DOCKS AND HARBOURS, THE HARTLEPOOLS (Hansard, 24 November 1965)

§ Mr. Ted Leadbitter (The Hartlepools)

The future of The Hartlepools docks and harbours has become a matter of great concern in my constituency. At a time when Hartlepool and West Hartlepool are beginning to enjoy the fruits of their initiative to attract new industry to the area, it is regrettable that shipping interests, port users, employees and public representatives should feel that the trading potential of the port may be permanently threatened. The House will appreciate that I am addressing myself to an area of rapid growth, of outstanding achievement in which ability, drive and initiative in less than a hundred years transformed a series of sand dunes and one fishing village into one of the most important ports and shipbuilding areas in Great Britain.

The first Member of Parliament for The Hartlepools fought for a free and independent port. In 1865 the West Hartlepool Harbour and Railway Company was absorbed by the North-Eastern Railway Company. His cause was lost, but the foundations which were laid prospered. My struggle at the moment is for the survival of the docks and harbours and their rightful place in a growing, expanding community which has responded to the stresses and strains of recent depression and enlarged its reputation throughout the land. My cause must not be lost.

Although the tide of the Industrial Revolution stimulated the growth and development of the port, history long before marked out its situation as one of the most eligible in the country. An ancient historian observed: The important situation of Hartlepool was obvious to the Normans, it was a place capable of receiving ships and troops from the Continent on every emergency when the northern borders were troubled; thence the Brus' family were induced to make it a place of strength, they built the haven and wall about the town of Hartlepool with ten towers on each side of the haven. 716 Another report dated 1795 on the harbour of Hartlepool also refers to the trading advantages. Again I quote: From the tides settling rapidly along the coast which vent much of their fury on those dangerous sands at the Tees mouth, many unfortunate ships drive thereon, in which case their loss becomes inevitable which this harbour might be a perfect means of preventing. Of course, we are living in different times now. The conditions and ships are different, trading considerations have altered and the naval and military calculations of the Normans no longer apply. But the sea and the docks are an integral part of the spirit and life of my constituency. The changing patterns of the past only strengthen our conviction that the proven adaptability of the area can be suitably relied upon to meet the changing needs of the future.

We recognise the complexity of these changes. New technological processes will have their inevitable effect on trade, its nature and its volume. New sources of material will determine new approaches to distribution and communications. The steel industry, for instance, will be using an increasing proportion of imported ores. On the other hand, higher quality ores and pelletised ores will affect the levels of demand. The changing face of the coal industry will affect coastal movements of coal, export figures and loading points. The importation of natural gas and of oil and perhaps the gasification of coal fields will be factors in determining the priorities of port development.

The problem of The Hartlepools is not unrelated to these matters, but, looking ahead, we cannot exclude the effects of nuclear power, the new petro-chemical industries and the establishment in the region of new engineering, electric and electronic plant, for these are the stimulants in the field of exports. Nor can we ignore the future trade trends. It is estimated that the gross domestic product will increase by 3 per cent. per annum, and that by 1980 imports into the United Kingdom will have risen from the present figure of 122 million tons to 255 million tons, and exports in the same period are estimated to rise from 31 million tons to 62 million tons.

It would seem, therefore, that cognisance of change would carry with it the 717 corollary of capital investment to bring about the modernisation in The Hartlepools docks and harbours which is necessary to meet the new conditions. This is not the case. The thinking of Rochdale seems to be putting the death wish upon us. Ever since that Report saw the light of day there seems to have been a run-down in the port. Proposed modernisation schemes for the coal staithes have been shelved. The timber trade has fallen, as has coal. The ore trade is threatened. Good reasons for this state of affairs can be given. But I have already stressed a recognition that old forms of trade must pass when a new dynamic of industrial change gets on the march.

What appals me is the fact that the Rochdale thinking excludes ports such as The Hartlepools from a full participation in the new concept of import and export activity. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary will have in mind certain proposals related to the establishment of a single estuarial authority. He may well refer to these. I should be comforted if he could suggest in this connection that our fears are unfounded, or more than they need be. For my part, I do not want to refer to a certain Private Bill at this stage, but I think that I should be in order to emphasise that in the interim Report of the National Ports Council there is no mention of The Hartlepools in a single estuarial authority arrangement. Nothing is said in the Report about any development on The Hartlepools. But a great deal is said about proposals for the River Tees. I naturally welcome and support developments on the River Tees, but the omission of The Hartlepools must have been calculated, and I want to suggest to the House that to be included in any single estuarial authority organisation on such terms is unacceptable.

I want to place it on record that during my discussion with officials concerned with the future of The Hartlepools Docks, and after much questioning, it has been admitted that The Hartlepools are going to have a very thin time. This need not be if some new thinking is exercised, the dogma of Rochdale relaxed and the faith in the future of our port acknowledged.

I am not asking for too much for our twin towns which have grown in 718 population from about 6,000 to 96,460 in just over 100 years. Some of their achievements are worthy of note. The Blue Riband of shipbuilding was won on six occasions. In ship repairing our reputation is worldwide. We had a preeminent record in the Central Marine Engine Works which were sited on more than 10 acres of dockland. We produced the first bulk petroleum vessel to pass through the Suez Canal for the Shell Line.

An hon. Member who once represented the area described the port as one of the most active and leading ports in the United Kingdom which can never be deprived of the reputation of initiating the well-decker, the most paying and safest vessel afloat. When first built—and for many years after—the warehouses were the largest in the country. Within a remarkably short period, 11 docks and basins, with a total water space area of 199½ acres were constructed, as well as five graving docks of lengths ranging from 363 ft. to 570 ft.

By 1860 more than 200 ships were registered in the port. In the timber, coal and ore trades The Hartlepools became the busiest docks in the North-East. The growth of the docks prompted the suggestion in The Hartlepools as far back as 1887 for a tunnel under the Tees, an idea which has come to others many years later. I could add more, but sufficient has been said to establish with my hon. Friend the importance of The Hartlepools and the reason why a sense of urgency prevails when we feel that the life of its docks and sea-going trade is at stake.

Why the concern? There are a number of considerations. In 1964 the capital expenditure on The Hartlepools docks was £184,419. The estimate for the period 1965–69 is £390,000, an average of £78,000 per annum. Compared with 1963 and 1964 this is a considerable fall. It is a very small proportion of the £155 million recommended for the development schemes affecting 14 other ports. There are no signs here of any capital projects, modernisation schemes or reorganisation on lines comparable with growth and expansion. The plans drawn up some years ago for a deep-water berth seem to be destined to remain pigeonholed. Likewise the proposals for the modernisation of the coal staithes.

719 The operating surplus of the docks £262,992 in 1963. After setting aside reserves for additional depreciation, the figure for 1964 was £163,668. A working surplus is a creditable performance and worthy of compliment for all who work and manage the docks. However, a fall of nearly £100,000 is a danger sign, for which they are not responsible.

I have mentioned timber, coal and ore, but I should add that in 1963 the value of exports for coal, coke and briquettes was £1,012,003, that for imports of wood and lumber was £3,828,500 and for metalliferous ores and scrap was £2,917,500. These three categories show a value of £7,758,354 out of a total trading value of £9,012,157. Approximately 85 per cent. of our import and export trade is attributable to these three groups, all of which are contracting. The ore in the foreseeable future may well be unloaded elsewhere.

The utilisation of land raises a further question. No fewer than 195¾ acres, in 12 separate sites, are earmarked or being used for industrial development, and the Swainson and timber docks are being filled in for the same purpose. I have done a great deal to attract industries to The Hartlepools and, therefore, welcome this initiative; but the equilibrium of industrial development and port operation must be sought, and an imbalance at the expense of the docks and harbours and their proper function, must be avoided.

Many new industries have come to The Hartlepools, and others are on their way. The range of our industrial activities is wide and diverse, representing a transformation within an area of 6,724 acres comparable with the achievements of a hundred years ago. The potential of this area appealed then; and so did the determination and energy of our people. Now we want to build; not to stand aside and witness any withering away. We have an obligation to those who come to us, and we must honour by our actions those who created an inheritance which we cherish.

I therefore ask my hon. Friend to take note of what I say and to seek through his good offices some protection for the interests of The Hartlepools. A great deal of capital expenditure has gone into 720 the building of the docks, and to lose this would be folly. I suggest that further was investment will pay dividends.

To conclude; let us have that plan for the modernisation of the deep water berths; reorganise the coal staithes to meet future needs efficiently; dispense with those dividing the Victoria and Old Harbour docks; deepen and widen the channel, provide more lights for ships at night, and make a programme for shipping facilities to achieve a quick turn round in tidal waters, unhampered by traffic conditions associated with river ports. By these means The Hartlepools docks and harbours can be given their proper place in the trading of the twentieth century.

I thank the House for having listened so patiently at this hour of the morning, but this is a matter which I consider to be of vital importance to my constituency.

§ The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Stephen Swingler)

All who serve in this Parliament know my hon. Friend as an assiduous and industrious hon. Member. He neglects no opportunity to put forward any constituency case, and he is held in high esteem as a leader in local government in The Hartlepools, and is already experienced in putting forward schemes for industrial development in the area. It is not surprising, therefore, that we should find him advocating the case for the expansion and transformation of The Hartlepools docks and harbours.

The subject is undoubtedly one of great importance, nationally as well as locally. We know that the Government's policy for increasing the flow of exports demands that all the country's port facilities should be mobilised and put to the most effective possible use. Indeed, improvements and new investment amounting to tens of millions of pounds all over the country—in marked difference to the negligence of the past few years—are needed in the next few years in order to modernise our ports and harbours in the proper way. It is this very fact that puts me in some difficulty in replying to my hon. Friend tonight.

The port authorities on the River Tees and in The Hartlepools area are now intending to come together in order to 721 create a new unified control over the ports in the area. It is very much to the credit of these authorities that they have undertaken what have no doubt been very difficult negotiations and discussions with the many parties interested in order to bring about a reorganisation. That they have made very good progress is evident in the fact that their scheme—which, I understand, will be submitted to Parliament very shortly, and to which my hon. Friend referred—will be the first of its kind in England. There has been a scheme in Scotland, on the Clyde, but this will be the first scheme in England following the lines of the recommendations of the Rochdale Report. The scheme, to be put forward in a Private Bill, will, of course, have to be given the most careful examination through our Parliamentary procedure.

The progress made here also reflects the initiative and lead being given by the National Ports Council in recommending estuarial groupings. But my hon. Friend will understand quite well that even if a Bill had been published so that we knew its detailed provisions, it would, in any case, be improper of me tonight to discuss any of the provisions of such a Bill. Therefore, the answers to many of the questions he raised will depend very largely on the Act—as it will undoubtedly become—that will emerge after Parliament has given its scrutiny to the Bill shortly to be put forward by the authorities on the Tees and The Hartlepools. There are, however, one or two general points on which I hope I can help my hon. Friend without trespassing on the territory that will be covered by the Bill.

My hon. Friend has put forward a picture which might be called pessimistic in some respects. He has referred in relation to the Port of The Hartlepools to the fact that in recent years there have been declining traffics and declining revenues, uncertainty about the future of the coal trade and about development generally. But one thing that must not be overlooked is that the British Transport Docks Board, which at present owns the Port of The Hartlepools, has put in programmed expenditure of £390,000 there for the period from 1965 to 1969. My hon. Friend referred to this. I say that this is what is programmed; it has not yet been decided how big the expenditure will actually be.

722 Nor would it be right of me to say anything definite about that tonight, because that would be committing the new estuarial authority, which is to be proposed by the forthcoming Bill to a particular kind of expenditure and a particular kind of scheme. But I am quite sure that the authority will not fail to consider each part of the undertakings which will come into the group as, in fact, the British Transport Docks Board does at present.

One of the advantages of estuarial control is that it will ensure the complementary and co-ordinated development of nearby and interrelated ports. This is one of the objects of the scheme. This is a far better situation than one in which each part of an estuarial group is weakened by duplication of facilities and wasteful and profitless competition such as we have had in the past.

Nor do I want my hon. Friend to get the wrong impression about the fact that specific mention of The Hartlepools was omitted from the interim plan of the National Ports Council. The plan, which is, as its name implies, only an interim plan, contains a warning against any such pessimism. If my hon. Friend will look at paragraph 4 he will see that the plan is … an attempt … to concentrate on development proposals most obviously required in the present state of knowledge, and the justification for which is least likely to be weakened by extensions of the data available about port traffic and operation. This is an interim plan and is concerned with immediate priorities. When my right hon. Friend made his statement on 28th July about the interim plan he made it quite clear that no development scheme would be ruled out simply on account of the fact that it was not mentioned in the plan. Individual schemes worth over half a million pounds must be submitted to my right hon. Friend for consideration in consultation with the National Ports Council and each will receive most careful examination on its merits.

I hope this illustrates the general point that there is belief in the future of Hartlepools now and there is certainly no reason to think that the new authority will take a less optimistic view in the future. I know that my hon. Friend would like me to give him some sort of assurance that the Port of The Hartlepools is not going to be pushed out as it were by its neighbours in the Tees under 723 the new authority, but he, I am sure, will know that the General Manager of the British Transport Docks Board and the General Manager of the Tees Conservancy Commission have both recently expressed optimism about the future of The Hartlepools. This is very important. In particular, they have pointed out that all the existing traffic of The Hartlepools could not be accommodated in the Tees; so, to put it at its lowest, there is certainly going to be a continuing need for the services of The Hartlepools.

The association of The Hartlepools with the Tees ports seems to us to offer every assurance that the combined harbour group will have ample resources to develop the ports under its control to deal with the expected upsurge in industry in the hinterland around.

There is not much more that I can say on detailed points for the reasons I have given. Obviously, I cannot commit an authority which does not yet exist but which we hope will shortly come to birth. It is clearly most desirable that this authority should be established as soon as possible. It is also of great importance that its members should be of high ability and place the good of the board and the estuarial group above any particular interests. We do not want the board to be so large as to become unwieldy. We certainly support the view of the Rochdale Committee that the boards should be small enough to provide effective policy making bodies. There may be some interest in the future 724 position under the new authority of the present employees at Hartlepool, but I am sure that my hon. Friend does not expect me tonight to be able to bind a new body to be set up by a Bill we have not yet seen. I say this to allay any anxiety or uncertainty. We should certainly think it reasonable for the Bill to contain provisions similar to those in Section 19 of the Harbours Act, 1964 providing compensation for loss of employment or diminution of pay or pension rights in any reorganisation. We should certainly expect that that would be quite clear in any Bill presented to the House.

Finally, I can only say that I am quite sure that Parliament will scrutinise the Bill that will shortly be forthcoming with its customary care and consideration and that anybody who is aggrieved in any way by the Bill will have the right to petition Parliament to have the provisions altered. We certainly hope that the proposal that will be embodied for an estuarial grouping to include The Hartlepools and link them with the Tees ports will ensure an expanding and fruitful future.