LONDON DOCK CHARGES

Evening Post, Volume CVII, Issue 131, 4 June 1924, Page 15

LONDON DOCK CHARGES

SUBSTANTIAL INCREASES

MERCHANTS' PROTEST

(FROM pOB OV..V CORRESPONDENT.)

.LONDON, 3rd April.

A very strong protest has been made by the London Chamber of Commerce and delegates fiom vanous London trading, and mercantile associations against the heavy increase in the rates of the Poib of l^oiidon Authontj. This week a deputation waited on the Poit of London Aultiontj to phce the tiadeis' case befoie them. Piacticallj e\eiy e\poit rnd impoit tiade -v ab lepietent ed. Mr. R. H. Blake attended on behalf of the British incoipoiated Society ot Meat fmporteis, and Mi W. ■Uieenwbod, on behalf of the National Federation ot Fruit and Potato Tiades Asso cations and Flint Biokei1;' .Associations

Mi. E. B Tied.ven (Tieasuiei of the London -Cnambei ot Coinmeiee, and ch<u<man of the meichanls' section), in introducing the deputation, said that the increases could not be justified by the wcixase in wastes, and moieovei. that l^boar costb did not entei in waiehousmg. although it wis pioposed lo mciease the lent rl\ugc>. He felt Hut the authontj, by jncieasing then cliaiges out of all piqppition to the in cieise jn wages., weie yetting j ve*y bad example, and wcie inviting the nien to make ftuthei demandb He tmstcd that the authonty woxild. see then way to postpone putting the mci eased charges uitn effect at any late uut'l the intei mediate date between the two dajs on winch the uai,o umements fell due.

Mr. T Instore (co.U espoiteis' sec- I; tion of the London Chatjibej of Com me|ce) legieited that the dccibion to ina^c the senous n'cieaso in latcs had not been ijiiidc without moie senous consultation with the tiddeih He in stanced the costs o: unloading a caigo of sagar m Londo)), v*juch had a.d\Linccd by 3s 6d per ton, v Inch, on the vessel he haji m mind, meant K)DO times 5s 6d aJdition to the cost It wps not pos Sibfe ior Bnt/sh steimeis to compete in the Poit pi London when Eotteidam. fot1 i;jst.ince, had leduced then charges by 10 pei cent , and theie had been no in crease in Glasgow or Antweip iii S. Spaiks (London Rhoit Sea Tinders' Association) pointed out that the lov est lates foi landing goods on quay were increased from Is 8d to 2s )d per ton, and on overside cugo fiom 2s to 2o Gd pel ton It vas now pio prsed to inciease the lowest lates to 2s 8d for landing, and 3b 6d for o-seiside. Tins \.as \eiy senous when one con sidcicd thp conrpotiticn of tbe mil, outpoits which, -although also faced with iT-icased Inborn clnrqes, weie not in ci easing then idles m the same piopoition Hi. W Gieeimood (National Fedeiat'on of Fnut and Potato Tiades Associa lions and Fiuit Eiokeil;1 Association) sai i that the inciease must lime the effect of din nig tiade to Liveipool, Man ohester, and Hprnbuicr. Livpipool could a qvse of oianges at 61 pei% case less than London. apd Glasrov; had made no incieaso'in then lates, hereas London charges had heavily in ceased This would most ceitainlv have the effect of causing London to be boveotM Mr. H. H. Blalce (British Incorporated Society of Meat Importers) referred to "• the-discrepancy in the charges on meat : landed- at .various ports.' In London the first iiianap:ement charge in meat was 445--6d; in'Liverpool. 25s ■ Southampton, ' ?■::-.: 8-id; and in Glsißgow", 225"6d.' This increase in the, London .charges would cause merchants to search for" other ports and would inevitably divert trade to the Continent. j; THE CASE FOR THE P.L.A.f !,., Lord Ritchie, of .Dundee (deputy ■ chairman of .the Port of London Authorj ity) welcomed the deputation', on behalf of the authority, and dealt with the points that "had been ' raised. Firstly, it was said that: there was no justificai tion'for increasing rent charges into j which labour costs did' not enter. While I that was true in the 'main,' it'was a fact tiiat other costs went up when labour costs wqnt up, and this affected to some extent the. question' of rent which, iii any case,'- was only increased by 2£ per cent. Then, again, complaint was .made that the port rates had only been increased twice since the establishment .of the authority. In 1915, the pprt rates were put up 20 per cent., and now a further 20 per cent, was ,added. He would remind the deputation that Par-' liament had imposed on the Port of London Authority responsibility for improving and developing the port. On the general questiqn of the increase the members of the authority had anticipated that this would come as an unpleasant curpriso to the traders and the shipqwiiers qf the port. Jt was "equally ' unj pleasant for the autliprity to put the I charges up, but on the facts : before them j the .whole Board, of Authority was satisfied that the full increase was necessary, and the resolutions were passed unanimously. He thought that the actjons of the authority in the past two or threo years in reducing charges was ample evidence of desire- to keep them down as -low as possible. The actual sum total qf the 2s increase did not represent the whole of the expense to which- tho. authority were put by reasou I of that increase, as theie were certainly I contingent facts. Certain- salaries had to be increased; the Port Authority's costs in respect of lighterage and cartago were increased, and'tb'ese additional and contingent expenses almost doubled the sum represented by the 2s. Wages ill the port now stood at 12s per day. The last time they stood at 12s was in . Apfil, 1922. In 1922 tho surcharge on shipping was 85 per cent., nbw it ■ was 65 per cent.; on discharging, it was 95 per cent., .nqiy 100 per cent.; on goods S2i per cent., now ICO per cent.; and rent, 95 per cent., now 50 per cent. While charges' for discharging, and on goods were now 5 per cent., and 7£ percent, respectively higher than in 1922, the; charges on shipping were down 20 per cent., and on rent 35 per cent.' He did not, however, pretend that the 2s in- , crease and the total expense which they implied would justify the total increase in the charges. The fact was that the authority had put down the charges to too low a figure in 1923. In reducing l'ates the authority always took a certain risk, and they anticipated the revenue would justify it. *• They had prophesied correctly for. two or three years, but on the last occasion they- were wrong. It was a fact that even if there had been no labour increase tho Port Authority at this time would have had to.announce an incres.se in charges. The charges were not put up to the iigure they were,' without due consideration. He would not give the figures, but would assure them that their estimates for the forthcoming year did not show more than a reasonable balance. Of' course this was dependent on the fluctuations in trade, and.he did not think that any member of the deputation could prophesy what the trade was likely to be. He could assure 'them that whenever the

authority ■ thought' it likely that their estimated surplus would be materially exceeded, they would certainly announce a reduction in charges. 'All members'of the authority were anxious to get. the charges down, and they had established a new costing system. They trusted it would be possible to get down the'costs and make reduction in charges in various industries ■ •