PORTS (ROCHDALE COMMITTEE'S REPORT)

HC Deb 10 July 1963 vol 680 cc1249-96

3.43 p.m.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Ernest Marples)

I beg to move, That this House welcomes the statement made by Her Majesty's Government on Wednesday, 6th March, 1963, on the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Major Ports of Great Britain (Command Paper No. 1824). My hon. and gallant Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will wind up this debate and answer points which are made by hon. Members. I wish to make clear that I shall deal generally with the Rochdale Report, its main recommendations and the Government's conclusions on those recommendations, and that I shall not attempt to tackle either the application of the Government's main decisions to particular ports or the specific problems of those ports.

I think that the first question we must ask ourselves is: why was the Rochdale Committee appointed? It was appointed at the end of March, 1961, when there was widespread concern throughout industry at the delays in the movement of cargoes through British ports. We therefore set up a small Committee, under Lord Rochdale, to inquire into the adequacy of our major ports to meet present and future needs. The terms of reference of that Committee were deliberately made extremely wide. They were: To consider to what extent the major docks and harbours of Great Britain are adequate to meet present and future national needs; whether the methods of working can be improved; and to make recommendations. A remit of that kind was designed to enable the Committee to investigate pretty well everything affecting the efficient operation of our major ports. I am glad to say that the Committee took advantage of this latitude. I want the House to understand that the appointment of the Rochdale Committee was not an isolated act. It fitted into the pattern of the Government's policy for an overall review of transport generally. The Rochdale Report is just one stage in the continuous and planned survey of our transport system as a whole. It should be studied and its recommendations linked up with the policies we are pursuing in other aspects of transport. For the railways we have had the Transport Act, 1962, and then the Beeching plan. For canals we have had the Report of the Bowes Committee. On the question of future transport requirements we have had the Hall Report and on the problems of urban traffic we shall shortly have the Buchanan Report. As was announced recently, we are putting in hand an independent inquiry into the road haulage licensing system. Thus, we have started action in many spheres leading in due course to the reshaping and modernising of the railways and our ports, and the rebuilding of our urban areas to cope with the motor car.

The Rochdale Report, I believe, is a landmark in the history of the major ports of Great Britain. Since the war there have been various reports on particular aspects of port working. Most of them, I think, were valuable. They related to mechanisation, the turn-round of shipping, dock labour and port organisation. But the Rochdale Committee was the first to carry out a comprehensive survey of the major ports. It is no exaggeration to say that the Report is the most important document in this field to have appeared this century.

Whatever opinion may be held about particular recommendations in the Report—knowing the House as I do I am sure that some hon. Members will have something to say about their own constituency interests—I feel sure that hon. Members will join with me in expressing our warmest gratitude to Lord Rochdale and his able colleagues for their public service. More than 6,000 copies of the Report have been sold, which proves that it has merit and commands interest.

Before dealing with the Report's chief recommendations and conclusions I must say that the Report provides evidence that a comprehensive review of the industry was necessary. Paragraph 45 refers to the growing sense of dissatisfaction on the part of port users. Paragraph 617 refers to the grave danger that British ports would progressively become more and more inadequate to cater for larger modern vessels. And, most important of all, paragraph 140 points out the urgent need for the better co-ordination of plans for the development of our ports and docks on a national basis.

Now I come to some of the major recommendations and the Government's conclusions. The Government accept the following main recommendations in the Rochdale Report. First, that there is an urgent need for the development of a co-ordinated national plan for port development. Secondly, that this plan should be developed by a central planning agency which would formulate a plan and supervise its execution. Thirdly, that the essential instrument to secure this should be the control of capital investment in major port projects which we propose should be exercised by the Minister acting on the advice of the central agency.

We have already taken some action. We have set up this central agency which will be know as the National Ports Council. Lord Rochdale has agreed to serve as the first Chairman of the Council and I announced the names of other members yesterday. I am grateful to them all for agreeing to serve in this way.

The decision to assume central control of major port investment is fundamental to the whole issue. This is essential to ensure that particular developments fall into their proper place as components of the national plan. One of the chief functions of the National Ports Council will be to prepare the plan itself and also to encourage and advise port authorities on all works which appear to be in the national as well as the local interest. All that we have accepted. But in this sphere of control there is one aspect of the recommendations which the Government cannot accept and I think that I ought to mention it at this point. That is in paragraph 218, which recommended that powers should be taken to direct ports to undertake schemes which were considered by the central planning agency to be essential.

The Government are not prepared to go so far as this. I can assure the House that there will be no question of directing a port authority to undertake an investment scheme against its own wishes. I make one exception to that. For reasons of safety we may need power to require ports to install radar and radio communication equipment for the effective control of shipping approaching a port.

Mr. R. J. Mellish (Bermondsey)

Suppose the National Ports Council proposes a scheme which is rejected by the appropriate port. In that case will the Minister seek powers to intervene and decide the matter on its merits?

Mr. Marples

That is a hypothetical question. The main point we are concerned about here is that the grand strategy should be gone into by the National Ports Council, which should give advice to the Minister on the merits of that case. If it was against the national interest that it should be carried out, serious consideration would have to be given to that point.

Mr. Mellish

Should not the Minister find a way to do this? With all the good will in the world the National Ports Council might prepare a scheme which the port does not accept. Will not the Minister have power to decide who he thinks is right?

Mr. Marples

When the legislation comes before the House we can discuss this point in greater detail. At present, the National Ports Council has very little power. It is not even a statutory body.

Mr. John Morris (Aberavon)

When legislation is brought before the House, will the Minister reserve to himself these positive powers of intervention where they are needed in the national interest?

Mr. Marples

In that particular case we had better wait for the legislation to come before the House. The idea of having this debate today is to ask hon. Members on both sides of the House for their views. The legislation will not be introduced until next Session. The House must remember that the Government will have great powers when giving public money at low rates of interest for port development. Very few ports would refuse that money if it were offered.

On the control of capital investment a crucial question will be the minimum figure. This is a crucial point and there are quite a number on which we shall have controversy. I should like the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) to listen to this. On major capital investment the crucial question will be: what is the minimum figure over which the Government will exercise control and under which the ports will be free to act without permission?

At this stage, I do not wish to be committed to a precise figure, but, in principle, the Government want to fix it at a high level because it is no part of our overall plan to control the day-today developments in our smaller ports. The National Ports Council, when it is given statutory powers, should be interested in the strategy and the grand design rather than in a lot of normal day-to-day matters which arise during the ordinary course of management.

Before deciding the actual figure of the level of investment at which control should bite, I shall consider the advice given by the Council. The Council will draw up the national port development plan and advise me on specific major port projects in addition to advising me on the minimum figure of investment. I shall give its advice great weight and in legislation it will probably be convenient to give the Minister power to prescribe the figure by Order, by means of an affirmative or negative Resolution.

The decision to implement the national port plan by way of centralised control of major capital investment was taken only after very careful thought. Arguments can be brought against it. There are, naturally, some drawbacks to centralisation because that entails division of responsibility in some cases. But the decisive argument is that the distribution and volume of the traffic in our ports is so important that we must guide and assist port development from the centre. The Government have deliberately taken the view that major investment is a matter of national as well as local policy and that it cannot therefore be determined by purely local considerations.

On finance, the Government's attitude is that where we are satisfied that a proposal for development is in the national interest, and in accordance with the national plan, it should not be frustrated by the inability of the port authority concerned to raise money on the market. But let me say this. To say that the development of a port is in the national interest surely means that the port in question will carry more traffic, or be more efficient, or perhaps both. This ought normally to pay for the development. The point is that the actual traffic which goes through the ports and docks should be able to finance the capital raised and give to it the opportunity for modernising and, maybe, increasing its size.

It is too early at this stage to lay down elaborate rules. We should stick to two principles. The first is that the shipper should not be subsidised by the general public. The second is that the national port plan must go ahead. I see no reason to believe that these principles will come into conflict with each other.

I come now to a very important part of the Report. That is what is known as estuarial grouping. It is referred to in paragraph 115, which says that there are important advantages to be gained from the amalgamation of certain existing port undertakings in Great Britain, on a local or estuarial basis. Financial terms for such amalgamations should be settled by negotiation if possible, but, failing agreement between the ports, by arbitration. Appropriate scheme-making powers should be vested in the Minister of Transport, acting on the advice of the proposed National Ports Authority. If there is to be a national port development plan—and I think that it has been generally agreed in the House and outside, and welcomed—an important element must be a comprehensive review of the structure and organisation of our major ports. It was for this reason that in my hon. and gallant Friend's statement on 6th March this year, one of the chief functions to be exercised by the National Ports Council was stated as being that of preparing plans for the grouping of ports by geographical areas, wherever it appeared that this would make for greater efficiency.

I stress the two words"greater efficiency" because they are of key importance. I do not think that ports should be amalgamated merely for doctrinaire reasons; it should be for greater efficiency. We shall be guided in the main by the advice of the National Ports Council. I shall ask it to tackle this problem on a strictly realistic, commonsense and non-doctrinaire basis. The objective will be to determine the best type of organisation for the grouping of ports which have developed historically round an estuary or a major river.

Proper consultation is, of course, necessary—not only with the individual port authorities, but with all other interested organisations, of which there are quite a number. The special needs and features of the area will require to be determined. It may well prove to be the case that different geographical areas will require somewhat different systems of organisation. Nevertheless, the Government accept in principle the general idea of estuarial or regional groupings, under autonomous local boards wherever such groupings are likely to promote greater efficiency.

Mr. G. R. Strauss (Vauxhall)

Suppose there is disagreement between the ports which are to be amalgamated and arbitration has taken place and certain decisions been made to which there is still strong opposition. Does the Minister propose to take powers to enforce the result of such arbitration?

Mr. Marples

The answer to that question is that I shall put before the House proposals to enforce that particular arbitration decision when the legislation is introduced next Session. Whether the House agrees with it or not is, I suppose, another matter, but it will be put forward as a power which the Government wish to have. I am putting this forward because it is an organisational and a managerial problem rather than a political problem.

Mr. David Webster (Weston-super-Mare)

What type of valuation will be made of the assets and earnings of a port about to be merged?

Mr. Marples

That is a point which must be left to detailed investigation. It is difficult to answer that sort of question at this stage. When a merger is proposed there will be a question of valuing the installations, the land and the traffic. It will be a very complicated problem.

I want next to talk about the British Transport Docks Board. It was formed under the Transport Act, 1962. The Board's ports comprise about one-third of the total port capacity of Great Britain. The point is that ports under the jurisdiction of the Docks Board are not to be regarded as in a separate category from other ports in the country. They will be treated in exactly the same wav as other ports. In some places, such as South Wales and on the Humber, the Docks Board is responsible for the greater part of the port capacity in the area. Elsewhere, the Board owns and operates individual ports.

In every case it will be for the National Ports Council to study the problems of the particular estuary or area which it considers would prima facie benefit by some form of grouping or amalgamation. The Council should do this without reference to the actual ownership of any of the ports concerned, whether that ownership is vested in the nation, in some form of public trust, in the local authority or in private enterprise. If the Council comes to the conclusion that the amalgamation of a group of ports under some new public authority is in the interests of operational efficiency, and if the Minister of the day accepts this conclusion, then all the ports in the area will come together under a new form of ownership.

Mr. Mellish

This is contrary to what the Rochdale Report said. The Report thought it right that the British Transport Docks Boards as such should be wiped out. Is the Minister saying that he does not accept this as a principle and that these ports will be debated on their merits within the particular grouping?

Mr. Marples

They will be considered on their merits. There is no automatic wiping out of anything, whether it be a private port or the port of a public authority, a local authority or the Docks Board. What I am anxious to see is that the amalgamation into the estuarial groups shall be treated purely technically and on its operational merits. The hon. Member is quite right; this is an important point of principle.

I will repeat what I said. I want the Council to look at the estuary without reference to the ownership of any of the ports concerned, whether that ownership is vested in the nation, or in some form of public trust, or in the local authority, or in private enterprise. If the Council comes to the conclusion that the amalgamation of a group of ports under a new public authority is in the interests of operational efficiency, and if the Minister of the day accepts that conclusion, then all the ports in the area will come together under a new form of ownership. Those words were very carefully chosen and are the results of the Government's thinking in this matter. It is accepted by Lord Rochdale and the Docks Board.

As my hon. and gallant Friend said on 6th March, it would be premature to come to any conclusion now about the future status of the individual ports at present owned and operated by the British Transport Docks Board, or by any other authority. They are all treated alike.

Mr. A. P. Costain (Folkestone and Hythe)

Does that also include the packet ports of Folkestone and Dover?

Mr. Marples

Yes, Sir. Until the National Ports Council has completed the thorough inquiries which it will have to institute before deciding what may be the best form of ownership and management in a certain area, we cannot profitably speculate on what may be the future of any particular port within that area. That applies whether a port is owned by the Docks Board or anybody else. I repeat; for the purpose of the development of the national plan for ports the Docks Boards will be in exactly the same position as all other ports in the country.

Mr. Mellish

May I get this clearly on the record? Let us suppose that estuarial groupings have been formed by the Minister. Do we in the House have a chance to debate them and approve of them?

Mr. Marples

We must leave that until a later stage when we discuss the legislation. All sorts of Amendments will be moved, proposing the affirmative or the negative Resolution procedure, or proposing that no Resolution of the House is necessary, but we must leave that until the Government introduce the legislation.

It may be as well at this point if I add that the same equality of treatment applies in another very important respect. The national port development plan will be implemented through the control of major capital investment. That is to say, within the framework of the national plan, individual port projects above a minimum figure will have to be examined by the National Ports Council before they are approved by the Minister. This will apply to the ports owned and operated by the Docks Board exactly as it will to other ports.

Major projects will have to be submitted to the National Ports Council. The Council will advise the Minister of the day on them, taking into account the requirements of the national plan. British Transport Docks Board ports will not, in other words, form a separate and privileged class. Nor, for that matter, will any other port authority form a separate and privileged class.

I hope that what I have said has allayed some of the anxieties which have been felt and answered some of the questions of the hon. Member for Bermondsey. My hon. and gallant Friend and I have between us been around practically all the major ports and most of the minor ports. Having made this tour, having seen the way in which they operate, and having been on the Continent and seen the way in which they operate, I am certain that the need for action is urgent. There is no doubt about that at all. We must go ahead without delay. We have, therefore, set up the National Ports Council in advance of legislation. There is plenty of work for the Council to do—and it can do it without legislation; but, of course, it cannot do the whole job unless the House gives it some assistance.

I have asked all major port authorities to let me have details of their large capital development schemes in the near future and in the distance future so that we and the Council can examine these projects and see whether they appear to be consistent with the general pattern of a national development plan.

Many hon. Members have interests in ports, and they may well ask what is to happen to schemes which are already in the pipeline. The answer is that each and every scheme will be considered on its merits. I will seek the advice of the Council on every such project, and there will be no delay in letting the port authority concerned have views on the desirability or otherwise of going ahead with it.

Mr. James H. Hoy (Edinburgh, Leith)

What about Leith?

Mr. Marples

No doubt the hon. Member will be able to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and be: able to make a very informative speech, to which we shall listen with interest. My hon. and gallant Friend will reply to it when he winds up the debate.

There is another point which I think will interest the House and which is of crucial importance—the co-ordination of the port development plan with the overall transport plan. Our plans for future major development in our ports must not be viewed in isolation. There are two things which we have to do. First, we must ensure that plans for developing our ports system are closely linked with development plans for the other parts of our transport system. Secondly, all transport developments—road, rail and ports—must be interlocked with the work of those Government Departments concerned with the long-term aspects of the distribution of trade and industry. The control over major capital investment schemes in ports will enable port developments to be related to other developments in the public sector of transport. Already, there have been discussions between Lord Rochdale and Dr. Beeching about railways, and we shall do the same about roads. The point is that at the end of the year we shall be in a position to interlock the whole thing—not only the ports and the railways, but also the roads and the growing points of industry in this country.

Mr. Walter Edwards (Stepney)

Will the Minister see that Dr. Beeching does not influence Lord Rochdale in any way to create the same chaos in the docks as has been created on the railways?

Mr. Marples

I do not think that that is worthy of the hon. Gentleman.

Dame Irene Ward (Tynemouth)

Does this mean regionalisation?

Mr. Marples

The way that it is carried out is one thing. The main thing, as I have said, is that it must be carried out in one way or another. Whether that is the way of doing it is another matter. We shall have to go into that. At the moment, before we do anything on transport, my Department is in touch with all the other Government Departments. We have a standing group going into this quite regularly. I do not know which form it will ultimately take.

May I illustrate what I mean by what I have just said? Suppose the National Ports Council decides to recommend the development of a certain area as a major cargo port. A proper examination of such a proposal must include investigating the possible expansion of local industry and population and also its relation to the regional plans of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. We have to ask such questions as these. Is this a suitable place to stimulate growth? What will be the effect on the area's own road and transport system? That is to say, if there is a dock in a city, what will happen to the city's road and transport system? In view of the increasing load, have we adequate road and rail communications to go where the inward and outward traffics ought to go? If not, what improvements are needed?

Questions like these would have to be tackled in considering any major port development in any area. For coping with these problems what we need, and what we shall get, are machinery and procedures which will be flexible, forward-looking, and, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), effective, whatever they may be. Major developments at the link points in our transport system must be properly keyed in to the needs of industry and commerce and our general social and economic policy.

At this point, I come to the ports themselves. My hon. and gallant Friend and I have been struck, on going round the ports, by the paucity of statistical information on certain points and the difference in standards of statistical information between different ports. One of our chief tasks will be to study the particular problems of these ports. But to do this we must have adequate statistical information, not only from port authorities, but also from the major users of the ports. Full information must be before us if the correct decisions are to be made.

I must be frank with the House and say that there is no disguising the fact that at the moment statistical information is not adequate for those decisions. Three examples of this lack of information are mentioned in the Rochdale Report: first, the turn-round of ships, secondly, the movement of goods, and, thirdly, comparative costings. There are many other deficiencies in statistical information.

When we have got that information, and when it is in a standard form—if we are comparing one port with another, we must compare like with like—it will clearly be necessary to co-ordinate the information with the needs of other users of statistics, particularly statistics relating to traffic flows. I propose, therefore, when we come to legislation, to ask the House to give me wide powers to require the provision of specific information.

This is perhaps the time at which I should emphasise that Section VIII of the Rochdale Report should not be regarded as a blueprint for the national plan of investment and organisation. The Section should rather be regarded as illustrative. There is a wide variety of possible patterns of organisation and development, and not until the Minister of the day has heard all the arguments concerning a particular port can he expect to find the right answer for that port. In other words, the Minister ought to wait until the complete information is assembled and laid before him in a form which is digestible. Until then he ought to hold back on any judgment regarding any port.

At this stage of our progress, what I am sure we should concentrate on are broad national questions of principle. If I may say so to the House and to those Members who are interested in ports in their constituencies, which is quite understandable, this is the reason why I have refrained from discussing the merits of individual ports at this stage. The time for that will come later.

Mr. Robert Cooke (Bristol, West)

Can my right hon. Friend say something about his views on the general principle of municipally-owned ports?

Mr. Marples

I mentioned the ownership of ports in the earlier part of my speech before, I think, my hon. Friend was in the Chamber. I dealt with ports, whatever their ownership. I said that they would all be treated alike. It is within the recollection of the House that I said that. Municipally-owned ports will be treated the same as ports owned by the British Transport Docks Board, the same as a public authority, such as the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board. There will be no distinction. No preference will be shown to any of them.

I come to the need for legislation. We intend that the National Ports Council will start functioning in the immediate future. However, I must point out to the House that it will not be able to discharge the full range of its functions until Parliament has given the Government and the Council the necessary statutory powers. For this purpose, the Government intend, during next Session, to introduce a Bill in which those powers will be sought. The two primary objectives of the Bill will be, first, to put the National Ports Council on a statutory basis and to give it the necessary powers to exercise its functions of advice and regulation effectively, and, secondly, to ensure that the Minister has effective powers of capital expenditure control.

There will be many other things in the Bill, including provisions relating to statistics and port charges. As to charges, my own view is that the Rochdale Committee made a good case for less central control. At present, port authorities are given too little discretion and the machinery which they have to put into operation to vary their charges is cumbersome and time-wasting. I am certain that we must make this much more efficient, in the interests of individual ports. In general, I think that we should abolish the present statutory restrictions on port authorities in the regulation of their charges, subject to certain safeguards by way of appeal.

These are highly technical questions, and this is not the occasion to go into more detail on them. There will be full consultation with the Dock and Harbour Authorities Association and other representative organisations on this and other aspects of the proposed legislation.

I want to say something about the importance of research. We fully share the view expressed by the Report on the need for more research, both technical and operational. This is an important and urgent matter. I must confess to the House that we have not yet come to any final conclusion about the kind of studies which are needed and how they ought to be carried out. The first move is to carry out reconnaissance so that we can get a complete picture about the technical and operational research which is going on already and a list of who is doing what.

It is a little complicated at the moment. So many different people are doing so many different aspects of this research that I feel we must get a comprehensive list before we can decide what to do. My right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council, after consultation with Lord Rochdale and myself, has arranged for such an investigation to be made. The need for economic research on particular problems is clearly a matter on which I shall expect to receive the advice of the National Ports Council.

We shall be introducing legislation next Session, and this is the right point of time for hon. Members to express their views. This is a much better point of time than on a Bill for hon. Members to say what they think ought to be done in principle so that the Government can weigh very carefully the views of both sides of the House before they frame legislation, which, I hope, will be done during the Summer Recess.

There are many facets of the port problem that I have not touched on in my speech—to name only one, questions affecting the organisation of labour in the ports. It is quite deliberate on my part that I have not done that, because I thought there was a great deal of wisdom and a great deal to argue about in what the Rochdale Committee has to say on this and on other port problems.

I should like the House to give me its views because, as I have said before, this is the time for those views on the general questions. I hope that we shall have a really useful debate on the broad issues of organisation and national planning for our ports. I am sure that I have the agreement of both sides of the House when I say that this is essentially a case of management and organisation, and each case should be treated on its merits. I hope that we shall not generate any fierce heat, but rather a lot of very clear intellectual argument on the merits of the case.

What we want, simply, is to find the best ways of bringing our ports to a state of operational efficiency which is adequate to handle our import and export trade, which may well have doubled by the time we reach the 1980s. Therefore, we must take a forward look and think how, if we are to double that, we must look at our ports and take effective action before that time.

Throughout my speech I have concentrated on the rôle of the Government and I make no apology for having done so. When the House is debating a Motion about the Government's decision to effect a revolutionary change in the direction of the central control of investment and organisation it is only natural that I should concentrate on the Government's function. But I do not want to leave the impression that there is not a vital rôle for port authorities, or that we do not recognise the immense importance of efficient management in the ports themselves.

Ports cannot be run, in terms of their detailed management, from the centre. The grand strategy should be from the centre, but day-to-day management and efficiency must depend on those on the spot. Our objective must be to ensure that the import and export trades, by which we live or die, are not handicapped by any deficiencies or imperfections at the link points of our transport system—and the ports are one of the most important link points.

To achieve this we need not merely a wise and firm lead by the Government, but a complete partnership with the port authorities. In the last resort, the future of our ports will depend to a very large extent on those who work in or through them—whether as operators, employers, workers or users. This is amply illustrated by the fact that two-thirds of the Rochdale Committee's recommendations were directed not at the Government, but at the various bodies and organisations concerned with port working.

The Government are determined to make a success of the national ports plan. We shall succeed in this objective only if we can secure the fullest co-operation of all the many interests which will have to work together. If we do not achieve that co-operation I do not think that we will succeed. If we get that co-operation we will, together, make modernisation more than a mere word.

Mr. Costain

I hope that my right hon. Friend intends to say something about the Channel tunnel proposals. Is it fair that hon. Members should discuss ports without going into this matter?

Mr. Marples

When answering a Question recently in the House I said that the report on this matter had not yet been received. I doubt whether I could make a useful pronouncement on this subject before the report is received and studied.

Modernisation means change and change means upsetting quite a number of interests. The curious thing is that everyone agrees with modernisation and change in principle, but tries to slaughter it in practice if it affects any interests with which they are concerned. I suppose that that is understandable. I honestly believe that unless we modernise our ports and improve our turn-round—and so achieve more efficiency from the import and export point of view—we will not succeed as a trading nation. I hope that we shall get the co-operation of the local port authorities and, via the National Ports Council, succeed in achieving the modernisation which we so badly need.

4.24 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Strauss (Vauxhall)

Hon. Members receive many voluminous reports on a wide range of subjects. If we are honest, we must admit that our first reaction to many of these documents which are often lengthy and complex, is that of a sinking feeling. However, second thoughts on the subject, after studying a report, usually leads one to admiration for the skill, industry and patience of those responsible for preparing it and gratitude for the light that has been thrown on the subject under review. I would certainly not exclude from these remarks the civil servants who are largely responsible for putting into shape the mass of material that is collected and for finally presenting the report in good and readable English.

The Rochdale Report is outstanding in all these respects. It is comprehensive and clear and its recommendations broadly commend themselves to the House. We are all grateful to Lord Rochdale and his colleagues and to those who combined to bring the Report before the House and the public.

Our need for good dock facilities is obvious. We are an industrial nation that must export a high proportion of our products to survive and, in turn, import much of its food requirements and raw materials. The speed and cost at which our goods can be sent overseas and others imported has a significant effect upon our competitive position in the world and, therefore, on our general prosperity. With this in mind, the disclosure of the inadequacy of our present port facilities in the Rochdale Report—inadequacy both for our present requirements and, more particularly, for coping with the expected traffic in about twenty years' time—is alarming. This presents a sharp challenge to everyone concerned: the port authorities, those who work in the ports, and particularly the Government.

The Rochdale Committee points out that apart from remedying the serious deficiencies in our existing port arrangements, the capacity of our ports must be increased substantially. It says, moreover, that plans for affecting this must have high priority and that the necessary schemes must be drawn up without delay. The problem which faced Lord Rochdale and his colleagues was in many ways similar to that which faced Dr. Beeching and the British Railways Board—except that Lord Rochdale's point of departure and the general approach of his Committee were not, of course, that of the loss falling on the Exchequer and how to reduce it. Both the Rochdale Committee and Dr. Beeching's investigation were concerned with industries the facilities of which had been adequate for bygone days, but were inappropriate to the needs of today.

Both investigations have come to similar conclusions; that a policy of concentration is necessary. With that general principle of concentration we have no disagreement. Our quarrel with Dr. Beeching's detailed proposals is that no account is taken of extraneous important social and economic factors vitally affecting national welfare. Such factors should also be weighed when decisions are made arising from the Rochdale Report. Groupings, the development of certain ports and the closure of others, may have a serious effect on our economy and society generally. The prosperity of townships, the welfare of communities, the prospects of development districts, may be severely damaged by proposals to be made by the National Ports Council and either rejected or accepted by the Minister. It is essential, therefore, that as well as the efficiency, viability, or capacity of any particular dock these social matters should be taken into account before any final decisions are made.

In his speech the Minister said that this general principle is accepted by the Government. That principle is, in short, that the national aspects—the total social benefits involved, to use a fashionable expression—are as relevant to any scheme of grouping, amalgamation or reshaping of the ports as they are to the reshaping of the railways.

The central theme of the Report is the setting up of a central body, which the Minister proposes to call the National Ports Council, to prepare plans on a national bask for the development of our ports. I propose only to speak on that theme, in order to leave time for the large number of hon. Members who have a greater experience of the detailed workings of the ports than I have, and for the many hon. Members representing constituencies in which the docks play an important part.

The principle of the national planning of our ports has been accepted by the Minister, but I must point out to the House that this recent recognition by the Conservative Party of the need for the central planning of our resources is one of the most remarkable phenomena in British politics. A few years ago, those of us who advocated this were scorned and derided as impractical Socialist theoreticians and dogmatists, and ridiculed, it will be remembered, as people who believed that"Whitehall knows best". The desirability of national planning is now admitted by the Government, and its application to our docks is only the latest example—the N.E.D.C. was another, and there are many more. We very much welcome this deathbed repentance.

I must also remind hon. Members of something else. The Minister now commends to the House this proposal for the national planning of our docks as a brave new conception which Lord Rochdale and his colleagues have put forward and which the Minister has accepted; that this is consistent with the new Conservative philosophy, and an example of what Conservatives want to do in the 'sixties and 'seventies.

The fact is, as the Rochdale Committee pointed out, that this is no new conception at all. Paragraph 140 of the Report states: We are conscious that this is not a strikingly original thought. The Labour Government legislated for this in Sections 66 and 68 of the 1947 Transport Act. Those sections provided for a scheme—any scheme—to be submitted by the British Transport Commission to the Minister which would give the Minister power to plan the ports on a national scale, encourage their development where they should be developed, and control them in the national interest as he might think best and as Parliament might endorse.

Every single power which the new Council is to possess, and which the Minister now commends to us, was included by the Labour Government in their 1947 Act.

Mr. Marples

Then why were they not implemented?

Mr. Strauss

I will give the right hon. Gentleman the answer to that. Those Sections were repealed by the Conservative Government in its notorious 1953 Act, before the Transport Commission had had time to deal with this important matter. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the 1953 Act did a variety of things which are highly objectionable. Among others, it cancelled Sections 66 to 68 of the 1947 Act.

If the right hon. Gentleman asks why such a scheme was not drawn up before the Labour Government went out of office, the answer lies in the urgent need to cope with the problems of bringing the railways back into a state of efficient activity after the war, organising the road haulage system on a national scale, and so on. Those problems were considerable, and it was obvious that the national planning of our ports could not have first priority. However, as I have said, in 1953 the Conservative Government of the day repealed the powers that the Minister now says he will ask for next Session.

Further, the 1947 Act, empowered the Minister to come to the House with any Order that he thought appropriate, and the House could have accepted it or rejected it. Any such scheme could have been put into operation a long time ago. As it is, because of the action of the present Government's Conservative predecessors, we have lost twelve critical years in which the scheme might have started to operate, and now we have to start all over again. However, the Government, as a result of this Report—which, says in effect, that the Labour Party, in 1947, was right and that the Conservative Government, in 1953 were wrong—tell us that they are prepared to agree to the scheme, and we are very pleased.

The problem that confronted the Government was how this national planning could best be effected. They could have accepted the Rochdale Committee's proposal for an independent national port authority which would have had full responsibility for planning the ports—and whose decisions would have been final. There would have been no appeal against them.

Reading the Report, I understand why the Committee advocated that idea, but I think that the Minister is right in rejecting that solution and advancing that which is before the House today: the setting up of a Council whose task is to draw up the plans, submit them to the Minister and then survey their operation, while the responsibility for accepting or rejecting the plans rests squarely on the Minister.

That is how it should be, all the more so in view of the Government's decision—which, again, I fully endorse—that the ports requiring development should be able to borrow money, not on the market, where they might be held up through not being able to get the money at a reasonaable rate, but from the Government, on the same terms as are enjoyed by other public bodies. That being the decision, it is clear that the only person who should properly endorse a plan for the general organisation of our ports, and decide which ports should or should not be developed, is the Minister. He is wholly right in that decision.

I think that the right hon. Gentleman is also right in rejecting the proposition put forward in some quarters as an alternative—which also has some attractions—that if the Minister is to take responsibility, he could best effect it by enlarging his own docks section and do the planning and supervising of the docks through his own Ministry. There are two reasons for saying that such a suggestion is not good. The first is that it is much easier for a Minister, in the light of informed public criticism, to knock on the head and amend a scheme drawn up by a semi-independent outside body, than to do the same to a scheme that has been drawn up in his own Ministry. The other reason is that the right hon. Gentleman's Ministry is already overburdened with responsibility on every aspect of transport, and it would be unwise to increase that burden if it possibly can be avoided.

Although the Minister yesterday announced the membership of the National Ports Council, I am not quite clear exactly how that body will function. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will later tell us whether it is the Government's view, as I think it was originally, that the members of the Council, including the chairman, should be on a part-time basis, or whether, at least, the chairman and the vice-chairman should be employed by the Council full-time. There is a case for saying that the chairman—and perhaps, the vice-chairman—should be a full-time member of the Council.

The Government have accepted the principle of estuarial groupings where these are appropriate, and I think that we would all agree that deciding which groupings are appropriate will be a most difficult task, particularly where there will be claims from the townships which are likely to suffer by the closing of ports and when representatives in this House will express strong protests. Nevertheless, I think that the principle is correct. I ask now: can the Minister give an undertaking that when groupings are to be effected and the Minister has decided finally, or may be before a final decision, that certain ports should be closed, Parliament will have an effective opportunity of putting forward its views on this matter?

This is very important. If a township is to be severely damaged—it may be a whole area—by the decision of the Minister, there must be an effective opportunity in this House for criticism and for the voicing of the views of the representatives of that township, and its representatives should have an opportunity maybe of persuading the House and the Minister to withdraw that plan and bring forward another.

The Minister has spoken about the British Transport Docks Board's ports and has told us that they are to be in the same position as every other port in the country. Those hon. Members who have read the Report will remember that the Rochdale Committee went out of its way to commend the manner in which that Board has operated its ports over many years. It pointed out that it has turned a working loss in 1947 of £3¼ million into a working surplus of £4 million in 1961 in spite of great difficulties, one of which was the halving of our coal exports during that period.

It would be a great pity if the British Transport Docks Board has to disappear. It is suggested in the Rochdale Committee's Report that this may, in fact, happen. It is impossible at this stage to make any commment on proposals not yet before us, but I think that there will be strong opposition among many people if action is taken that will lead to the disappearance of this very effective, important body which has operated a number of ports so successfully under public ownership.

At this stage I want to ask the Minister only one question to which the Parliamentary Secretary may be able to give a reply. In the groupings that are likely to take place there may be an estuary where there is a dock owned by the British Transport Docks Board and it may be found desirable to group all the docks under one ownership. May that ownership be the British Docks Board? Will there be power to transfer to that Board other docks where such a scheme appears to be desirable? Will the Board be able to acquire more docks than it has at the moment where such a scheme is likely to lead to greater efficiency? In other words, is he suggesting that the transfer might only be away from the Docks Board to a new estuarial authority, or can it be, too, towards the Docks Board from existing port authorities? Again, I should like to ask whether there will be an effective opportunity for a full discussion in this House before any proposal affecting adversely any of these British Transport Docks Board's ports is put into operation.

The Minister today made only a brief reference to the decasualisation of labour. I make no complaint, as it is not directly his responsibility, and as I understand that negotiations are proceeding which are, so far, reasonably satisfactory and from which he is hopeful that something good will emerge. I would emphasise that unless this problem can be effectively solved the benefits hoped to be secured by the other recommendations made in the Report may be severely limited. The Rochdale Committee itself placed great emphasis on this aspect of the problem. I am certain that, to provide this country with efficient docks that will give industry the service it requires, it is essential to have a contented, co-operative dock labour force, and the key here, of course, is establishing among the dock workers a feeling of security which will be all the more necessary when plans to merge existing dock authorities are carried out. I hope, therefore, that every effort will be made by all those responsible for speeding up the decasualisation discussions and that a satisfactory conclusion may soon be reached.

There is another aspect of this, about which no comment has been made but on which the Rochdale Committee also put much emphasis. This is an associated matter and I do not want to develop it today. It is the big reduction required in the number of port employers. To what extent has thought been given to that problem? Further emphasis is given, and I think rightly, by the Rochdale Committee, to the need for improving road access to the docks. The Committee says that it has had more complaints on this matter than any other, and anyone who has a working knowledge of the docks will strongly endorse the recommendation of the Rochdale Committee that drastic and urgent steps should be taken to deal with it.

The Committee says that it understands that many road schemes devised to relieve the presence of severe bottlenecks will not come into fruition until the end of the decade, and it goes on to say: Plans involving major ports should be given special consideration and priority on grounds of national importance. I should be interested to hear any further comment which the Parliamentary Secretary can make on that point, and whether he accepts that plea for priority set out in the Committee's Report. Perhaps he will tell us when he replies to the debate.

Another matter which the Rochdale Committee emphasised and which I know is in the minds of many hon. Members is the need for the development in this country of deep water berths which we are very much lacking. The Committee point out that this is exceedingly expensive as not only have we to build the berths but we have also to provide the extensive facilities they call for. I wonder whether the Government have come to any decision on this, and whether they are in principle prepared to implement the Committee's recommendations.

There are two other matters to which I want to refer. One is that I am very doubtful about the wisdom of the view expressed in the Rochdale Committee's Report that each dock should be financially viable of itself. That, of course, is a desirable objective, but I hope that it will not be too rigidly applied and particularly that viability will not be the criterion on which will depend whether a port should be closed. Here we come again to the arguments surrounding Dr. Beeching's proposals. There are so many other factors of importance to take into account. It may well be desirable in the national interest in some cases, not as a general rule, to maintain a dock that cannot be viable, and therefore I hope that this recommendation will be accepted as a general principle but not applied too much in detail.

My final point arises from the Minister's statement today. He says that he has come to the decision that he will not in any circumstances—and I hope that I am not misquoting him—direct an improvement to be effected in a dock which may be recommended to him as desirable by the National Ports Council but which the dock authority does not want to carry out.

This is exceedingly important. Here we have a Council whose job is to survey the docks as a whole and come to certain decisions, and the decisions will be that certain docks should be developed in the national interest. The Minister may agree after taking advice. I do not say that it will happen often, but we may have a dock authority saying,"Despite all the expert advice in the Ministry and in the National Docks Council we will not carry out these changes although we would have money at a cheap rate to do so". This seems to undermine the whole principle of the national planning of our docks. We come back to the old position of a Minister being in a situation where he has responsibility for an industry which he does not own, and where, in consequence, he is able to apply the brake but not the eccelerator.

The Minister, therefore, will have only completely negative powers and he has today announced to the world that under no circumstances will he take powers to ensure that a highly desirable dock development should take place although all the authorities concerned who have viewed it from a national angle may consider that to be necessary. This is an indefensible prospect and I hope that careful consideration will be given to it before the Bill is produced and a final decision is taken.

We may well be critical of many other aspects of the Government scheme when it emerges in legislative form, but we wholeheartedly endorse the objective of providing a national plan for the docks—which, after all, we on this side of the House did first—for merging existing authorities where a case for it can be made out, for eliminating excess capacity, and for carrying out the many other proposals in the Report designed to improve the handling capacity of the docks. Most of these schemes are overdue. Their urgent implementation is not only desirable but is a vital condition for the prosperity of the country in the coming years.

4.53 p.m.

Mr. John Howard (Southampton, Test)

I do not propose to follow the speech of the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) in detail, but I should like to follow him on the point he made about the possible powers which the Minister ought to have in relation to the recommendations put forward by the National Ports Council. At present, as I understand it, the Minister has only negative powers through his financial control, in that he can refuse to implement any recommendations if he feels that they are unwise, but there do not seem to be any powers to enable him to enforce the recommendations of the Council if they are obstructed or opposed by local port trusts or estuarial authorities. I hope that my right hon. Friend will review this matter and will see that proper control is exercised from Parliament.

I should like to follow that criticism by congratulating my right hon. Friend, firstly, on appointing Lord Rochdale to consider this vital problem of our ports, secondly on getting the Report from the Committee into his hands so quickly, and thirdly on coming forward with a general acceptance of the principles on behalf of the Government which enables us to go ahead. One point in my right hon. Friend's speech was not quite clear to me. It related to safety in ports, I understood him to say that it might be necessary to enforce the installation of radar. I was not sure whether that applied to ports or whether he sought to make it obligatory on shipowners to install radar and V.H.F.

Southampton was one of the foremost ports to establish radar and a port information service with the voluntary support of shipowners. About 3,000 United Kingdom ships have installed V.H.F. equipment in the past few years. Ship owners have done this voluntarily and I think that there would be some resentment if they were compelled to install V.H.F. purely because of certain port information services and the obligation to apply for information from the port service. I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport will deal with this point when he winds up the debate.

As has been said, this Report is the result of an inquiry into the major ports of Great Britain which was undertaken to discover to what extent the major ports and harbours are adequate for present and future national needs. Inevitably the answer to that question is that they are not at all adequate and a great deal of reorganisation and realignment and modernisation is essential. Inevitably, the activities of the port of Southampton came under review and it is a source of satisfaction to all connected with that port, which I have the privilege to represent together with my hon. Friend, as I shall describe him in this instance, the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King).

The Rochdale Report has plans for major developments in the port of Southampton, and we feel that it is right that it should go on to give top priority to Southampton and Tilbury for future schemes. Both these ports have scope for a large—and I think that the Report uses the word"significant"—increase in the number of deep-water berths to which the right hon. Member for Vauxhall referred. They are also both well situated geographically to meet the demands of the country's overseas trade.

Like the right hon. Member for Vauxhall, I was dismayed when I saw the size of the Report, but it proved to be fascinating reading. There was a penetrating analysis of the present working of the docks and of the trend of the country's trade not only immediately but in years to come. It was pointed out that the port of Southampton still handles nearly half a million passengers per annum compared with 380,000 in 1938. Freight passing through the port has increased to the point where it is third in magnitude only to freight handled in Liverpool and London. About 13.7 million tons pass through the port annually. The oil arrangements at Fawley in Southampton Water account for about 12 million tons of freight, and the balance of the trade us predominantly cargo passing to and from South Africa.

If I may make a political point, I am sure that the working conditions and prosperity of workers in Southampton would be adversely affected if some of the plans for the boycott of trade to and from South Africa, advocated by hon. Members opposite, and by the Liberal Party, were to come about. I hope that it will be borne in mind that trade is indivisible and that as soon as we boycott one aspect of trade the repercussions are difficult to assess. The Rochdale Report says that trade passing through the United Kingdom ports will double by 1980, and therefore the Report is concerned mainly with the freight problems of our major ports. In addition, the size of ships has been increasing. Between 1939 and 1961 the size of passenger ships increased by 37 per cent. and the size of tankers increased by no less Chan 82 per cent.

With the emphasis on big ships there is an even greater premium on a speedy turn round in our major ports, and if we are to handle these big ships I suggest that there are three essentials that we must look for when planning future developments of our large-scale ports. First, berths must be capable of occupying a greater length of quay. Secondly, there must be a greater depth of water. Thirdly, there must be easy access with as little maintenance and dredging involved as possible. All these features are obvious in the port of Southampton, which possesses the additional feature of nature—the double high tide, which means that most of the docks are workable roughly for 24 hours of the day.

To handle the volume of trade foreshadowed for 1980, the Rochdale Report took the theme of the Cooper Committee in 1945, which said that it is not more ports but better ports which are needed. The need for greater port capacity has been clearly established by the illustrations I gave, and Rochdale has accepted the merits of expanding existing ports rather than creating new ones.

Apart from the three essentials that I mentioned for the accommodation of modern ships, the existing ports possess services; they possess the shore organisations of the shipping companies; warehousing; dry docks; ship repairing and refitting facilities. In addition, to qualify for expansion under modern conditions there must be modern transit sheds, adequate cranes and mechanical handling equipment, together with good communications by road and rail, with vehicle parking spaces and room for container parks and assembly areas, not necessarily within the dock area itself.

Southampton is well qualified under all these headings, with the exception of the rail services to the Midlands and the roads to London, the Midlands and the West. I know that my right hon. Friend's Department has initiated a number of road improvements which are either in hand or in prospect in Southampton itself, and these will all improve the access to the docks. The improvement of the London approach is particularly important, and the sooner the Chandlers Ford and Otterbourne by-pass on the A.33 can be begun the better for the smooth running of dock traffic.

At the moment there are no signs of any plans in the Ministry of Transport for London, Midlands or West roads to meet the criticisms which Lord Rochdale put in his Report in relation to the communications with Southampton. I think it is fair to say, therefore, that the lack of good communications in those directions needs to be remedied urgently.

The acceptance by the Government of the principles of the Report was set out, as my right hon. Friend has said, in the terms of the statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary on 6th March, 1963. These principles, plus the important rôle of Southampton, must involve far-reaching changes in Southampton, extending indeed far beyond the port and dock area. If paragraph 529 of the Report is to have any effect—this paragraph refers to the need for a major port to have a hinterland of industrial development—these changes must mean changes also in the surrounding Hampshire countryside. While such schemes as container parks and assembly areas, to which some weight is given in the Report, need not necessarily involve accommodation close to the docks, it is important in the case of Southampton to see that careful consideration is given to the planning of the 130 acres of reclaimed land within the dock area to see that it conforms with whatever recommendations the National Ports Council eventually makes.

Just as the physical features of the Rochdale Report have been welcomed by the town of Southampton, so too have the original proposals for the management and control of the port authority. After listening to my right hon. Friend today, I am not sure whether these proposals still remain in quite the form that I understood them to be, since they are clearly subject to whatever recommendations the National Ports Council may make. However, in the case of Southampton the situation ought to be fairly clear. The Southampton Harbour Board operates certain berths from which the Isle of Wight steamers and a fair amount of other traffic operate, and it is also responsible for the whole of the approach channels, for dredging and maintenance, whereas the British Transport Docks Board runs the main docks and transit sheds and is primarily responsible for foreign-going liners.

The third factor there is Trinity House, which is the pilot age authority. The Southampton pilots run their own show in Southampton. In their pilots' office there is a duty pilot who has come in from a spell of sea-going duty, and he is in an excellent position to advise shipping agents or anyone connected with freight coming into the port on such points as when a ship can best be brought in, which side of the ship can be berthed alongside the dock, the state of the tide on which the vessel can be moved and so on. I hope that these details of working will not be disturbed, whatever type of authority is set up for Southampton.

The pilots' advice might also usefully be sought by the National Ports Council on the form in which the new docks may be developed. I am told that had the pilots' recommendations been accepted some 40 years ago, certain blunders which were then made in the construction of the docks could have been avoided. With this slight qualification on the set-up of the docks, may I say that a new, single, unified and independent authority would be welcomed by Southampton. We have visualised a port trust for Southampton on the estuarial basis, on which the shipping interests would be represented.

If I may now turn to the point made by the right hon. Member for Vauxhall on the negative and positive powers of the Minister, it may well be that the composition of these port trusts could be the key to the type of action that he has in mind. In other words, if the users of the port have a predominant number of members on the port authority, I think that they will be anxious for improvements to go forward because it must undoubtedly be to their benefit for the port to be improved as quickly as possible. In my view, and certainly in the view of the people concerned in Southampton, the body should be locally controlled and quite independent of the British Transport Docks Board or any other central body in London.

The dock authorities and the users did not particularly like Lord Rochdale's original proposals to set up a National Dock Authority, and I am sure the present scheme will come very much closer to their own ideas of the correct way of dealing with the problem of the future of these ports.

A port of the magnitude of Southampton needs a skilled labour force, and I support the remarks which have been made about decasualisation in the docks. I am sure the sooner we can press ahead with that reform the better. Skilled ship repairers also are essential. The situation in Southampton is a little diffi- cult at present because of the seasonal fluctuations in demand. Perhaps the development of cargo work foreshadowed in the Report will make for a more even flow of work in the docks and obviate the present seasonal difficulties.

I hope that the Government will realise the importance of supporting shipbuilding and ship repairing based on vital ports such as Southampton. I ask my right hon. Friend to bear in mind that by extending dock facilities in areas of high unemployment we may make some places which are already too dependent upon shipbuilding and ship repairing even more dependent, so that, if there is a further contraction in the building of ships, their present employment problems will only be accentuated.

The keynote of the Report is urgency. We have considered whether the National Ports Council will have adequate powers to execute its plans, and there seems to be some doubt about whether this will, in fact, be so. I should like to know, for Southampton, whether the £1¼ million scheme for a new passenger and cargo terminal at 38 and 39 berths in Southampton Old Docks will be begun this year, as was stated by the Chairman of the British Transport Docks Board. Also, I should like to know whether the £150 million of capital mentioned in paragraph 626 of the Report will be forthcoming in the immediate future, particularly the £50 million allocated to the four major schemes, of which Southampton is to be one.

Having persuaded my right hon. Friend to modify the Transport Act to safeguard coastal shipping, may I put to him a question about our small ports? As I understand it, the small ports are to be placed under the National Ports Council. To what extent can these ports in areas such as Northern Scotland, North Cornwall and Devon be developed to replace the railway freight services which may be withdrawn? In other words, are there prospects for increasing the coastal services, particularly those for seaborne coal?

My impression from the Report is that our docks compare unfavourably with docks in Hamburg, Rotterdam and Antwerp. Indeed, Lord Rochdale refers to this in paragraph 48 of the Report. We are criticised particularly on the score of dependability of service and speed of turn-round. Various reasons are offered, notably good industrial relations and the absence of restrictive practices in those three foreign ports. I share with the Minister and the right hon. Member for Vauxhall the hope that the utmost will be done by everyone in the House, on both sides, to impress upon all concerned that the prosperity of our country, the success of our export trade and the efficiency of our docks depend upon similar conditions prevailing here.

5.13 p.m.

Mr. Walter Edwards (Stepney)

It is not my intention to follow the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. J. Howard), because I have no real information about the situation in Southampton. I wish not to go through the Report as a whole—it would be impossible for one to do so—but to refer in particular to the situation in the East End of London.

I have read the entire Report carefully, and I regard it as a masterly document. I have lived in the dock area of London all my life, and I have been associated intermittently with the dock industry for the past 40 years, both working in it and as a union official. I have learned quite a lot from the Report which my experience had never taught me. It is a wonderful effort on the part of these gentlemen, who, possibly, did not know much about the docks before they were asked to become members of the Committee, to have presented such a fine Report, and I give them credit for it.

On the other aspects of the Report dealing with finance and various matters apart from dock labour itself, I completely share the misgivings expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) about Ministerial control and the other points he raised. It is absolutely essential that what has been said by my right hon. Friend should be considered most carefully by the Government before legislation is drafted We might in this way save quite a lot of trouble when the time comes to consider any Measure put before us.

One part of the Report actually recommends the closing of docks, and this directly affects my constituency. Suggestions are made that some ports might be joined together or put out of action because they are not paying, but St. Katherine Dock and London Dock are both specifically mentioned, and it is recommended that the Port of London Authority consider closing them at some future date. Most people living in London will know that St. Katherine and London Docks have a very long history and, until the war, they served very well indeed. I quite admit that, as a result of war damage, St. Katherine Dock has hardly been used since the war. It might be used for another purpose—not for a helicopter station; we do not want that there—such as allowing vessels, yachts and so on, to moor alongside the quays, as they do now.

London Dock is another matter altogether. It is a very efficient dock. It seems to me that the Rochdale Committee had the mistaken idea that the enlargement of Tilbury Dock means that we can forget about docks nearer London. I do not say that it is a foolish idea—I must not say that—but it is quite impracticable to suggest that this could be for the benefit of shipping or of the London docks. It is far better in London if the work is spread out a little instead of being done mostly down at Tilbury on the outside of London. For one thing, the dockers would have to spend a lot of time and money in travelling down to Tilbury, and, obviously, this would make them feel a bit sore unless they knew that it was really in the national interest.

I contend that the closing of London Dock would not be in the national interest. In fact, it would be against the national interest. Instead of concentrating on one particular dock, we should spread the work out as much as we can. The Port of London Authority has, I think, already pronounced its view that it would be unwise to close the dock, despite the Rochdale Committee's recommendation. I hope that whoever has to consider this matter will take into account the situation of the workers. Many dock workers live in Stepney and East London, and they do not want to travel to Tilbury every day just because a dock which could be continued is closed. It is an efficient and most essential dock for central and inner London. Tilbury Dock may be all right for distributing goods round the country, but it is wrong for ships which have cargoes for inner London to use Tilbury Dock when London Dock is in existence from where cargoes can be more quickly dispatched and more efficiently dealt with. I ask the people responsible to bear those factors in mind before deciding on any action to close the dock.

The London County Council, with the Ministry of Transport, has authorised the widening to 60 ft. of the road which runs past the main gate of London Dock. The Rochdale Committee obviously did not know this. Although it is proposed to widen the road and work on it is expected to start in 1965, it is now proposed to do away with the dock. This is another good reason for keeping the dock in being, because the traffic facilities will be increased.

I have only two other matters to raise—the National Dock Labour Board and decasualisation. I must go into decasualisation at some length because of its great importance.

I pay tribute to the National Dock Labour Board for the great work which it is doing and to the person who thought of the idea in the first place, who, I think, was the late Ernie Bevin. As a result of the setting up of the Board, dockers' conditions are certainly not as bad as they were before the war. I was a casual dock labourer in London until 1937. I well know the conditions which existed in those days. There was no fallback pay, and if one did three-and-a-half days a week out of six one received no unemployment benefit. The setting up of the National Dock Labour Board was a great step and I want to see it continued as far as possible.

When decasualisation does come about, the need for the Board will not be as great as it is today, because if there is only a fringe of casual labour it will not be so necessary. But we should keep it going as long as possible to provide all the services which it has provided in the past and which it continues to provide. I hope that it will continue to play a valuable part for the welfare of dockers in setting up clubs, sports grounds and things like that. It would be a great thing for the industry if the Board could continue in existence.

Decasualisation has been mentioned by the Minister, by my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test. I speak on this matter from practical experience because, as I say, I was a casual dock worker until 1937. I am sure that everyone wants to get rid of casual labour as soon as possible and that decasualisation is bound to come sooner or later. We cannot continue with a system under which men do not know what they will earn from one week to another, who do not know whether they will get half a day's work or a day's work or whether they will earn more than the minimum amount for half a day's work. I doubt whether anyone wants to keep the casual system going.

There is a human problem here. Dockers are not rushing into accepting decasualisation. This is surprising in view of the bad old years of casual labour. I want the House and the people outside who will deal with this matter to realise the atmosphere in which casual labourers work. In some cases they are doing much better than they used to do. In other cases they are not doing as well. The basic wage is a very poor wage which can hardly keep them going. There is bound to be the fear of redundancy if decasualisation takes place. It is this fear which, I am afraid, may have a damning effect on those of us who advocate it. There is not the slightest doubt that the agitators against decasualisation will make use of the mechanical equipment which the Report proposes should be obtained, with the alterations in working conditions and men being transferred from one wharf to another. There will be the fear that, as a result of these alterations, the demand for labour will be less.

I know that the unions and the employers have been considering this matter for some time. I think that they have come to a fair amount of agreement on it, although it has not been finalised. My own union, the Transport and General Workers' Union, is strongly in favour of decasualisation and is doing its utmost to bring it about at an early date. But there are others outside our union who are not so wedded to the idea. Very heavy demands would have to be met before they would partake of the scheme.

I wish to say only this to the employers. Decasualisation will be as good a thing for them in the long run as it will be for the men. I think that the nation also will benefit from decasualisation. I ask the employers to give the union leaders the opportunity which they desire, and which they need, to press home to their members the great advantages which decasualisation can bring to themselves, their families and their future. If the employers will assist in this matter, I am sure that the unions will be able to get their members to acquiesce in the proposal.

There have been many disputes in the past in the London docks which many of us regret, and there may be some disputes in future, but I want to make this appeal to the dockers concerning the decasualisation proposals which will be put before them. Let them listen to their union leaders and take notice of what they say. They should support their union leaders and not be misled by such bodies as the liaison committees and port committees, which consist of people employed in the docks but which have no responsibility and in many cases comprise leading Communists who have no intention of assisting in promoting the economic well-being of the country. On the contrary, they want to lower the economic wealth of the country. I ask the dockers to bear these factors in mind when this most important question is considered.

I can assure the House that the London docker is one of the finest workers to be found anywhere, and when this National Ports Council scheme comes into being I really believe that the future of the dock industry is going to be something that even Ernie Bevin did not dream of 20 years ago. There is a wonderful future for the industry. I wish the proposal of the Rochdale Committee, with certain reservations, every success when it comes to be put into operation. 5.30 p.m.

Mr. Raymond Gower (Barry)

I echo the praise given by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Marples) and by the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) to the quality, the power and the format of the Rochdale Report. I am glad, like others who have spoken, that my right hon. Friend has indicated so early his acceptance of the need for a co-ordinated national plan.

My right hon. Friend mentioned that recently he has been round many of the ports of Europe as well as round most of the ports in the United Kingdom. While I have only seen some of the ports in the United Kingdom in the last year or so, I also have had the benefit of seeing most of the major ports in the European countries. Like my right hon. Friend, I was impressed by the quality of the installation and the efficiency of the working at such ports as Genoa, in Italy, Marseilles, in France, Rotterdam, in Holland, Antwerp, in Belgium, and Hamburg, in Germany.

Our problem, of course, is rather different from that of those countries for various reasons. In the case of Holland and Belgium, they are, of course, relatively small countries with a very much more limited seaboard than the United Kingdom, and they are able—and are fortunate, perhaps, in some respects in being able—to concentrate much of their new capital investment in each case into one port—Belgium into the port of Antwerp and Holland into the port of Rotterdam.

Similarly, Germany, a much larger country, has for its size a comparatively short seaboard and is able to rely predominantly on the magnificent port of Hamburg, and it is able to concentrate a huge part of its capital investment into that port. For historic reasons, although France and Italy have very long seaboards, they have never had the vast sea-going mercantile marine and overseas trade opportunity which this country has had—certainly not for several generations. Both countries have been able to manage with fewer ports, and thus it is that much of the new investment in Italy is attracted to Genoa and in France to one or two major ports.

Our problem is, therefore, greater than it would otherwise be in the sense that we have to provide for the modernisation and increased efficiency of far more ports than do any of the countries which I have mentioned. This fact enhances the urgency of our problems. I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend will reconsider what he has said about his disinclination to intervene should there be any dispute between the National Ports Council and the local port authorities, because it seems to me that this challenge to our efficiency and to our modernisation is on such an enormous scale that we cannot afford to have the national plan thwarted by, perhaps, some local shortsightedness in this respect.

I appreciate—and no doubt this is at the back of my right hon. Friend's mind—that to work the plan efficiently he must have the maximum of local co-operation. His National Ports Council must invite every co-operation. But should there be no possibility of such co-operation, cannot my right hon. Friend say that there must be some reserve power which he will keep and which will be enshrined in the legislation which he has promised us?

There is one other point that I wish to make concerning the personnel of the Council which has been mentioned, which my right hon. Friend announced yesterday and which appears in Hansard. Some time ago I brought to my right hon. Friend's notice the fact that various bodies in South Wales were anxious that there should be a Welsh representative on the Council. My right hon. Friend pointed out that it was not to be on a territorial basis in the United Kingdom. I accept reluctantly the fact that there are two sorts of committees in this country, one which is set up on a territorial basis and the other which is not.

If the committee is set up on a territorial basis then I expect, naturally, to see a predominance of English members, with representatives from Scotland, Ulster and Wales. If it is not on a territorial basis, then I look for English and Scottish representatives but not for Welsh representatives. Therefore, in this case I find what I look for. I find that there are many English representatives and, sure enough, a Scottish representative from the Commercial Bank of Scotland.

I ask my right hon. Friend to look to the one or two appointments still under consideration and to include at least one representative from Wales. Wales has made a very splendid contribution not only in the matter of ports, but to our whole shipping and mercantile marine. The seaways of the world have been bestrode by ships which have been captained by Welsh captains. There is also the notable contribution to ship owning and ship carrying from Welsh ports in the great days of coal, which is something with which my right hon. Friend is quite familiar.

I now turn to a very special problem, and I am very grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me this opportunity to take part in the debate. While, as I say, I find a deal of merit in the main proposals of the Committee, I quarrel most emphatically with it in the advice which it offers on the port of Barry. In their history of about 75. years the docks at Barry have had an astonishing record of achievement in peace and war. Until the end of the Second World War, Barry was a coal port par excellence and much of the coal from the South Wales coalfield was taken all over the world from its docks. In its greatest years Barry's coal exports reached enormous proportions, and older people can recall one period just before the First World War when some 11 million tons of coal left the Barry docks in a single year.

That state of affairs has passed away, perhaps for ever. But I quarrel with those pessimistic prophets who say that the coal trade will never be revived. I share the conviction of Lord Robens, the Chairman of the National Coal Board, who said recently that Barry will have an important part to play in the increased coal exports which he envisages.

I am satisfied that the Rochdale Committee recommendations which threaten the very existence of the Port of Barry offend against some of the very criteria which that Committee has adopted for the basis of its conclusions in other respects. The House will be aware that the Committee recommended—as set out in paragraph 551 of its Report—that the ports of Cardiff, Barry and Swansea be placed under the control of a new public trust authority which should also be responsible for conservancy and piloting. The Committee then made the astonishing recommendation that the trade of Barry should be transferred gradually to Cardiff—

Mr. George Thomas (Cardiff, West)

Hear, hear.

Mr. Gower

I will come to that and answer the hon. Member in a moment.

As I was saying, the Committee recommends that the trade of Barry should be transferred gradually to Cardiff with a view to the eventual closure of the docks at Barry. And the only real reasons which the Committee advanced for this proposal appear to me not only inadequate, but misconceived.

Those inadequate reasons are set out in Chapter 37, paragraph 547, of the Report. The Committee refers to the existence of surplus capacity in the Bristol Channel South Wales Ports, and it refers to the need to rationalise, concentrate and to reduce the excess capacity, and that is all. That is the only reason given in the Report for this recommendation, merely that in the Committee's view there is some excess capacity—and perhaps it is not surprising that this should be the case. How should it be otherwise? The Committee's visit to Barry was brief in the extreme, so brief as to appear contemptuous and nugatory.

The Committee appears to have made no real study of the nature of the excess capacity at the South Wales ports and to have paid scant, if any, heed to the relative merits of various ports and their facilities. The fact that the Transport Commission, in its commercial judgment, has continued in recent years to show confidence in the docks at Barry by capital expenditure on a considerable scale appears to have been ignored and to have influenced the Rochdale Committee not at all.

Although in paragraph 548 of its Report the Committee implies that the trade of Barry can be redeployed elsewhere, notably in Cardiff, it made no inquiry whether the established firms at Barry, some of them not in British ownership, were prepared or even able to transfer that trade and their installations to the port of Cardiff. Indeed, some of those firms have since stated that they cannot do so.

I hesitate to express publicly my conviction about the reasons for the Committee's recommendation, but after making the most exhaustive inquiries I am convinced that the Committee was influenced solely by the excess capacity, as it described it, in the South Wales ports and, therefore, adopted what appeared to the Committee to be a rather neat, simple formula for getting rid of that excess capacity, namely, the sacrifice of this port of Barry, without reconciling that advice with the merits of the case.

I should like to summarise some of the advantages of Barry Docks, many of which are certainly not possessed by its neighbours in other docks in South Wales. First, there is the deep-water entrance, which confers obvious benefits, and the availability of deep-water berths. Other Members have stressed the value of deep-water berths; Barry possesses them. Negligible dredging cost is needed to keep the docks in operation, in marked contrast to most of the other South Wales ports. For example, more than £1 million a year is required to keep the port of Cardiff in operation, whereas Barry costs practically nothing.

Also important is the fact that the docks at Barry are operational for several hours at a time. They are not as dependent upon the tide as most of the other ports on the South Wales seaboard. This is vitally important in the sort of trade that is now being developed at Barry with the importation of perishables and fruit.

Good road and rail access, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. John Howard) referred as an important factor, is available at Barry and is being improved rapidly. The expeditious turn-round of ships at Barry has led firms like Geest Industries, for example, to prefer to establish themselves at Barry rather than at any of the other South Wales ports or elsewhere in the British Isles. Indeed, they experimented at several ports, including other ports in South Wales, before deciding on Barry, and one of the chief things which influenced them was the speedy turn-round of ships.

Since the war, labour relations in the South Wales ports have, I suggest, been rather better than in most parts of the United Kingdom and the record shows that labour relations in Barry have been as good as anywhere else in South Wales.

The fact that the docks at Barry do not involve the British Transport Docks Board in an operating loss is another important factor.

There is a recommendation that docks generally should be made economic and that those which are not run economically should be reconsidered. In the case of Barry, however, the Docks Board has stated officially that the docks are not conducted at an operational loss. Indeed, they earn a small operating profit. This was one of the main criteria which the Rochdale Committee chose to prescribe, yet in defiance of this criterion the Committee recommends the possible closure of these docks.

Then there is the fact that the combined efforts in recent years of the British Transport Docks Board, the Barry Borough Council and local industrialists have promoted a significant increase in the trade of the port and developments of new kinds of dock traffic. The port of Barry, indeed, provides a useful example to many other ports in the United Kingdom of what can be achieved by patient, sustained effort

Even in the limited period which has elapsed since the Rochdale Committee reported, the trade of Barry Docks has increased by more than 30 per cent. All these and other advantages and favourable factors and trends have been set out in an admirable booklet prepared by the Barry Borough Council, which is already in the hands of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Welsh Affairs. Some time ago, in January, I ventured to tabulate some of those advantages in my Motion No. 54, entitled"Barry Docks", then tabled by me.

There are other cogent, urgent reasons which call for an early decision to reject the advice of the Rochdale Committee in the case of Barry. In the past few weeks, the National Dock Labour Board, to which the hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. W. Edwards) referred, has acknowledged the increase in the docks traffic at Barry by approving an increase in the dock labour force at the port. This is another official acknowledgment that the trade trend at Barry is upwards. In how many docks of the United Kingdom has anything like that happened in recent months? In how many docks in Britain has it been necessary over the last two years or so to enlarge the labour force? I suspect, not in many.

In recent years, the fruit importing firm of Geest Industries, which is associated with a company in Holland, has established itself at Barry with regular shipments to the port. The company has built its own installations and depot at the dockside. Moreover, these shipments are tending to increase. Only last weekend, when I visited my constituency, I found that two Geest banana boats had arrived almost together. This increase in traffic poses other problems, which are being tackled with energy and ingenuity. Cory Bros., Limited, Mobil Oil, Limited, and Isherwoods, Limited, have all established oil terminals at the port of Barry in recent years.

The new installations erected by Cory Bros, alone are valued at about £1 million. Already, Mobil Oil, Limited has expended nearly £300,000 on its new installations at Barry and contemplates further expenditure of the order of £200,000, representing a total of about £½millon. In the case of Isherwoods, Limited, £60,000 has been spent on new installations and immediate plans are designed to involve another £30,000 expenditure.

To deal with another sort of industry, the Distillers, Limited, group of companies is firmly established at Barry and one of its companies, British Resin, Limited, has installed a pipeline at a cost of £30,000 to bring in liquid raw materials. Distillers, Limited, also uses the docks for the import and export of resins and expansion proposals are again under consideration.

Another example is that of Joseph Rank, Limited, a company which is long established at Barry Docks. This company has a long lease from the British Transport Docks Board, including a responsibility by the Board to provide Ranks with quay space at Barry Docks. This quay space is adjacent to the flour mill. In recent years, the Rank company has, in consequence, completely modernised its flour mill at great capital cost to make it one of the most modern flour mills in Europe. Ranks contemplate substantial increases in grain shipments to Barry Docks, and the prospect of these shipments is enhanced by the new animal feeding-stuffs plant which it has erected at Barry. It is surely very significant that most of these companies have stated publicly that they cannot contemplate any transfer to Cardiff or to any other port.

Mr. G. Thomas

While I much appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is fighting for his own constituency, may I ask: does he not think that it would be better if he advanced the claims of Barry without seeking to denigrate his neighbours in Cardiff?

Mr. Gower

The hon. Gentleman thought that the trade of Barry should be moved to Cardiff, and that is solely why I mentioned Cardiff. He really invited a reply from me. However, the point I wish to make is that it is significant that many of these companies have stated publicly that they cannot contemplate any transfer to Cardiff or to any other port. Another company, J. O. Williams and Co., Limited, has stated that it cannot carry on its pit prop import and storage elsewhere as it finds Barry Docks most suitable and least expensive.

By considerable expenditure in recent years, and by present declaration, the Docks Board has shown its confidence in the future of these docks and its desire to continue their operation. In recent months Lord Robens, Chairman of the Coal Board, has stated that the port of Barry should have an important rôle to play in the increased coal shipments which he envisages.

Only on 13th March last Sir Arthur Kirby, Chairman of the Docks Board said at Cardiff: The aim of the Docks Board will be to make effective use of facilities which are not obsolete and which can become part of national planning. I hate to think that under any plan we would have to relinquish the excellent deep water facilities which exist at Barry. This, it seems to me, would be most wasteful. About 2,300 or 2,500—I do not know the exact figure—persons owe their employment directly or indirectly to these docks. Some firms in the port have declared that their development plans are held up only by the uncertainty created by the unfortunate inclusion of this recommendation in the Rochdale Report. I implore my right hon. Friend to intervene to remove this uncertainty, to enable the Docks Board to continue to employ these docks and to keep the facilities for which Lord Robens foresees a real future, to permit the various firms to proceed with their plans for expansion, and to allow the people of Barry and the surrounding area to continue to serve the community as they have done so magnificently in times of peace and war.

5.53 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Irvine (Liverpool, Edge Hill)

The Minister rightly forecast that back benchers' speeches in this debate would raise constituency points and undoubtedly the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) has given us a persuasive example of that. He raised local issues with which he will not expect me to deal.

In Merseyside although the value of the Rochdale Report was recognised, the amount of work which had gone into it and the skill with which its findings were presented, its recommendations, I think it is fair and true to say, were received with some disappointment. Among the main ports of the country it is recommended in the Report that the highest priority should be given to development in Tilbury and Southampton, and it is added that high priority should be given to Leith and Teesport. Of course we have to consider the varying claims of these ports, bearing always in mind what we conceive the national interest to be. There is no element, in the view I present, of begrudging advance and development to these great ports. None the less, it was observed on Merseyside that it was these other ports which were selected for the highest priority, and, even among the ports given less priority for development, the language used relative to Merseyside was, as it seemed to many of us, rather discouraging. It was said of Glasgow, for example, that effort…should…be concentrated on the modernisation and improvement of existing facilities". That appears in the summary of recommendations, in paragraph (123). The Report does not go so far even as that when it is speaking of the treatment to be recommended for Merseyside. There the language used is this: effort…should…be concentrated on making the most of existing facilities". The House will observe, I have no doubt, the nuance and that that is an expression of intention which is not satisfactory to Liverpool people or to people on Merseyside.

It will be seen that the recommendations in the Report to which I have thus far referred put forward a policy for the distribution in different parts of the country of new port development which appears to be wholly inconsistent with the professed Government policy of attracting industry to the north of England rather than to the south.

As I have indicated, many of us in a debate of this kind will wish to make, up to a point, special pleas for our constituencies and constituency interests, but, as I have indicated, we are surely under a duty to ensure that when we do that we try to justify our arguments by reference to the national interest; and in arguing that the Report gives to Liverpool relatively too little priority I have of course in mind the interests of the economy of the country as a whole.

There is first the point, as it seems to me, that shippers want to use the ports which they already know. It is of great importance for a company, in considering where a cargo or a vessel will be allocated, to determine whether there is a tradition of good will and efficient handling in the experience of shippers at a particular port. In this connection it should be remembered that, after the port of London, the port of Liverpool has an easy lead over all the other ports in the country in the scale of its imports and exports of foreign cargo traffic. In principle, I suggest to the House that what is clearly desirable is to get a good return from new development in a port and we are more likely to get that in a port where the going is, so to speak, already good; there is much more likely to be a good return from investment and port development in a port of that character than in a port where trading relations and shipping experience may be less satisfactory.

In so far as Liverpool is concerned, it is not the case that we are hanging on in that great port to a lead established in past years and which is in process of being diminished, because in the year ended July, 1962—last year—the total tonnage of cargo entering and leaving the port of Liverpool was just short of £23 million and the tonnage of vessels was just under £59 million, and these figures represent the second highest figure ever achieved in the history of the port. All the evidence goes to show that new accommodation in Liverpool is attracting new tonnage and that the policy of expansion and enterprise which the port has followed has been justified up to the hilt by what has subsequently occurred. The great Langton-Canadian Improvement scheme is a case in point illustrating that. We now have berths on the Mersey equipped with every possible aid for the safer handling of ships and freight.

It has always seemed to me that the prosperity of the shipping of our country as a whole depends to a unique degree upon international co-operation—the dovetailing and fitting in of international shipping demands—and if a shipowner can point to the quality of diplomacy as being possessed by him in his armoury, that is so much the better for us all. The operation of the liner conference system, in my view, illustrates this fact, and it is to be hoped that the development of similar schemes to cover tankers and tramps will take shape and proceed rapidly.

When I mention the matter of the liners' conference, I have in mind that the conference system operates at its best and to the greatest benefit from the British point of view—to the greatest benefit of British ports—when a port has three things to offer. It is of great importance to those who in the conference determine the allocation of cargo and the allocation of terminals for freight to be able to say of a certain port, first, that it is a port which has built up a vast capital in terms of past experience, good will and traditional treatment of foreign vessels and foreign cargoes; secondly, that it possesses first-class existing facilities, and, thirdly—and this is the point to which the House should have particular regard in this debate—that it is prominent in current development and in planned future development.

What I think is so unfortunate in the lack of emphasis in the Report upon development in Merseyside—