out ("are severally engaged in improving, maintaining or managing") and insert ("between them are engaged in improving, maintaining or managing the several").—(Lord Chesham.)
§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.
1088§ Schedule 5 [Procedure for making control of movement orders]:
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, this is another drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
§ Amendment moved—
§ Page 87, line 1, leave out ("to be acquired") and insert ("whose compulsory acquisition is proposed to be authorised").—(Lord Chesham.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Schedule 6 [Enactments repealed]:
§ Loan CHESHAMMy Lords, this last Amendment is also drafting. I beg to move.
§ Amendment moved—
§ Page 91, line 15, leave out ("Boards") and insert ("Board").—(Lord Chesham.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.