HC Deb 31 January 1947 vol 432 cc1358-66

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

4.1 p.m.

Mr. Solley (Thurrock)

I desire to draw the attention of the House to the condition of the ship repairing industry in the Port of London. This is a matter not merely of national importance but of special and intimate importance to many people who live or find their employment near the Thames, and particularly to members of my constituency which includes Tilbury. The specific points I wish to raise this afternoon are these. First, it would appear that the Port of London Authority is pursuing a restrictionist policy in respect of ship repairing. That is to say, without interfering with the normal and necessary use of the docks for docking purposes, by their policy they are making it difficult to increase the tonnage of ship repairing, as a result of which British ships are going to foreign ports for repairs. Secondly, I want to draw attention to the conduct of some of the ship repairing employers, in that they are apparently disregarding the Government's call for increased production and better relationship with their employees.

I think it might assist the House if, very shortly, I were to give the recent historical background to this problem. Before the war in 1939, there was little substantial ship repairing work carried on in the Port of London. Large-scale repairs and conversions were the exception-. But the war saw a complete change of policy, and large-scale conversions and reconditionings became the rule. One need only refer, for example, to the "Jervis Bay" and the "Rawalpindhi" which were converted to armed merchant cruisers, the complete reconditioning of the "Suffolk" and the reconversion of aircraft carriers such as "Slinger" and "Kedive". That work was made possible by a change of policy in respect of ship repairing during the war, and it was also made possible by the direction of skilled craftsmen into the Port of London where they were able rally to use their traditional craftsmanship. With the end of the war, the policy changed. Instead of the stream of ship repairing which one saw during the war, there came a small trickle. It is, of course, understandable that there should have been a reduction in ship repairing work; the primary function of the Port of London is not to provide ship repairing facilities But the case I am making today, and which is based upon evidence placed before me by the London District Joint Shop Stewards Committee of the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Trades Union, is that, without departing from the necessity for having adequate dock facilities, the Port of London could increase its ship repairing facilities with admirable advantages to our trade, and to the ship repairing trade in particular.

The point made by the shop stewards is that there are certain sections of dock area which are poorly equipped, with loading and unloading facilities—sheds and so on—which could be more efficiently employed for the purpose of ship building. There are a number of such areas in the Port of London; for example, the Albert Dock Basin. During the war this was used exclusively as a repair base, when there were as many as nine ships undergoing repair at one time. Its efficiency for normal dock purposes is low; the sheds are not fit for storage, and it has poor equipment for loading and unloading. The Albert Dock Basin has, since last August, seen practically no ship repair work at all. Last week the basin was empty, except for one vessel which was laid up, and no repair work was being done on that vessel.

I submit to the House that the Port of London Authority should be made to make use of such areas in the docks as the Albert Dock Basin which, at the moment, are not being used at all. The Port of London Authority should be made to use such areas for ship repair work. The attitude of the Port of London Authority appears to be a peculiar one. They are, of course, primarily concerned with profits. It would appear that they can make more profits out of normal dock work, even though such dock work takes place in areas where the loading and unloading facilities are extremely inefficient and poor.

Mr. Maclay (Montrose Burghs)

Is not the hon. Member mistaken? Surely the Port of London Authority is a non-profit making concern? I am not certain about that but I think I am right. That is very relevant to the hon. Member's general statement.

Mr. Solley

If I am wrong about that I shall withdraw it. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Civil Lord—whom I am glad to see in his place—will be able to answer the hon. Member opposite. Even if I am not right, that the profit motive is one of the factors which dictates the Port of London Authority's policy, their policy is one which, as I have already explained to the House, is not assisting in our difficulties with respect to ship repair work. I have been informed—and I hope the Civil Lord can tell me whether my information is right or wrong—that Messrs. Harland and Wolff have been refused guarantees of certain ship repair berths for large-scale jobs; consequently, work which could have been tackled in the Port of London has had to go abroad.

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Walter Edwards)

To where?

Mr. Solley

My hon. Friend asks me where. I was going to ask him if he could give the House the figures of the tonnage which has gone abroad. My information is that a very substantial tonnage has gone abroad; some of it to Italy, some of it to Belgium, and to certain other ports. I can give this specific example. The "Denbighshire" was completely reconditioned in Antwerp fairly recently. This is a very serious matter. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport stated recently that there were some three million tons of merchant shipping awaiting repair and reconversion to peacetime needs. It is fantastic that, at a time when we are so desperately in need of ship repair work, British ships should have to find foreign ports in which their repair work can be done when they can be done here. I hope my hon. Friend will give the House-some figures of the amount of work which has thus gone to ports abroad.

In certain cases, ships which have gone into the Port of London for repairs have been refused facilities there and have gone to other English ports. What has been the loss of the Port of London has been the gain of other areas in this country. For example, last week the "Monarch of Bermuda" left Tilbury, in my constituency, after lying there for some two months, nothing having been done on her because of the refusal of ship repairing facilities. This motor vessel has had to go to a port in the North of England. I do not desire to see work taken away from North of England ports, but I am informed that this particular vessel, like other vessels which have gone to other ports in the country, has gone to a shipbuilding yard, primarily intended for shipbuilding as such and not for ship repairing, which could have been carried out in the Port of London.

One of the consequences of this reduction in the volume of ship repairs in the Port of London is that there is a certain degree of redundancy. I do not suggest that it is large. It may well be that if one took the figures of ship repairing in the port month by month for the last six months, there would be a varying degree of work done and perhaps in one or two of the months, even the last month, more might have been done than in any other previous month. Nevertheless, I have been told that skilled ship repair workers, electricians, boiler - makers, welders, painters and other skilled craftsmen, are being declared redundant. The tragedy of the situation in regard to the Port of London is that these skilled craftsmen are greatly sought after in other industries, and once having been declared redundant they are more often than not lost to the ship repairing industry of the Port of London.

In addition, this redundancy, be it ever so small, creates a feeling of uncertainty which militates against complete cooperation between employees and employers. In that respect, I must draw attention to the unfortunate attitude of the employers. It would appear that instead of observing what has been described as a gentleman's agreement with respect to priority of dismissal under redundancy, they have sought to victimise many well known shop stewards by declaring them redundant out of their turn. Only a week or so ago Mr. Sidney Harris, of Tilbury, an employee of Harland and Wolff and an E.T.U. shop steward, was so declared redundant and it is by the greatest good fortune that the threat of a strike was not at that stage implemented.

What I would like to bring to the attention of the House is that this pin-pricking policy on the part of the employers is not advancing the cause of increased production. That is seen further by their attitude to the yard and production committees. The employers have given notice that, as from 5th January of this year, these yard committees will cease to function. It is perfectly true that these committees have now no statutory basis, but one would have thought, having regard to the admirable work they did during the war, that they would have been continued on a voluntary basis. It is well known that it was primarily the work of these yard committees which resulted in the absence of any strikes of any substance in the Port of London during the war. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to do something to ensure that this medium for increased production and industrial harmony will once again function, as it functioned so admirably during the war.

I know how anxious is my hon. Friend and his colleagues on the Front Bench to help the cause of the industry and its employees. It seems to me that there is a case here for inquiry into the policy being pursued in the Port of London in relation to ship repairing, and that there is also a case for inquiry into the cause of redundancy. I suggest that there should be some sort of committee of inquiry, possibly a working party, to investigate the whole of this important matter. I cannot expect my hon. Friend to answer in the affirmative today, but I hope he will consider the suggestion seriously. If such a working party could be set up, it would meet with the complete support of the employees in the Port of London, and also, I hope, the support of the employers.

4.17 p.m.

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Walter Edwards)

I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Solley) has raised this matter, but I am rather sorry that the attendance of the House is so small, it being Friday, because it is my intention to draw attention to the exact position of the Admiralty in regard to the shipbuilding and ship repairing industry, not only in the Port of London, but throughout the country. The only part which the Admiralty can play, so far as shipbuilding and ship repairing is concerned, is to issue a licence for a ship to be repaired, dry docked, or to be built at a cost of more than £100, or to refuse the licence. That power was given to the Admiralty under Defence Regulations during the war, and it remains. In addition to that, we also have powers in regard to various raw materials and commodities allocated by the Board of Trade to the ship repair and shipbuilding industry. I wish to make it perfectly clear that these are the only powers we possess, so far as the control of shipbuilding and ship repair is concerned. We can say that our licensing officers, in conjunction with the officers of the Ministry of Transport, very often persuade ship owners to send their ships to those parts of the country where work is most needed, where there may happen to be a spot of unemployment. This can only be done by persuasion, and not by force.

My hon Friend will agree with me that anyone reading his speech might have the impression that almost all the shipbuilders and ship repairers in London are out of work. I should like to give him one or two figures, which will interest both him and those for whom he has been speaking. It is interesting to note that as far as Tilbury is concerned, they had more people employed on ship repairs on the 24th of this month than they had on 1st August last year. I am quite certain that if the situation was bad on 1st August last year, we would have had a Motion on the Adjournment about it before today. It seems to me that there is a wrong impression in the minds of perhaps many of the people for whom my hon. Friend has spoken today with regard to the actual amount of work which is taking place. In December, 1946, in the London and South-East region, there were 17,593 men and women employed in the shipbuilding and ship repairing industry, and only 350 unemployed. We do not want to see anyone unemployed, but these figures show that there is no cause for the charge today that redundancy is taking place, or that there is large scale unemployment.

Mr. Osborne (Louth)

Does the figure of 350 include those temporarily stopped?

Mr. Edwards

The figure includes the whole of the people signing on at the employment exchange at that time for whatever cause. They are the figures given by the Ministry of Labour on which we have to base our statement.

Mr. Osborne

Does the figure include those not working a full week—those who are on short time?

Mr. Edwards

There is really no short time in the Port of London. The figure includes all those people who have no jobs to do, and who go to the employment exchange for the purpose of unemployment benefit or to find a job. In addition, it may interest the House to know that we had more ships in the Port of London under repair on 23rd January this year than we have had for the past six months. Ships under repair on 23rd January were no fewer than 108, as against 89 for last August. The House may have thought that as a result of the reference made by my hon. Friend to the Port of London Authority, that Authority was placing restrictions upon the use of their wharves and docks for ship repairs. When there is an increase of 19 on 89 in a matter of a few months, that cannot be substantiated.

Mr. Solley

I was not suggesting that there was necessarily an increase over the last few months. I was comparing the flow of work during the war with the comparative trickle which exists now, or has existed in the last few months, and my complaint was that there should be increased ship repairing work over and above such increase as already existed, which was disproportionately small.

Mr. Edwards

I cannot accept that 108 ships in a region is a small trickle. It is, in fact, so far as the number of employed are concerned, three and a half times more than we had in prewar days. If there is a trickle today, I rather wonder what it was in prewar days.

Mr. Elwyn Jones (Plaistow)

Can the hon. Gentleman deal with the suggestion that the Port of London Authority refused facilities for the repair of jobs of a long character? That is certainly the allegation which has been represented by the Association to my hon. Friend and myself.

Mr. Edwards

I was going to say that the chief basis of my hon. Friend's case was a complaint against the Port of London Authority, over whom the Admiralty have no control whatever, and a complaint against the ship repair employers, over whom perhaps, unfortunately, we have very little control.

I think it has to be realised that the Port of London Authority was set up for the purpose of loading and discharging vessels in the Port of London. It so happens that since the formation of the Authority there has gradually sprung up ship repairing firms in London which have asked for the use of part of the docks over which the Authority has control. It may have been the case during the war—and I have no doubt that it was—that many of the berths used in prewar days for commercial purposes were allowed to be used for ship repairs, but it has to be realised that the Port of London is a commercial port, and that it is the duty of the Port of London, at least as far as dockers are concerned, to get as much work in cargoes as they possibly can. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock says that they have a restricted policy for ship repairing. May I tell him as an ex-docker myself that I should toe the last one to advocate that shipping repairs are to have more space in the Port of London at the expense of the dockers.

Mr. Solley

Neither do I. But I merely suggest, without affecting the dock work proper, that certain parts of the docks not in use at all or not used efficiently could be used for ship repairing. That is my point. Obviously I want the dockers to get as much work as they can.

Mr. Maclay

Surely if these facilities are available for this type of work it would not be to the advantage of the Port of London Authority to refuse them.

Mr. Edwards

The ship repairing industry has far more room than before the war, and that may have repercussions upon the dockers of London. My hon. Friend the. Member for Thurrock represents a dockside constituency and perhaps in a short time he will come along to the House and in another Motion on the Adjournment ask for more work to be given to the dockers. I would point out that we really have no control over it, and I am quite sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate that it is a difficult matter and one that will have to be gone into carefully because of its repercussions on other kinds of workpeople.

My hon. Friend referred to the profit motive of the Port of London Authority.

I do not think there is a profit motive. In fact, I am quite sure there is not, but I suggest to him that there may be a profit motive in the minds of the ship repairers in the country. I think that is quite certain, but it could not be said for certain to be so on the part of the Port of London Authority. On the question of traffic having gone abroad because the Port of London Authority refused applications for berths in London, I am afraid I cannot give anything definite about it.

In regard to ships being repaired abroad, there is no regulation in this country at the present time which can prevent a private shipowner having his ship repaired abroad if he so desires. Neither the Admiralty with their licensing authority, nor the Minister of Transport with whatever power they possess over the movement of ships, can prevent a private shipowner from doing that. I would say this in passing that very few cases indeed have come to our knowledge of ships going abroad for repair. One has to remember the tremendous amount of tonnage under repair at the present time—3,000,000 gross tons—and when one considers that in relation to the small amount which has gone abroad at one time or another—and which is usually a long-term job.—one can say that the ship owners are trying to play the game as far as it is possible for them. I know that they have many difficulties in finding berths for their ships here.

I would point out to the hon. Member for Thurrock that we are in the peak period in the ship repairing and the shipbuilding industry in this country. It is recognised by both sides of the industry that when that peak period comes down, we shall be rather fortunate if we have more repairs and building in the country than will employ say 9,000 instead of about 18,000. It is expected that the figure of employment in the shipbuilding and ship repairing industry, will some years hence come down to 50 per cent. of what it was at the highest peak and there will evidently have to be some—

It being Half-past Four o'Clock, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order