Merchant Shipping (Liner Conferences) Bill (Hansard, 22 July 1982)

§ Lord Lyell
My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.

§ Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede
My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord is going to speak on this or on his next motion?

§ Lord Lyell
My Lords, if the noble Lord wishes to make any comments, I have been told that this might be the appropriate time.

§ Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede
My Lords, the Merchant Shipping (Liner Conferences) Bill has had a very easy passage through your Lordships' House. It is an agreed measure and it has passed through your Lordships' 1038 House with very little acrimony. But it is a funny measure for the Government to be lending their name to. It is a measure which creates new regulations which at other times the Government could, I think, regard as restrictive regulations on competition. In the field of civil aviation one knows that the Government have done everything they can to lessen the restrictions which apply to transatlantic flights. One wonders why it is that in a measure like this new restrictions are being created. However, it has become clear during the passage of the Bill that the Government have accepted the necessity for regulations to be made. It is worth noting the Government's attitude in this particular case.
As I have said, the Bill has gone through your Lordships' House very smoothly, with very little debate. I thought there might be rather more debate this evening than in fact seems to be the case. I know that there has been some concern about bulk container trade. But the noble Lord who, I thought, was going to raise that point this evening does not seem to be in his place and is therefore not in a position to raise the matter.
This is an unique situation. The Government have accepted the outcome of negotiations which have taken place in Brussels over a period of time to get the regulations into a shape or form which will be generally acceptable to the shipping industry of this country and which will enable the restrictions which were initially expected adversely to affect the liner trade not to have so bad an effect as was originally expected.
As your Lordships will know, the effect of extending the provisions of the conference throughout the EEC and not solely to the United Kingdom has enabled the Government to come to an agreement to approve these regulations and to bring them forward in this particular Bill. As I have said, this is a unique Bill for the way in which the Government have brought it forward in this way and have moved from their position as previously outlined; for that it is very noteworthy indeed. I welcome the passage of this Bill.

§ Lord Davies of Leek
My Lords, I am really interested in this, and in looking at the Rochdale Report on committees of inquiry into shipping, I would like to ask if liner trade, as mentioned on page 32 of the report, takes in the ships which provide a regular scheduled service between named ports, and are available for carriage of parcels and cargo at fixed rates, and for passengers—that comes in as well. Most liners carry cargo only and some carry both. On top of that, does the old tramp trade come under this, and the merchant trade? As somebody interested in commodity prices, although the public may not realise it, I know that shipping is of paramount importance to Britain's invisible earnings. This is the paramount point that should have been taken into account. I believe I was abroad when the debate took place, but we heard from a couple of shipping magnates who spoke knowledgeably in this Chamber from the other side of the House (from where most of the magnates come anyway) about this Bill.
As this is the Third Reading, I do not wish to introduce any new points but I sincerely hope that we will 1039 have just three or four minutes to look into this problem. When I was on the Commodity Prices Committee, which made a large report to this House, we had the shipping interests before us for cross-examination. As the Rochdale Report pointed out, we are entering an era in which shipping companies need to be competitive and to take advantage of new opportunities, and to use more sophisticated management and gear in their shipping operations, in view of changing markets.
Much of the valuable balance of trade depending on our invisible earnings is influenced by the cost of freight from the seven seas of the world. Often that cost is outside the control of any separate Government because, even if it is a nationalised shipping industry or a private shipping industry, their freights are relatively determined in the ports of call. I want to make one other point and then I will sit down. We must still remember that, despite efforts to increase our invisible earnings overseas over the past 150 years or so, much of which come through shipping—which is as important today as it was in the days of Trafalgar, despite the sophistication of modern living—much of our other earnings depend on the way in which our ships travel the seas. I suppose that to be up-to-date, having looked at "Salute to the Falklands", I must pay a tribute before I sit down to our merchant fleet, not only for its part in the Falklands but throughout history.

§ Lord Lyell
My Lords, it is typical of your Lordships' House that this fairly minor yet very complicated Bill should receive such thorough scrutiny from your Lordships even at this very late stage in its life; and it received very thorough scrutiny at earlier stages. We are very grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and Lord Davies of Leek, for their comments this evening and for the interest which has been aroused by this Bill during its passage through your Lordships' House.
I will reply briefly to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, that he and your Lordships' House will be aware that many of the provisions in the code concern very much the relationships between shippers and ship-owners, and we believe that, generally, these have been welcome. But the noble Lords opposite, my noble friend Lord Mottistone and indeed other noble Lords who have taken an interest in this Bill, will note that the United Kingdom voted against the code when it was first drawn up because both the Government and the British shipping industry concluded that British interests would be damaged if the code's cargo-sharing provisions were adopted without modification. Your Lordships will be aware that it was the development of the community policy on the code convention which was the key to reconciling this code with British national interests. We really do welcome and take on board the comments which have been made so kindly by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, that shipping is vitally important to the invisible earnings of this country.
Subject to these qualifications we understand that accession to the code on these terms is supported by both the General Council of British Shipping and the British Shippers' Council. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, mentioned the commodity interests and they were mentioned strongly and succinctly by 1040 my noble friend Lord Mottistone. I would stress that the Government will be consulting broadly and considerably, I hope, all the interests involved in this tremendous industry of ours, of shipping. Subject to that, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.