Nationalisation Proposals (Hansard, 17 January 1968)

§ 20. Mr. Ian Lloyd
asked the Minister of Transport (1) whether, in view of the devaluation of sterling and the representations of the Confederation of British Industry and the British Shippers' Council regarding the damage to the economy arising from the nationalisation of our ports, she will now reconsider this proposal;

§ 47. Mr. Wingfield Digby
asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of devaluation, she will postpone the nationalisation of docks and harbours.

§ Mr. Swingler
No, Sir. Reorganisation of the ports on the basis of national ownership is necessary to strengthen the planning of a national ports system, to increase efficiency, and to improve working arrangements.

§ Mr. Lloyd
How far can the Government be mesmerised by the psychedelic qualities of its own dogma? Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that virtually every institution in the private sector to which the Government are appealing to help the export drive is opposed to these measures? Will not the Government make some small concessions?

§ Mr. Swingler
The organisations to which the hon. Gentleman refers in his Question have, as I have said previously, represented to us that, while they are opposed to public ownership, they are in favour of changes being made in the 1779 structure of the port industry to establish a strong central planning authority. In the Government's view, this cannot be achieved effectively without extending public ownership of the ports. We have many nationalised ports through which the nation's imports flow. Some of the ports where trouble occurred were not nationalised.

§ Mr. McNamara
Would not my hon. Friend agree that if the "hippies" on the benches opposite had put more capital into the ports and reorganised them earlier, there would be no need to nationalise them?

§ Sir G. Nabarro
On a point of order. So far as I am aware, Mr. Speaker, there is no precedent in this House for the use of contemporary slang and an opprobrious term such as "hippies" to refer to my hon. Friends and myself. Would you rule that the term "hippies" is unparliamentary and should be withdrawn?

§ Mr. Speaker
We are behind in Questions. I hope that we will not have points of order during Question Time. Mr. McNamara.

§ Mr. McNamara
Would not my hon. Friend further agree that nationalisation is part and parcel of the agreement of the dock workers, together with decasualisation, to create a new atmosphere in the ports and to get them running as efficiently as we want them?

§ Mr. Swingler
We have had to take immediate measures to improve the ports because of the amount of obsolescence which the Government inherited in all respects. It is generally agreed all round that important changes must be made in the ports industry. In the Government's view, this cannot be achieved satisfactorily to get the planning authority which we need without public ownership.

§ Mr. Ridsdale
Why are the Government acting ahead of the nationalisation of the ports against private enterprise by imposing a limitation of 100 miles on the radius of motor transport from Harwich, which means that we cannot trade with the Midlands?

§ Mr. Swingler
That is not so. If I understand the hon. Member aright, what the Government are proposing in the Transport Bill is that it shall be put 1780 before the licensing authorities whether it is more economical in the national interest to carry goods by rail or by road over these distances in lorries of a certain weight. That does not mean that licences will be refused to road hauliers. If road hauliers can do a better job, they will get a licence.

§ Mr. Webster
What is the cost of these nationalisation proposals? Is the Minister aware that the Manchester Ship Canal Company is the only company which has reduced its costs in recent years?

§ Mr. Swingler
I am very glad that that has been done by the Manchester Ship Canal Company. There are many interesting comparisons to be made amongst the ports, one-third of which are already nationalised, and I do not receive many complaints about them. Much trouble has, nevertheless, occurred in ports which are not nationalised. When we consider all these factors, if we are to get the planning authority which is generally desired, in the Government's view we shall not achieve it except on the basis of public ownership.

§ Sir G. Nabarro
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for having raised a point of order during Questions.
A number of my hon. Friends and myself were active in opposing the nationalisation of docks during the course of Questions, whereupon the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. MacNamara) referred to my hon. Friends and myself as "the hippies opposite". In common usage, a hippy is a drug addict. I for one, speaking only for myself, object thoroughly to this. As, within my recollection, this is the first time that the expression has been used in the House, I wish to put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is utterly unparliamentary and ought to be withdrawn. May I ask you to cause it to be withdrawn?

§ Mr. Speaker
I hope that hon. Members will not raise this kind of point of order during Questions. Now that it has been raised, may I say that I did not hear the word "hippy". Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker is a "square" and is not quite aware of all the connotations of some of the modern terms that are floating about. I am quite certain that whoever used the word was not accusing hon. Members 1781 on the Opposition benches of taking drugs, but was using it in a frivolous sense.

§ Mr. Bessell
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not wish to delay the House, but perhaps I might draw your attention to the fact that the Dictionary of American Underworld Lingo clearly defines the term "hippy" as being someone dulled by many years of imprisonment.

§ Mr. Speaker
I had hoped that we could proceed with the important business of the day.