PENARTH DOCK (CLOSING). (Hansard, 11 May 1936)

Captain ARTHUR EVANS
I must apologise to the House for raising such an important subject at this late hour but I am sure the House will appreciate this is the only opportunity open to me. I desire to draw attention to the closing of the Penarth Dock by the Great Western Railway Company, their obligations to South Wales generally, and the responsibility of the Government in the matter. First of all with regard to the action of the Great Western Railway Company. I would like to say that in the unanimous view of the Welsh Parliamentary party, representative of all political beliefs, and in the opinion of Welsh public opinion generally, it is a most unfortunate decision and one that should never have been made. I think it is fair to say that in the past the sound financial position of the Great Western Railway Company has been built largely on the revenues it has derived from South Wales industries and particularly the exporting and importing activities of the docks. Indeed, the position was so favourable in 1922 that the company came to Parliament and asked for powers to acquire all the dock and railway undertakings of their competitors in the area and so enjoy all the conveniences of a monopoly. Since those halcyon days, South Wales has passed and is passing through times of dire stress. Everybody has been affected, even such immense and powerful organisations as the Great Western Railway Company themselves, and we find that to-day they are accepting financial assistance from the taxpayers of the country through the agency of loan guarantees and under agreements with the Treasury. In reply to a question which I put to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer last week, I was informed that the company had already received a sum of £5,000 for improving the dock facilities in Penarth Dock itself and that they were to benefit by no less a sum than £5,500,000 under agreement with the Treasury.
That the Great Western Railway Company has a solemn obligation and responsibility beyond that of internal and local economies there can be no doubt, but my submission is that when they accept public money for the purpose of improving the public service then their obligation and responsibility is emphasised and 171 clearly defined. As far as obligations are concerned I am advised that when opposition was threatened to their merger plan in 1922 in the Committee upstairs, the Great Western Railway gave a specific assurance that in no circumstances would any part of the docks be allowed to be brought into a worse condition than if pre-merger conditions applied. If pre-merger conditions did apply to-day and competition still obtained—one thing is certain—Penarth Dock would not be closing down in July next. To my mind and in the minds of many of my political friends it is disastrous that at a time when everybody concerned with the welfare of South Wales are doing their utmost to encourage new industries—to extend our present trade—to remedy our present deplorable conditions—that the Great Western Railway—in order to save a comparatively small sum of about £20,000 a year—and at a time when the company as a whole is paying dividends to its shareholders and enjoying the benefit of Government finance should take this moment to proclaim to the world that their sense of obligation to the past and their faith in the future of industrial South Wales is to be measured by their decision to close Penarth Dock, cut down facilities, create unemployment and aim a fatal blow at an area already hard hit, which, through no fault of its own, is unable to defend itself against monopoly interests.
But what is the position and attitude of the Government in all this? Have they no responsibility at all in the matter? Are they going to comfortably sit back and say "this is purely a matter between local interests, the Penarth Urban District Council and the Great Western Railway"? I confess that I was shocked when the Prime Minister did not see fit to answer the question I put to him the other day as to whether the Government had protested to the Great Western Railway when their decision had been made known, and I was indeed bitterly disappointed when I particularly asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer a few days later whether the Government would approach the Great Western Railway with a view to seeing if anything could be done to improve the situation—to receive no assurance.
I will not deal with the debatable question as to why the export coal trade of 172 South Wales has declined—I must just accept it as a fact. This is the reason, however, given by the Great Western Railway why the dock is to be closed, and I require to know, in the first place, as to whether the Government are satisfied that they could not have influenced the Great Western Railway to change their mind; and if they are prepared to offer some financial assistance or practical alternative help of Government work to compensate for the loss of trade. I have in mind, of course, the establishment of Government works in the area, parts of which are most suitable for such purposes, and which have been referred to in a speech by the Lord President of the Council.
Why is there this delay in announcing the decision of the Government? The excuse given is that the site has not been finally settled or the land purchased. Why not? Months have passed; the country wants its rearmament programme proceeded with the utmost vigour; we in South Wales want work and encouragement. Plans have been submitted to the authorities, hundreds of suggestions to improve conditions in South Wales have been made from sources as diverse and far apart as the Commissioner for Special Areas and the Bishop of Llandaff's Committee. Apart from the subsidy for British tramp shipping, nothing much has been done and we are slowly losing our population, losing our livelihoods, losing our jobs and some of us losing heart.
The Government cannot turn a blind eye to South Wales and hope that something of its own accord will turn up and improve the situation. We are getting impatient. In a few days the Welsh Parliamentary party, which comprise representatives of all political opinion in this House will submit once again to the Government practical suggestions for improving the situation. We demand action. I am a loyal supporter of the Government and of the Conservative party—as those who have been through many hard-fought elections in Cardiff and elsewhere with me will readily testify—but I say in all sincerity to the Government: "Tackle this question before it is too late, away with indolence, show some mental energy and vigour and prove to an eagerly-waiting and anxious people that once again the National Government will not be found wanting in one of the 173 greatest and most difficult problems of modern times." I do not ask for an answer to-night, but, I hope the Financial Secretary will consider these points and convey my remarks to the proper quarters, and when I raise this question again—as I will formally do on a Motion for the Adjournment next week—I hope he will be able to give a considered and encouraging statement.

§ Mr. W. S. MORRISON
My hon. and gallant Friend has invited me not to reply to the remarks he has made to-night, but my concern is to try to clarify the responsibility in this matter of the Great Western Railway and the Government. This great railway company has, at least on the figures which it has supplied recently, a very good excuse for closing this dock, because the actual net revenue received from the dock, £16,000 in 1929, in 1931 became a loss of £12,000 and in 1935 a loss of £32,000. The Great Western Railway Company is not the Government. It is a trading corporation, and as such it is bound to consider the economic value of its various undertakings.

§ Sir REGINALD CLARRY
Without statutory power?

§ Mr. MORRISON
The question as to whether the railway company had power to close the dock is a matter for decision by the courts and not by the Government. Now look at the magnitude of the problem. The total staff employed at Penarth Dock is 188, and 52 of these will be retained. I am told that the dock is to be closed temporarily—

Captain A. EVANS
Is it not a fact that in law they are not entitled to abandon the dock, and that, because of that fact, they are announcing to the public that they propose to close it temporarily?

§ Mr. MORRISON
The hon. and gallant Member should allow me to reply. It is a question of law, which can be settled between those aggrieved and the company. I am told that the dock is not to be closed permanently, but temporarily, and that access will still be afforded to vessels proceeding to the Penarth Pontoon Dock, and that the coal shipping berths will continue to be available. I 174 am also told that the temporary closing of the dock will not lead to any loss of business in the dock itself, and this is an important point, because existing trade can be accommodated perfectly well at Penarth harbour or Cardiff or Barry; so that the closing of the dock is not a thing which closes off trade.
As to the position of the Government, the hon. and gallant Member made the point that since assistance had been offered to the railway company by the Government the Government have some responsibility in the matter. Under the Development Act of 1929 the conditions are such that nothing is paid by the Treasury in respect of any period during which, by the action of this company the facilities of the dock are not available, and that as far as the Government's responsibility is concerned, when the dock is closed payments cease. In regard to the later Act to which reference has been made, the one passed in this House last autumn, that Act scheduled certain works chosen by agreement between the railway company and the Treasury. The object sought in that choice was that the works scheduled should be those works which would not be undertaken, by the railway company as part of the normal programme of renewal and repair but were new works which, without this particular guarantee, would not be undertaken. That is the scope of the Act of 1935. It is simply that certain works should be undertaken which were works outside the normal programme of the company, so that fresh employment could be given. Apart from that, the Government have no responsibility. It is a matter for the railway company. The Government have seen that the works under that Act are being undertaken and that is the limit of their responsibility, and the hon. and gallant Member should not proceed to stretch it any further.
It seems to me, in general, that if one were to insist that a statutory corporation like a railway company should carry on its business in an uneconomic fashion for the sake of some local, and no doubt, grave need, that would be to produce a state of affairs which would reduce the companies to an insolvent condition. That is not the position of the Government. We must allow the companies to conduct their own affairs, in so far as they are not bound by Statute, in the 175 way they consider to be in their own interests. My brief answer to the hon. and gallant Member is, first, that the railway company has told us that this is a temporary measure; and, secondly, that so far as the Government are concerned, they have no power to influence this 176 matter. All the matters in which the Government are connected with the railway company have been observed by the company.