HC Deb 16 March 1950 vol 472 cc1399-406

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

10.59 p.m.

Mr. Ralph Morley (Southampton, Itchen)

I must apologise for detaining the House at this very late hour, but I have been balloting for the opportunity since December, and I desire to raise a matter of some considerable importance to my own constituents.

It was the declared policy of the last Government, as also of this one, to maintain full employment, and both Governments have to date been fairly successful in that aim as far as the national position is concerned, but we are somewhat concerned about the possibility of unemployment in Southampton, particularly in the docks and shipyards in the near future. We have some 4,000 men engaged in dock and some 11,000 in ship building and ship repairing; and last week 900 of the men engaged in ship building and ship repairing were unemployed and the week before 1,100 were unemployed.

In a survey of the future conditions of employment in the docks and shipyards of Southampton undertaken by the Professor of Economics in Southampton University College, it was estimated that in the summer there would be likely to be 2,000 to 2,500 men redundant. I know that some of these men will be absorbed in the alternative employment afforded by the petroleum works, Briggs body works, and by work on house building, but there is still some fear among the dock and shipyard workers that something approaching the serious unemployment that occurred between the wars may recur.

Southampton has yards which are very suitable for the construction of small and medium-sized ships. In the manifesto of the Labour Party, it was stated that a shipping development council was to be formed, and that one of its duties would be to put to reserve old or obsolete merchant ships and build new ones in their place. I hope that when that is done, Southampton will get its fair share. We could also do with some naval construction in Southampton, because we have one yard that has a great deal of experience in that work. I know that does not come within the scope of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, but I think it is the fact that some ships which formerly put into the port for reconstruction and repair, such as the "Caronia" and the "Isle of Jersey," were sent to other ports last year.

I want to direct the Minister's attention to the cargo vessels using the port of Southampton. It is primarily, and will always remain, a passenger port—one of the greatest in the world—but it has considerable facilities for cargo vessels. There are two tides a day, and ships can berth at any time of the day or night. The railway runs into the docks, and goods can be conveyed by rail, road and sea to any part of Great Britain. The docks are adjacent to the most populous area in the country, the London area, which is a great consumer of food and raw materials, and the dockers are among the most skilled and most hard-working in the country. That was proved by their efforts just before D-day, when they shifted in a very short time very large amounts of cargo and equipment of all kinds, and earned the praise of all who observed their work. It was also proved just before the embargo on exports to South Africa. It is generally admitted that the dockers in Southampton are highly skilled and very good workers. We also have up-to-date transit sheds.

But it is alleged that, in spite of these facilities for cargo ships, Southampton docks are not getting their fair share of the export trade. I am well aware that imports are being considerably curtailed, but exports are being expanded, and the workers in the docks think they are not getting their fair share of the export trade. It is alleged by them that the export trade in Southampton now is less than it was pre-war, while it is also stated that there has been some congestion, particularly in the Port of London, in connection with the export trade. Formerly we used to have in Southampton banana boats which no longer come to the port. Frequently we used to have timber ships from Russia, Norway and Sweden, which now only make intermittent appearances at the port. I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport to do his best to secure a larger provision of cargo ships using the port of Southampton. A certain amount of damage occurred at the port during the war. Some of the warehouses were destroyed, and I have been told of cargoes being offered but refused because of insufficient warehousing. I urge my right hon. Friend to see whether he cannot take steps to get warehouses rebuilt as quickly as possible.

The most important matter to be dealt with is that of cold storage. The cold storage at the port was completely destroyed by enemy action. Licences have been granted for its re-building and a site has been cleared, but the actual work has been delayed. Recently ships were obliged to unload their cargoes into refrigerated ships at the port of London. The re-building of the cold storage would not only bring many cargo ships to the port, but would also greatly ease the distribution of meat in the South of England.

A prominent trade unionist in Southampton wrote to me, and summed up the matter in these words: The question put to us is that under nationalisation and the advent of the British Transport Commission where eventually all ports would be controlled by the Docks and Inland Waterways Executive, it was presumed that a process of equalisation covering the distribution of cargoes and rates in ratio would come into being, thereby ensuring prosperity for all concerned whose livelihood depended upon a steady flow of work of that nature. At present a few places of maritime importance are reaping a harvest of cargo, but Southampton is suffering from a dearth of this important commodity. I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend will be able to give us some reassurances in this matter.

11.8 p.m.

Dr. King (Southampton, Test)

May I briefly support the plea which my hon. Friend has made to the Minister? The weakness of our town lies in the fact that it is built economically on one industry and one industry alone—that of shipping. We realise the importance now, with the deflection of industries that is taking place to the development areas, of securing in- dustries to balance the economy of Southampton. It is with that in mind that we urge upon the Minister the gravity and importance of building up our major industry. I support all that my hon. Friend said, and I urge the Minister to do what he can to see that our town does receive greater business, so that we can avoid the unemployment that we had in the years between the wars.

11.9 p.m.

Mr. Mellish (Bermondsey)

I intervene to say that one recognises and appreciates very much that the two hon. Members representing Southampton are defending those people who work there—the dockers at the port. It will be known that I, too, represent a dock constituency, and I would say to my right hon. Friend, with great respect, that when my hon. Friends talk in terms of London getting too much work, that is not the opinion of those working in the London docks.

In the Surrey Docks, which are, unfortunately, import docks—I say "unfortunately" because we do not have the advantage of dealing with exports—there is a considerable amount of unemployment. I warn my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport that if any of the regular lines which have been coming to London for long periods are deflected, we shall not tolerate that position at all. I would remind my hon. Friends that Southampton has the advantage of a great passenger traffic which we have not got. My constituency, Bermondsey, is mainly docks. If any attempt were made to take from my people any of the work which has been coming to them for some considerable time, or if such work were deflected elsewhere, my right hon. Friend could anticipate another Adjournment Debate at the earliest opportunity. This is a problem which we ought to face realistically.

With regard to cold stores, we in London had a number destroyed. In the Surrey Docks alone, we had a large number of shipping berths and their facilities, and ship repair yards, affected by the last war. We are still waiting for them to be repaired. With 30 per cent. of unemployment among the workers at the Surrey Docks, if my right hon. Friend is going to think in terms of transferring ships, he must remember that others are interested in this problem.

11.12 p.m.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes)

This battle of the docks to which we have just listened, emphasises the difficulty of the problem which I have to face. If we had present hon. Members who represent the Scottish dock areas, and if my colleague who represents the port of Manchester and who sits beside me, were not prevented from speaking, I am afraid that we would have had similar remarks from them, and also from hon. Members who represent the North-East ports.

I want to emphasise that it is not within Minister's power to direct shipping from one port to another. I agree that my two hon. Friends who represent Southampton are entitled to extol the importance of that port, and I should be the least likely to try to counteract their comments. Southampton today is one of the most important ports in this country. It is in some respects a favoured port. It is the gateway of something like 70 per cent. of the tourist traffic which comes to this country other than Europe. That is very important traffic when we recognise that at the moment the bulk of it is dollar-earning traffic. Therefore, I should be the last person to underrate the importance of Southampton.

But when we deal with the different types of trade which flow into the ports of this country, we must always bear in mind that the ports must accommodate themselves to the changing pattern of trade which occurs from time to time in our affairs. During the war, the Minister of Transport had power to direct shipping. This was not the result of a desire to favour ports, but solely to further our military purposes at that time. These powers came to an end soon after the war, and now those Government Departments which are importing Departments, and the merchants of this country who own or are going to distribute the cargoes coming to our ports, are really the persons who determine where the ships eventually shall berth and unload their cargoes. Obviously they want those ships to go to the ports close to their consuming areas.

Another important consideration intrudes into the economy of shipping today. It is the capital cost of ships and the costs when they are in port, which necessitates rapid turn-round when that can be achieved so that even if a ship has a cargo the main proportions of which are for a particular area, it cannot visit a number of ports today for the same consignment. Therefore, at times we find that a ship berthing at London Docks or Liverpool Docks has a small portion of its cargo which has to be sent by rail or road to other consuming areas.

Let me take the question of the banana ships to which my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Morley) referred. It is true that before the war Elders and Fyffes' ships berthed at Southampton, but that was because of the type of their trade. When they found that they had a surplus of bananas not required on the Continent, they used to unload the balance at Southampton. Now the position is entirely changed. The bulk of bananas for the Continent are coming from Central America, and thus represent a hard currency problem. We could not possibly agree to a situation in which Elders and Fyffes, if they had any surplus of bananas which could not be sold on the Continent, should dump them in this country, involving us in a hard currency problem. Because of those circumstances, that trade has naturally come to an end. Whether it will ever be resumed, I cannot say, but that is an immediate difficulty which my hon. Friends will fully appreciate.

I have made inquiries with regard to timber. The Timber Control have informed me that they still use Southampton for the requirements of that area, but I understand that the total imports of timber into this country is. not nearly so large as it was before the war. These two points about the banana and timber trades emphasise my argument that we cannot avoid the impact of changing conditions of trade on our ports. On the other hand. I think one has to keep in mind that Southampton is a particularly favoured port. The modern giant passenger liners, in their trade with the Americas tend more and more to use Southampton, and its facilities are being improved to meet and encourage that trade. I should like to give the volume of cargo trade passing into the port of Southampton and the percentage of employment.

Mr. Mellish

With regard to timber, would the right hon. Gentleman agree that Surrey Docks are timber docks and are equipped entirely for the purpose of dealing with timber?

Mr. Barnes

Yes. As a matter of fact, if one went round the ports, one would find that all have suffered in some way or another from difficulties like those I have mentioned. My primary purpose is to reply to my two hon. Friends who have put the case for Southampton. The volume of cargo traffic passing in and out of Southampton during the nine months ending September, 1948, was 564,000 tons, and for the nine months ending September, 1949, it was 536,000 tons, representing a decrease of 28,000 tons. These figures are for the docks of the British Transport Commission, but in addition there are many other quays and wharves, and the total tonnage passing through them was 395,500 tons.

Mr. Morley

The total tonnage of the two "Queens" is 160,000, but they carry very little cargo.

Mr. Barnes

Yes, but they represent a very important element of trade in the port of Southampton. Let me remind my hon. Friend that there are many other ports which would be gratified if they could persuade the "Queens" to go to them instead of to Southampton. While I should be the last person to underestimate the importance of Southampton, I am entitled to emphasise that it has advantages over many other ports. My hon. Friends are aware that there will be considerable oil imports into Southampton with the development of the Fawley oil refinery. Let me give the figures of dock employment in 1949. In Southampton, it was 72.7 per cent.; in Bristol, 66.6 per cent.; in South Wales, 66.2 per cent.; in Plymouth, 56.6 per cent.; in London, 76.5 per cent. Southampton, as a matter of fact, is only two or three points under the London docks in the matter of employment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) has stated, if we consider the difficulties and handicaps that war damage represents, our major ports of London and Liverpool have suffered much greater war damage than the port of Southampton.

With regard to the cold store, I think my hon. Friends are more or less aware of the history of this matter. The Ministry of Food have always favoured the construction of a modern cold store to replace the one damaged by enemy action and in November, 1946, a licence for the demolition work at shed 108 was agreed to. In January, 1947, the piling for the cold store was agreed to, and at this stage the project would have proceeded to completion had it not been for the economic difficulties of this country and the necessity for the Government to impose restrictions on capital investment. That has applied throughout the whole range of our economic life. It has certainly applied at the Ministry of Transport throughout the whole range of our transport undertakings. Last night we had a Debate on the difficulties of the railways, and of all sections of transport, the railways have been most severely hit by limitations of capital expenditure.

It was the necessity of limiting capital expenditure that caused the suspension of the development of this cold store. It did not arise because the railway interests—at that time the Southern Railway and subsequently the Railway Executive—had decided not to proceed, or because the Ministry of Food had decided not to do so. It was necessitated by restriction of capital expenditure. Last year the Railway Executive made representations through my Department on the urgent need of proceeding with the plan for the cold store and my hon. Friends are aware that quite recently it was agreed that the importance of this cold store was recognised. Now a licence for its completion, which will cost something in the neighbourhood of £200,000, has been agreed to. To get the licence at present represents a very considerable advance. I am not able to state at the moment when the actual completion process will start but my hon. Friends can rest quite content that it will be as soon as possible, because I know that all the major interests want to get on with the job and that this project will move towards completion.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-five Minutes past Eleven o'Clock.

Back to