WELSH PORTS (TRAFFIC)

HC Deb 22 February 1946 vol 419 cc1480-506

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Pearson.]

1.20 p.m.

Mr. Ungoed-Thomas (Llandaff and Barry)

The subject which I wish to raise for discussion is that of traffic through the Welsh ports. So far as I know this is the first opportunity we have had in this Parliament of discussing Welsh affairs. We hope that, before long, we shall have a Welsh day to consider Welsh affairs generally. The Government have now had an opportunity of formulating their policy, and the time has come for considering that policy in relation to the different parts of the country. The Welsh Members of Parliament are particularly concerned about the position in Wales. We are fortunate in having a Government formed from a Party which is particularly sensitive to the problems which are causing so much concern and even anguish in Wales—problems of unemployment and economic chaos.

I know that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of War Transport has been most sympathetic in dealing with this problem of traffic through the Welsh ports. He has received hon. Members with the greatest willingness, and I am sure he welcomes the opportunity of having this problem ventilated here. What is the problem? The problem arises in this way. Before the war, there was heavy bulk traffic through the Welsh ports, particularly coal exports. That traffic was declining rapidly over a period of years before the war. During the war, there developed in the Welsh ports a considerable general cargo trade. That general cargo trade has now practically come to an end. The position is that, in the Welsh ports, traffic is dwindling away to nothing, and the great question is: What are the Government going to do about it?

I will give some figures to illustrate the position. Dealing first with the coal export position, taking the principal South Wales ports, in 1929, 30 million tons were exported; in 1938, 19 million tons; in 1945, 5 million tons. In other words, there has been a very heavy decline in the years between the two wars. That decline was rapidly accentuated during the war. With regard to the general cargo position, the figures are in 1938, 592,000 tons; in 1944, 3½ million tons. That is a very rapid war increase.

Now that the war is over, what is the position? In Barry there is practically no general cargo trade at all. The position in Cardiff is that there is only a small quantity booked. The position in the ports is reflected by the employment figures, and I refer merely to the employment figures of the registered port transport workers. Those figures are comparatively small because they do not take into account the vast number of ancillary workers who are linked up with transport through the port. In Cardiff in the autumn there were 1,700 registered transport workers. They have now dropped to 1,424. The numbers not engaged at present are 315, and I understand that 150 are to be dismissed this week. In Barry, out of 308 on the register, 81 only are employed, 227 being unemployed. The totals for the six South Wales ports are: 3,364 on the register, 2,137 employed and 1,227 unemployed. This is not merely a transport workers' problem, but all the ancillary trades and occupations go with it. Take the position with regard to chartering. There is great concern in South Wales that chartering is becoming more and more centralised in London, and I hope that when the Minister considers this problem, in due course he will bear in mind the important question of ensuring that ship broking is not confined, or is not too much concentrated, in London, but is decentralised to other parts of the country, including South Wales. The ship repairing position is good, but that is due of course to the transition from war to peace, and to the amount of repairs that have to be done in the immediate future. The immediate prospects for ship repairing in the South Wales ports is a comparatively happy one.

The significance of this position, however, is that the unemployment figures represent not just frictional unemployment. Unemployment is settling down in the South Wales ports as a permanent feature, and that is the disconcerting part of this problem. There is, of course, unemployment in the hinterland of South Wales generally, and I know my hon. Friends are very much concerned about it, but I would emphasise that the great concern in the South Wales ports is the permanent loss of trade and the consequent permanent unemployment.

May I refer to the facilities in those ports? I will not labour the question of the ability of those ports to deal with heavy bulk cargoes. They are world famous, of course, for their coal and heavy bulk cargo export trade. What is not sufficiently appreciated is their capacity for dealing with general cargoes, because that is a development that has come about through the war, very largely on account of Government action. May I mention one or two of the factors. A very important consideration is that roads have now been built right up to the quay-sides, so that they are not limited merely to railway traffic; there are ample transit sheds and warehouses; cranes for dealing with general cargoes have been provided on a great scale. A 10,000-ton general cargo liner can be dealt with as rapidly in Cardiff as it can in the great general cargo ports, and it can be dealt with more quickly in Cardiff than it can in Liverpool when there are more than 20 ships in Liverpool. Barry has handled more of the transport returned to the United States after the war than any other port in the country, and is now asking, quite naturally, why it cannot continue to deal as efficiently in peace time with this traffic as it has done during the war. There is at Cardiff a cold store which, I believe, is about the best in the country, with a capacity of a million cubic feet and 10,000 tons. The facilities are there, the personnel and skilled labour are there, the management is there—the only thing which is lacking is the shipping.

Before going on to the policy of the Government in dealing with this problem, may I refer to the question of freights, which is a very sore point with South Wales. I am very glad to see, almost in the House, a director of the Great Western Railway. Quite apart from Government action, Wales feels it is being unfairly dealt with in competition with other ports in the matter of freight and dock charges. In the case of London and Liverpool there are arrangements by which dock charges are dealt with, by rebates and so on, in such a way that they are borne by the railway companies. In Barry, Cardiff, Swansea and the Great Western ports along South Wales, those charges are additional to the ordinary freight rates. The result is that one of the leading forwarding agencies has recently advised its clients that on account of the dock charges Bristol Channel ports should be avoided. That is unfair competition. I hope that the Great Western Railway will do something about it.

There is also the question of the freight charges on the railway itself for transporting the goods from the factory to the docks. I know that freight rates are an exceedingly complicated matter, but I hope that this will be fully investigated. I have not examined the position in detail myself, but I am assured that it is cheaper to send goods from the Midlands a long distance to English ports than to send them a shorter distance to Welsh ports. If that is so, it is a scandalous state of affairs, and I hope the Minister, and the Directors of the Great Western Railway who sit on the Benches opposite, will do what they can to see that the position is rectified. It is not the fault of the local officials of the Great Western Railway, who have been most helpful, considerate and enthusiastic in trying to get the Welsh ports developed. It is of course a fantastic position if, when the Government are trying to develop South Wales and are putting energy and money into developing the Welsh valleys and preventing them from becoming a devastated area again, private enterprise is driving trade away from the ports.

There is one part of Government policy in connection with which some injustice, I think, has been done to the Minister of War Transport, and that is the closing down of the Diversion Room. I think that in fairness to him the position should be explained in this Debate. There was a great deal of publicity in South Wales and considerable consternation when the Diversion Room was shut down. It was thought that the shutting down of that room meant that there would be no traffic coming to the Welsh ports, and that the shutting down of that room was a deliberate act of Government policy. As I understand it—I may be wrong in this, and if I am the Minister will doubtless correct me—the Diversion Room was merely an instrument for carrying out the directions of the other Government Departments, including, in particular, the Service Departments, in time of war, for directing ships to the most convenient port, having regard to the varying conditions and the emergencies of war. When the war ended and war conditions subsided, the orders to this room from other Government Departments and, in particular, the Service Departments became less and less; the room was less used, and, naturally and quite properly, the room, having ceased to serve its purpose, was closed down.

But that leaves the question of substance untouched. It may not be a just complaint to say that the closing down of the Diversion Room was an act of deliberate policy. The charge may be wrong that the Government there did something prejudicial to the South Wales ports. But it leaves untouched the question whether they ought not to do something that would encourage the South Wales ports and Welsh ports generally. What is the Government plan? The Government are decontrolling shipping. The decontrol of shipping is coming into operation in its completion next month. I am not advocating that there should be control of shipping. That is not in issue. There may be good reasons for controlling shipping or for not controlling shipping. That is a separate subject which does not really affect the issue in this Debate. But the question of allocation to ports can be preserved without preserving complete control of shipping, and what I suggest to the Minister is that some measure of allocation of shipping to ports should be preserved. It will be a ridiculous position if we have development in the Welsh valleys, while the Welsh ports are perishing, if we are to have the devastated area moved from the valleys to the ports. The allocation of shipping is as necessary as the location of industry.

The Government are committed, in principle, to a planned economy. I understand chat the principles of the Scott Report, for instance, on de-urbanisation are principles by which the Labour Party, as a Party, stand. The Government are to nationalise the railways, including the docks; and all the South Wales docks are owned by the Great Western Railway. They are committed to a policy of full employment, and are committed to developing the development areas. All these considerations affect the position of the Welsh ports, and the Minister cannot just wash his hands of the Welsh ports—and keep them clean! The Government must deal with this problem. Either we are to have a development area or a devastated area in the Welsh ports. There is no other possibility.

What is the Government plan? Have the Government a plan? What is that plan? Consider, for instance, coal exports, which have played such a big part in the Welsh export trade. What are the chances of recovering the coal export trade? There is no immediate prospect of that, but I personally do not despair of it, and it is good to see that as a result of Government policy there has been a substantial increase in the production in the Welsh mines during the last month. The ports cannot be considered apart from their hinterland. Is it the policy of the Government to put into operation the Scott Report or to adopt any action on the lines of the Scott Report? If the Government are in favour of de-urbanising the urban conglomerations it is ridiculous to talk of de-urbanising London, for instance, if some part of London's port traffic is not given to other parts of the country which the Government are anxious to develop.

Has the planning of ports a place in the Government's plan of the general economy of the country? We suggest that food and other goods should be landed at ports as near as possible to the places where they are consumed. It seems to us to be commonsense that that should be so. Within 80 miles of Cardiff, there is a population of some 8,500,000. Canadian apples, for instance, go to Liverpool and are sent down to South Wales by rail to be consumed there when they could be sent to Welsh ports. In 1932, 73 per cent. of the beef of the country was sent to London, although a con- siderable portion of that beef was consumed in South Wales, and in the very ports themselves, and in the places next to the ports. What is to happen about the cold store in Cardiff? Are the Government going to cave in to this pressure for shutting down the cold store? Is the cold store to be used as an asset in the development of the port of Cardiff, and of the trade of South Wales generally? What proportion of the industries which the Board of Trade is encouraging in South Wales, consists of export industries? Is the placing of those industries planned with due regard, not only to the requirements of the localities in which they are to be placed, but also with regard to the trade of South Wales generally, and of the Welsh ports in particular?

Is any effort being made to open up the Midlands to Welsh port traffic? The Severn waterway provides the best water connection from the coast to the Midlands. Craft of 300 tons can go up as far as Worcester, within 27 miles of Birmingham, and with very little alteration they could go as far as Stourbridge. Is anything being done to develop that waterway? At present, the traffic coming down the Severn is only 10 per cent. of the traffic going up. It would be an economical matter to have a more even distribution by developing the general cargo trade from the Midlands through the Welsh ports.

A number of questions have been put to the Minister and a good deal of pressure brought to bear on him, but may I in fairness acknowledge the most encouraging reply which he gave yesterday to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bed-wellty (Sir C. Edwards)? We are exceedingly grateful and very much appreciate the stand which he has taken on this question of the Severn Bridge which will play such a big part in the development of South Wales. May I read one extract from the first interim report of the Welsh Reconstruction Advisory Council on this matter? I think that the full significance of this will be fully appreciated by all those who will follow this Debate with considerable keenness. The Report states:

The construction of a Severn road bridge would be the greatest single contribution to the improvement of transport facilities in South Wales. We regard the provision of the bridge as so essential to the industrial future of that part of the Principality that we subordinate to it all other questions of the development of communications in that area. I hope that in the interests of Welsh development, the Minister will continue to press that this scheme should be given the highest priority possible.

I recognise that a good many of these points can only be dealt with as part of a long-term policy. But the Government must have in mind a long-term policy before they can draw up a short-term policy, because their short-term policy must be connected with the long-term policy, and must obviously be influenced by it. The Government are going to nationalise the railways. It is clearly the commonsense thing to ensure that, when the time comes for taking over the Welsh railway ports, these ports will not be just derelict structures. What employment do the Government envisage for these ports in the future? What scheme has the Government in mind for keeping employment in these ports in the meantime? What is to be done—this is just one phase of the problem—about any unemployed that may not be required in the immediate future? I trust that there will be some scheme for keeping this very valuable labour force in the docks of South Wales in operation—they should not, for instance, be turned on to the roads to break stones.

Of course, all these problems are not problems only of the Minister of War Transport. I realise that very well. Not only is the Minister of War Transport involved, but many other Ministers as well—the President of the Board of Trade, the Minister of Fuel and Power, the Minister of Food, the Minister of Labour, and so on. I fully recognise the difficulty of getting co-ordinated planning and co-ordinated action through a multitude of Government Departments. What Government machinery is there for dealing with. this problem as a whole? That is an important matter, and one which concerns not only this particular problem but Welsh problems generally. Wales feels, and feels strongly, as a result of past bitter experience, that its problems are pigeon-holed in Whitehall in different Government Departments—often in the bottom pigeon-holes—and that Welsh problems are never regarded as a whole, from the point of view of Wales. You cannot just cut up a country into bits and deal with it section-ally. There is more to it than that. It has to be dealt with as a whole. That is the explanation behind the drive going on in Wales, and the deep concern felt there, by members of every Party in favour of having a Secretary of State for Wales.

We are dealing now with the Minister of War Transport, and this problem of the traffic of Welsh ports. I hope that the Minister, who has been most sympathetic in dealing with this problem, will give us, as fully as he can, answers to the specific questions which we have put to him, tell us what the Government plan is, and give us such assurance as he can that this problem is being dealt with sympathetically and boldly.

1.46 p.m.

Lady Megan Lloyd George (Anglesey)

I am sure that hon. Members representing Welsh seats, in all parts of the House, are grateful to the hon. Gentleman for having raised this matter which is of vital importance to the Principality. The situation in regard to the future of the Welsh. ports is causing grave anxiety, which is intensified by the bitter memories of what happened between the two wars. These ports, from Cardiff, Swansea, Mil-ford to Holyhead, have played a very important part in the war. They were used extensively during the Battle of the Atlantic, when the ports of the South and East coasts of this country were so vulnerable to enemy attack, and could only be used in a very limited degree. The hon. Gentleman has given some very striking facts about the traffic that passed through these ports in that great emergency. It seems to us necessary to maintain these ports—and if you are going to maintain them up to modern standards of efficiency it means they have to be in constant use, and they must never be allowed to relapse into the conditions which the hon. Member has described—it seems to us that to maintain these ports is as vital a matter of national defence as to maintain an efficient standing Army, Air Force and Navy. In fact, these are the strategic bases of this country, and they must form a vital part of any strategic plan of the Government for national defence

The hon. Member has spoken of the closing down of the Diversion Room and of the policy of the Government in that regard. He has reminded us that the control of shipping is to end very shortly— I think sometime next month. What are the Government going to do then? Are they going to follow that up, or are they going to wash their hands of the whole thing? The ports will virtually be still under the control of the Minister. The railways are to be nationalised. Cardiff and Swansea—I am not sure about Mil-ford—but certainly Cardiff and Swansea are owned by the G.W.'R.

Holyhead is owned by the London, Midland and Scottish Railway. Therefore, it becomes a matter of very great importance what the right hon. Gentleman intends to do in the interim period. Has he any short-term policy to cover the period until the railways are nationalised? Will it be to his advantage or the Government's as the hon. Member for Llandaff and Barry (Mr. Ungoed-Thomas) said, to take over what will virtually be liabilities when the railways have been nationalised?

South Wales is a Development Area, and we are told it is to receive special assistance because of that. We have-seen very little practical assistance up to date. We are told that special facilities are to be given to encourage industries to go to South Wales. But here we have ports which have made a great contribution to the prosperity of South Wales in the past, which are an integral part of that prosperity, and which have provided employment for thousands of men. Is anything to be done for those ports? They are a vital part of the whole problem. If it is necessary to have location of industries, it is equally necessary to have allocation of shipping. We hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consider the matter from that point of view. These problems really are urgent and pressing. They cannot wait until the Government have nationalised the railways. At the present time, there are, in South Wales, 68,000 people unemployed. The problem is already forming. We can almost see the shadow of that earlier depression coming over South Wales again, and over many other parts of Wales as well. The young men and women are leaving Wales already by their hundreds. Many of them will be lost to us forever. We cannot afford to lose them. They are the most virile of our race. Yet the same old tragic migration is beginning all over again. This is not a question of expressing fears about the future. The thing is actually happening today. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will have some message of hope for those areas. This problem affects not only South Wales, but also certain parts of North Wales. I would like particularly to mention the problem of Holyhead, a problem which I think is well known to the Minister. Holyhead is dependent in the main upon its port and upon the cross-channel traffic with Eire. Like the other greater seaports, this little port played a historic part in the war in that great chain of harbours down the West coast. Before the war, Holyhead was a distressed area, if ever there was one. Unemployment in the town rose, at its peak, to something like 40 per cent. of the insured population. In fact, unemployment was higher in Holyhead at times than it was in areas within what are now called Development Areas. The main industry of the town was depressed, and it had no prospects for the future. Is it to go back to that state of affairs? What assistance is it to receive from the Government? Is there any plan to cover areas of this kind?

Before the war—and this is a point on which I would like to have some reply from the Minister—there were three ships used in the Holyhead cross-channel service carrying mails, passengers and trade between this country and Eire. One of those ships was sunk at Dunkirk. Is that ship to be replaced? Will the right hon. Gentleman give a licence? More than that—because one can have a licence and wait a very long time before anything else happens—is priority to be given for the provision of that ship? It is vital that we should have it so as to enable us to take full advantage of what we hope will be a revival of the peace-time trade with Eire. This is a very important matter which affects not only Wales, but other parts of the country. A small expert committee appointed by the Minister of Agriculture for Eire reported only a few days ago, and its report has a bearing on this matter. In one of their recommendations, the majority of the committee say that the future of agriculture in Eire must depend upon the international economic environment in which Eire finds herself, but most of all upon the receptivity of the British market for Eire's products. That statement is true, and it is a very important consideration in view of the food shortage in the world. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will realise the urgent need for providing facilities to receive that trade in this country. Holyhead is one of the vital ports affected. Holyhead is admirably fitted for ocean-going traffic, for medium-sized freighters. It has been used as a repair depot during the war. It has a very well equipped marine engineering department. All these considerations have been put before the Minister. Representations have been made to him on many occasions. I would like to hear from him today whether, as a result of those representations, he has any statement to make, and can tell us what policy he intends to pursue.

The hon. Member for Llandaff and Barry spoke of the multitude of Government Departments which will obviously be involved in all these problems that have been put before the House this afternoon. The hon. Member asked what Government machinery there is to meet our problems. The answer, quite frankly, is that there is no Government machinery. That is one of the things from which we are suffering most in Wales to-day. I do not believe there will be any solution for the traffic problem, the shipping problem, the unemployment problem, or anything else in Wales, until that central problem is settled. We are in a very unfortunate position. We have to go from one Ministry to another. Ministers are very sympathetic towards our problems, they are most anxious to help, they are very solicitous for our future, they schedule us, and then they pass us on to another Department. So we have to go cap in hand from one door to another in Whitehall. We think that is not good enough. With unemployment rising in Wales, with industries promised to us but not coming to us, we believe that there is only one central solution, and that is that we should have someone in the Government at high Ministerial level, who is responsible for Wales and its future.

2.5 p.m.

Mr. Percy Morris (Swansea, West)

It was the good fortune of the hon. Member for Llandaff and Barry (Mr. Ungoed-Thomas) to have the opportunity of bringing this matter before the House this afternoon, and it is very appropriate that the noble Lady the Member for Anglesey (Lady Megan Lloyd George) should have taken part in the discussion. I hope this will afford the Minister ample evidence, if he needs it, that this matter is one of very great concern to the whole of Wales. I ought to make it perfectly clear that it is not a question of a separatist movement of any kind. We do not ask that Wales should be cut apart from England and given anything in the nature of a favoured nation clause. We are, in fact, taking the advice which has been given to us over and over again by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, that we should make every effort to fit the economy of Wales into the economy of Britain as a whole. He has urged us, on more than one occasion, to recognise that our interests and the interests of other parts of Britain are mutual. We recognise that, and it is because we feel that up to now the Government have not recognised it, that we are drawing attention to this very grave problem this afternoon.

The hon. Member for Llandaff and Barry, in introducing the subject, put the case without emphasising the claims of any particular port. He expressed a point of view which is subscribed to, I believe, by every Welsh Member, and one which I hope will meet with equal acceptance from hon. Members representing other parts of the country. I hope that no one will feel that we are taking too pessimistic or an unduly alarmist view of the matter. Some figures have already been quoted, and I would like to add a few more. In reply to a Question. in the House recently, it was stated that, on 14th January of this year, no fewer than 46,236 people were unemployed in the County of Glamorgan alone. An analysis of the figures gives the positions of the ports. In Cardiff there were 2,491, in Newport 1,433, in Barry 481, in Port Talbot 1,339, and in Swansea 5,226. Can anyone deny the seriousness of the position, and the legitimacy of our claim for immediate attention? Only a few weeks ago the House passed a Bill which had as its object the decasualisation of dock labour. Unless something is done very quickly, we shall decapitate rather than decasualise dock labour in South Wales, with very serious results for the rest of the country.

I wish to suggest certain interim measures. First, I urge the Minister to restore the Diversion Room, or some other body exercising its functions. I ask also that Port Emergency Committees be brought into being again, and that they shall be properly representative of all the interests of the individual ports. I know from my experience during the war that Port Emergency Committees served a very useful purpose. Those committees consisted of representatives of the workers, the port authorities, and the Government, and I think those in authority will testify that the committees helped very much in facilitating the movement of traffic on land and on sea during the great emergency. All we are asking is that the South Wales ports shall be allowed to participate in the general cargo import and export trades of the country and that proper use be made of the excellent facilities and labour available in the area.

I am rather puzzled by the fact that direction of some kind is still being exercised, presumably by the Minister of War Transport, although here I speak subject to correction. I gather that ships are diverted to Wales to start with, and that then somebody else decides that they shall go where it is more convenient, without regard for the welfare of the people in the separate ports. On five days in January dock labourers were transferred from one port to another. The men cannot understand why they, instead of the shipping, are diverted from port to port. On one occasion in January, 202 men were transferred from Barry to another port, and on another day 154 men were taken from Barry. The dockers resent having to live this gipsy-like life, without there being any need for it. I was very interested to observe that the Minister of War Transport and the Minister of Labour have been good enough to send their Parliamentary Private Secretaries to Swansea and South Wales on fact-finding commissions. I am grateful for that, because I am certain that when the Parliamentary Private Secretaries report to their Ministers, the facts that have been presented by the hon. Member for Llandaff and Barry and the Noble Lady the Member for Anglesey will be fully confirmed.

I sincerely hope it is not thought for one moment that road-making is an acceptable substitute to the dock workers of South Wales. All of us played our part during the years of the war. I remember having more than one sleepless night. One occasion in particular comes back to my memory now. There was a very violent thunderstorm, and I knew that in certain ports between Cardiff and Swansea there were cargoes of a highly explosive and inflammable character. The docks were crammed full, and if anything untoward had occurred during that storm, some of the towns would have been blown to smithereens or burnt in a terrible fire. The dock workers knew what was in the docks, they knew how the harbours were stored at that time, and yet they went to work day in and day out. The right hon. Gentleman's predecessor told us on more than one occasion that he was grateful to the dockers of South Wales for giving the best shipping turnover in the country.

We have the nearest port to the Continent, we have highly equipped and modernised docks, with skilled workmen waiting to work, but being told that it is not convenient to send ships to those ports, and that for that reason the men may be transferred to road-making. I want to be fair to the Minister of War Transport. Almost immediately after he had assumed office, he came to Swansea. I have a feeling that the responsibility is not entirely his. We are emphasising this matter this afternoon in the hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take it to the Cabinet, and make clear to his colleagues that the people of Wales are not content to accept this position, and that we will press the matter on the Floor of the House and take all possible steps with a view to restoring industry to the ports and bringing about a proper balance as between the inland towns and the ports. As has already been suggested, it is useless having trading estates and new factories if we are transferring the problem from those places to the ports themselves, so we ask the Minister of War Transport to have another look at this problem and to convey, if necessary, to his Cabinet colleagues the feelings of the people of Wales on this matter.

I am not suggesting that the Diversion Room shall be a permanent feature. I am not suggesting anything of a permanent nature, but I am asking that interim steps shall be taken to enable us to bridge this period between war production and peace production. The people of Wales are willing to work; they are independent of spirit and of mind, they are prepared to "go to it" in time of peace as they were in time of war, and all we are asking for is a reasonable opportunity. We feel ourselves that the case is a clear-cut one, that it does not present any great difficulties and, if there is a will to do it it can be done, and we are waiting for it to be done.

One final word. The people of South Wales have great faith in the Government of today; in fact, if they had had their own way, the present Government would have been in power long ago. They are waiting with great expectation, and all we ask is that the Government will not wait too long, that this interim arrangement which I have suggested will be brought about, and that the difficult transition period will find our people remaining and working in Wales. When our export trade is recovered, when these new factories and trading estates are functioning properly, we shall be able to play our part in the economy of Britain as a whole and contribute to the prosperity of Great Britain as we have for very many years past. I hope, therefore that the Minister will be able to encourage us this afternoon.

2.17 p.m.

Mr. George Thomas (Cardiff, Central)

I join with the hon. Members who have already paid tribute to the hon. Member for Llandaff and Barry (Mr. Ungoed-Thomas) for raising this afternoon the very important question of trade in the Welsh ports. The House, and even that lone and solitary figure on the Opposition Front Bench who shows the interest of the Conservative Party in what is happening to Wales today, should note that there is a strong unity so far as North and South are concerned. I would like to add to what the hon. Member for West Swansea (Mr. P. Morris) said, that it was fitting that the hon. Lady the Member for Anglesey (Lady Megan Lloyd George) should have spoken today. My hon. Friend the Member for Llandaff and Barry suggested that it would be possible for shipping to be allocated from other areas. I notice in a newspaper today that more and more ships are steaming into London docks, and I will read to the House what the journalist in question says: London's docks, hub of the world's shipping, are today crammed with the greatest number of ships— 120—since the day the war began. He speaks of ship after ship lining the quays, big ships, little ships, all manner of ships, gaily painted in their peace-time colours. Then he says: More are yet to come, and within the six more days of this month another 40 will have arrived from all corners of the globe, coming to London with passengers, food and cargoes of every kind. I believe it is a sign of a lack of that vigour which we expect from the Government if they allow London once again to be top-heavy, and for the rest of the country to suffer. I believe it is in the national interest for shipping to be spread out all over the country. I remember that when I made my maiden speech in this House I pointed out that whilst the economic needs of Wales were the same as those of England—we need food, shelter, work for our people—none the less we recognise that we are in a very special position. The unity which has found expression in the Debate today has been forged in adversity for Wales. We have been through the dark waters together, and now we say to the Government that we would like to see some separate machinery under a Secretary of State— if hon. Members do not like the name, he can be given another, as long as we get him—in order that we should have somebody to whom to turn in our troubles, industrial and economic.

The great ports in the South have been in the past great export centres. They built up their world renown, in the main, upon the distribution of coal to the four corners of the world. Today that position no longer holds good, and I would disagree here with my hon. Friend the Member for Llandaff and Barry when he suggested that perhaps they can look to great days for the export of coal again. If they can, it will not be for a very long time, and therefore it becomes a matter of the first importance for the ports of Wales, North and South, that we shall look for other means of work for our people. This, I believe, can be done in two ways; first, we can have new industries; and second, we can exploit those industries which are already in our island country.

I would utter a word of warning to the Minister, namely, that he need not persuade himself that dolls' eyes factories, and such stupid little industries, will meet the needs of South Wales. I believe the Minister showed by his visit to the Principality, made very early in his period of office, that he is himself aware that Wales needs heavy industry, and that industry can be placed there because there is skilled manpower available. But in the Midlands we have that great centre of industry today, and if only we had signs of actual work for improving the communications between South Wales and the Midlands, it would give us greater hope. I believe that if we could have shorter communications between the Midlands and South Wales, we would have no problem about our ports. In the world of commerce people do not deal with the niceties of human feelings, I know; it is£ s. d. which counts. Much£ s. d. can be saved, even in the world of commerce it we can have these shortened communications 1 believe that the Minister shorn ' be aware that in the great ports of South Wales the facilities are there to deal with general cargo, to deal with the imports as well as exports, and I am led to assume, after the speech of the hon. Lady the Member for Anglesey, that the same facilities are available in Holy-head.

During the war, South Wales distinguished itself once again for the part it played in dealing with the port trade of the country. We want to say to the Government that South Wales, having proved its ability in importing and distributing soft goods, fresh fruit and so on, to the country, should not be neglected. South Wales will not be neglected, because her people, like the Northern people, have had a dose of the misery of unemployment in other days. I am confident that the Government's long-term plans will meet the position. I believe that that policy will provide full employment throughout the whole of our island country. I ask the Minister once again, in connection with his short-term policy, to look at the question of new industries and the application in respect of shipping.

2.27 p.m.

Mr. Cobb (Elland)

It is perhaps somewhat bold of a mere Sassenach to intervene in a rather closed Welsh Debate, but I do so with the justification that the hon. Member for Llandaff and Barry (Mr. Ungoed-Thomas) raised a point of very great principle which applies to the whole country. On the Dock Workers Decasualisation Bill I made a few remarks but I must have made them very badly because the Minister entirely ignored them. As one who has had some 20 years' experience of large-scale industrial planning, I must say that it does not make sense to me to plan the labour in the docks and leave material unplanned. We can plan labour sensibly only if at the same time we plan plant and materials. If I understood the hon. Member. aright who opened the Debate, he made that point very much better than I could have made it when I spoke on the Decasualisation Bill.

What is the good of planning labour supply or the intake of labour into the docks, if we do not at the same time plan ship arrivals, which must be done nationally, and if we do not plan port facilities, which must also be done on a national basis, and if we do not plan factories and services in the hinterland of the ports? It does not make sense to me to plan labour and ignore those other factors. No expert in large-scale, long distance planning would dream of doing such a thing because it just does not make sense.

I wish I could have seen some sign so far of large-scale national planning to take care of this matter. It is a subject of great regret to me that, in this respect, we do not see a cloud on the horizon yet, even the size of a man's hand, that would indicate that plans are even in the period of incubation. I hope that when the Minister replies he will be able to assure us not only on the point touching the Welsh ports from the national point of view but that there is a national plan indeed, or at least being planned, that will take care of these very important points of co-ordinating labour, plant and materials.

2.30 p.m.

The Minister of War Transport (Mr. Barnes)

I welcome the opportunity which my hon. Friend the Member for Llandaff and Barry (Mr Ungoed-Thomas) has afforded the House today, to discuss this problem in public. It has occupied my attention continuously, though not exclusively, since I took over this Department and I feel that it is only one of many similar problems which will confront me from time to time in this transitional period. Therefore, everything is to be gained and nothing to be lost by examining these matters in a frank and reasonable way on the Floor of the House. Hon. Members will appreciate that I cannot follow readily the range and width of their discussions, because that would take me into departmental responsibilities which are not my own. Neither am I qualified or authorised this afternoon to review the whole policy of His Majesty's Government and to fit in the various stages of its development. I want to make it plain that I do not desire to shirk my own measure of responsibility. I would not wish to avoid the fact that there is undoubtedly organic connection among many of the matters that have been raised today. I am not dismissing them as irrelevant or unconnected, and if some questions or problems which have been raised do not get dealt with specifically by me, it is because they obviously fall within the responsibility of the President of the Board of Trade. However interesting it may be I could not possibly follow, for example, the hon. Lady into the constitutional issue with which she endeavoured to support her arguments.

I do accept responsibility for the ports of South Wales. It is the policy of the Government in relation to South Wales and the general responsibility for transport facilities connected with those ports. I do not in any way wish to minimise the gravity of the problems, but my hon. Friends are making a mistake if they over emphasise it. I do not feel that in this matter of trade and employment, where so many factors are outside the control of any political administration, we serve the purpose we have in mind if we unduly exaggerate the gravity of any problem. Trade, employment, transit of goods and the place where goods are to be marketed, are fairly sensitive factors. If we create an idea in any particular part of the country that any group of ports is more or less neglected, or is labouring under difficulties which are much greater than those of some other ports, we do not develop the right atmosphere for the elements that we are trying to influence. I do not feel that I have put that idea into the best language. I have examined the figures, however, and I realise the seriousness of the problem, but it is not calamitous in the sense which some hon. Members have been inclined to suggest today.

First let me deal with the broad chain of events that has affected this group of ports and harbours. No one has denied the fact that, before the war, this group of South Wales ports rested their prosperity mainly on the export of one commodity—coal. For a long period because of that circumstance they were content that their trade, prosperity and employment should be largely determined by that export. It was a natural situation. The whole trade, employment, commerce and life of the area rested upon one commodity factor. If we take the last prewar year of traffic from these ports we find that of the total trade, the export of coal constituted for Swansea, 68.6 per cent., Port Talbot, 74.9 per cent., Barry, 91.5 per cent., Cardiff, 76.1 per cent., Newport, 85.4 per cent. and Penarth, 88.4 per cent., a total for the whole six ports of 79.74 per cent. Their imports were not of a considerable character, but even the imports were obviously influenced by that overriding factor of coal exports.

The problem that was developing, not as a result of any weakness in the administration of the Ministry of War Transport or its shipping policy, was obscured through the war, owing to the compulsory diversion of shipping due purely and directly to enemy action. That traffic was diverted for a variety of reasons and quite consciously to our Western ports. In war time conditions nobody pretends that a national policy of that character rests upon normal economic conditions and considerations. I have been very gratified to observe that none of my hon. Friends, who have taken part in this Debate this afternoon, have attempted to advance that point of view, because nothing would be more calamitous in my view than to begin to establish in this House a rivalry or antagonism between port and port, and have it fought out on the basis of political pressure. I should desire at this stage to make my own position perfectly clear. I desire very sincerely to make every contribution that I can to the prosperity of the South Wales ports, but under no circumstances would I allow myself to be influenced to agreeing to what I considered to be an uneconomic or unbusinesslike proposition as a direct result of political pressure. I feel it desirable to make that position plain.

The problem was further obscured because at the end of the war it became necessary to move largely from these ports the traffic in connection with the depar- ture of American troops. I want to take this opportunity of acknowledging, as my predecessor did, the very fine contribution to the national effort which this group of ports gave in a time of difficulty during the war, and I consider that, in other aspects of national life, it behoves the Government to do all in their power to see that, after the war, the consequences are not more severe than can possibly be helped. The closing down of the Diversion Room I regret to say must remain. It was purely an instrument of war policy, and whatever methods we may adopt now to deal with problems of this character as they arise, we must face the fact that we cannot maintain insruments of policy that are peculiar to war in our peacetime economy, for they are not the right instruments. I was satisfied that the war Diversion Room type of organisation was not satisfactory to solve these problems. It does not follow from that that you have no machinery at your disposal to see that there is a rational and successful handling of the port traffic of this country.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central (Mr. G. Thomas) drew attention to a Press statement which dealt with the crowded condition of the Port of London. I want to emphasise at this stage that, if we take all the ports of this country, we have by no means got back to our peace-time trade yet. Therefore, to talk about overcrowdng or congested conditions in any British port at the present moment would not lead to a solution of this problem. We have to increase very considerably all the traffic in our ports before we can become concerned with the over-crowded condition of any of them. Only recently, with regard to the Mersey I had to sanction an increase in traffic charges there, because the port is not able to handle the amount of traffic necessary to carry its normal charges under peacetime conditions. The capacity of different ports varies very much indeed, and what might represent crowded conditions in one port does not necessarily mean crowded conditions in another.

I want to say I appreciate very much the case as presented by the hon. Member for Llandaff and Barry. I think he referred to the general problem of what is the short-term and a long-term policy of the Government. With regard to the long- term policy of the Government—although I am not always clear as to the length of period hon. Members have in mind when they discuss h" short-term" or "long-term policy"—I prefer to look at the problem with which we have to grapple. With regard to the ports of this country, which number over 300 and are very diverse in character, I see no short-term or long-term policy, but I see one sensible policy to which we should address our minds as rapidly as possible, and that is the need for the co-ordination of the whole of the docks, harbours and waterways system of this country. Every investigation has proved the necessity of that, and it would be my desire to carry out that policy as rapidly as possible. Until you have the ports and harbours of this country co-ordinated, it is exceedingly difficult, without exercising political pressure of a very dangerous character, to begin to influence cargoes or ships from one port to another. Under the scheme which the Government has made plain, we hope to carry out that plan for the docks and harbours in the interests of the co-ordination that I have indicated.

With regard to the promotion of traffic from the South Wales ports, my hon. Friend knows that that was one of the first areas I visited. That was not accidental. I was aware of the fact that, for some periods, though I would not venture to suggest for how long, we should not be able to export from that group of ports the coal turnover or tonnage upon which their prosperity depends. I had a fairly reasonable idea of the policy for which I might have to be responsible in this House, and I was also aware of the fact that not only should I be departmentally responsible for all the ports but that this was a group of railway ports whose communications were not altogether disconnected with my visit. I thought therefore it would be desirable to get to the problem at once. In visiting the South Wales ports, I was under no illusion that, in a few weeks or by one visit, I should solve the problem. I was anxious to become acquainted with the problem, and I can assure my hon. Friend that, from the date of that visit, I have given constant attention to that problem, for the purpose of seeing what contribution I can make.

It is quite wrong to state that road-making is no solution. It may be. I am satisfied, as I have studied the course of economic development in this country, that it is not altogether an accident that our greatest industrial developments have been more or less connected with our best roads and transport facilities. I do not think that it is an unconnected factor, that, because of transport facilities, this group of ports has been limited more or less to its railways, and those railways, owing to the Severn Tunnel, are not up to the standard of the best railway facilities throughout the country generally. I rather hold the view that it would be difficult to develop the general cargo trade from these Welsh ports, other than coal, unless the transport facilities are much improved. Therefore, when I approached the problem of the roads, of the Severn Bridge and motor road development, I did not approach it from the angle that it was a substitute for port development, or that I was looking to it as a solution for the problem of labour that might be temporarily displaced in the ports. If it served the purpose of easing any difficulty for some individuals, well and good, but the policy was not influenced by that consideration.

I fail to see how a general cargo trade can be influenced to the Welsh ports, unless they are linked up to the largest manufacturing and producing area close to those ports. It is true that the President of the Board of Trade and I are working closely together in an examination of this problem of how rapidly new industries can be attracted to that area, and, again, I would say to the hon. Member for Central Cardiff that it does not matter whether it is heavy or light industry. I do not think we shall solve it at this stage by unduly minimising the importance of any type of industry that can be brought to an area.

Hon. Members have been urging that the Government should avoid making London top heavy. I hope everyone shares that view. I certainly share it, although I represent a London constituency. We realise that it is not to the best interest of any country to allow an ever-increasing proportion of the population to be attracted to one spot. But I would emphasise that a great commercial and economic pull arises because of the variety of industries and interests that represent broad-based commerce in its most attractive form. Therefore, the President of the Board of Trade and myself and other Ministers are giving close attention to the attraction of economic and industrial activity to that area for the purpose of providing that foundation of well-balanced trade and the opportunity of employment and wages and interests which will develop the type of community in which, eventually, commercial prosperity will be bound to arise on a long-term basis. It is upon the organic connection of great ports like Liverpool, Hull and London with the broad-based type of industry that prosperity has always, permanently and ultimately, rested, and, in opening up these ports to what I trust will eventually be the best coal facilities in this country, I am approaching this matter not only from the point of view of a development area, but also as a good commercial business proposition, in view of the capital to be expended there and the need to provide facilities for industry as well.

We may, under an artificial theory and by a system of licensing, influence trade for a period, but we cannot build permanent prosperity in a particular area for generations in that way, and that is what I want. We cannot do it unless we have proper transport facilities, because transport is the life-blood of all industry today. I hope, in the next year or two, by the development of the road transport system—the road from Swansea to Port Talbot, Cardiff, Newport and across the Severn, and ultimately, by a fast motor road through to the Midlands—to make the whole of that group of ports as accessible as Liverpool and London. After all, it must depend on the enterprise, initiative and drive of the business people locally. All the Government can do is to provide equal facilities on the basis of equity and wise national expenditure. The Government can never supply the initiative and organising capacity that are required on the part of traders generally.

I do not pretend that my reply has indicated that I am able to come down here and provide trade for ships next week in these ports. Instead of holding out any particular indication of immediate work, I propose to go on with the policy that I have followed hitherto, of getting together the material that enables one to shape a policy, and, secondly, of being prepared to have continuous consultations both with the Members who represent those port areas in the House of Commons, and with bodies that are able to come and discuss practical plans which I can examine test, and if necessary, put into operation.

Lady Megan Lloyd George

rose—

Mr. Barnes"

1 take it the hon. Lady is rather concerned that I should answer the point she put to me about the three vessels at Holyhead. I was hoping that she would be content, with the rest of the hon. Members, with my general statement. To deal with her point, one vessel is already operating at Holyhead and another is being reconverted and should again be in commission in a month or two. With regard to the third, which was lost at Dunkirk, she is quite correct. A third vessel will have to be built, but in view of the pressure on our shipyards I have to take into consideration the importance of one type of vessel as against another. I undertake to look into the question of the third vessel, and if it can be facilitated I give her my word that I will do my best.

Mr. Ungoed-Thomas

Could the Minister say something about freight and dock charges, and also about the cold store at Cardiff? Could he say further whether there is available at the present time any method of inducing shipping to go to particular ports in the same way as there is of inducing industry to go to particular areas?

Mr. Barnes

The cold store is largely a matter for the Minister of Food. So far as I am concerned it has already been gone into, but I am prepared at any time to examine that matter with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Food. As regards freights, and charges and railway rates, I have looked exhaustively into this problem and am satisfied that, in the main, that matter must await the nationalisation of road and rail transport. It is so complex a matter that it must be dealt with in a special manner. That would not prevent any examination of any particular rates or freights from any port, or on any railway system, taken by itself, but I could not undertake to have involved in that a general revision of the rates and freight structure of this country.

Mr. Ungoed-Thomas

Could the Minister say a word about the third question I put - to him—whether there is any method available for inducing shipping to go to ports in the same way as there is for inducing industry to go to particular areas?

Mr. Barnes

1 would not say that the Government are without power in that direction, but the application of that policy, particularly if it developed to any extent, would be a complete reversal of the policy which has been followed since the end of the war of trying to get shipping and our commerce back to normal conditions, and then reshaping policy to deal with this new set of conditions.