HC Deb 02 May 1969 vol 782 cc1856-64

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

4.4 p.m.

Mr. Alan Lee Williams (Hornchurch)

The subject to which I wish to refer may appear to some hon. Members to have only a limited interest, but I believe that it raises question of general interest for London as a whole. It is certainly not a constituency matter, because the western entrance of the Royal Victoria Dock is outside my constituency.

The Port of London Authority has decided to delay the closing of this lock for a month to enable further consultations to take place between the various interests, but I submit that, if after that month of consultation, the P.L.A. decides to close the lock, the closure will mean that the lighterage trade, which is the only user of the entrance, will be burdened with unavoidable additional costs—for example, an increase in nonproductive man-hours, longer towing distances, and certainly a reduction in flexibility of both craft and men.

This lock was opened by the P.L.A. about three years ago at a cost of just under £2 million. It is in the close vicinity of the major grain mills in London, and it was to these mills that the lighterage industry was planning to carry in large quantities of bulk grain from the new Tilbury grain terminal. The action of the P.L.A. could prejudice this traffic from the £5 million Tilbury grain terminal. This plan to serve the grain terminal by the lighterage industry had been decided some time ago, and in response to this new challenge the lighterage industry spent large sums of money in purchasing larger barges and in reconstructing existing craft with a view to reducing overall costs. One company, William Cory, spent £30,000 on buying and refitting one barge of 1,000 tons from Germany which previously served the Rhine. This barge, called the Meriden, was purchased exclusively for this job.

The P.L.A. provides, as it should, every cost-saving facility to both road and rail. I should have thought that it should consider the wider implications of a further rundown of the greatest highway of them all, the River Thames. I believe that it should actively discriminate in favour of the Thames because of the ever-increasing congestion on the roads and all the inconvenience and cost which it creates for the travelling public. It will add to the delay of road transport in the docks if it implements its decision to close this lock, for the only two entrances which could be used if the western entrance is closed is the King George V lock or the Lower Gallions Lock.

All vessels, including barges, would have to use three and maybe four road bridges, which will have to be opened far more than they are at present. Further, if a ship arrives at Gallions Lock or a message is received that a ship has reached Gravesend, the ship will be given priority. It takes a little time for a ship to get from Gravesend to Victoria Docks. That craft might have to wait outside the lock entrance for some hours. It has been estimated by the employers and the watermen's union that this will mean an additional cost in overtime amounting to about £2 per man a week. In addition, it will cause further congestion and waiting time for road trans- port in the docks. The Manor Way swing bridge, which has temporary provision for only one-way single line traffic will be subjected to further congestion.

Part of the argument of the P.L.A. is that the barge traffic has been reduced by 50 per cent. In terms of barge movements, this is undoubtedly true, but it is due to the fact that the barges are larger and fewer in number.

The Association of Master Lightermen and Barge Owners and the watermen's union were notified of this decision some two weeks before it was actually discussed by the P.L.A. Board, and I would like to quote from the letter received by the general secretary of the Association of Master Lightermen from Mr. Dudley Perkins, the Director-General of the Port of London Authority. He said: A major factor which has influenced our consideration of lock capacity at the Royal Docks is the decline in barge traffic since the decision to reopen the entrance was taken in 1960. In the last nine years, barge movements have fallen by 50 per cent., and a recent study of lock entrances carried out by our Management Research Department indicated that only two entrances were required at the Royal Docks to handle the present levels of ship and barge traffic. It is my information that the real reason for the closure of this lock is a little more complicated than that, although no doubt this is also a factor. The main reason is that the P.L.A. has been able to work out a productivity deal with the men who man and maintain the lock, which will mean that it will be able to make an annual saving of £30,000. However, this has to be compared with the £2 million spent in 1967 on modernising the lock, since it was damaged in the war.

I think that the P.L.A. should emphasise a little more openly its real reasons for deciding to close the lock. If the lighterage concerns are given an opportunity, I am sure that they will be able to advise the P.L.A. how economies can be made without the detriment to their interests involved in the closing of the lock.

The western entrance leads to the largest enclosed space of water in the world, and the lighterage industry plays a vital part in the Port of London in relieving congestion over the quays and on the roads. It is, in fact, an essential port service.

The cumulative effects of closing this entrance, the Surrey Commercial entrance for barges, the Blackwall entrance, which affects the West India Dock and one of the entrances to the Surrey Commercial Docks, and the Tilbury old entrance deal a grave blow to the competitiveness of the lighterage industry. Certainly it will affect both the flexibility and cost of its present operations and make it difficult for it to have confidence in the future when it faces the radical challenge of port reorganisation.

I know that the responsibility of the Minister is limited, because he has been good enough to write to me on the subject. I raise the matter in the Chamber only because I wish to draw public attention to the facts and also to ask my hon. Friend to persuade the Port of London Authority to look at the matter afresh. Without interfering in the day-to-day management of the P.L.A., my hon. Friend has the right to draw attention to the needs of the wider public, who in the long run will have to pay higher costs for anything carried by the lighterage industry, and ultimately of those people using public transport within the vicinity of the docks, who will have to suffer inconvenience if the lock is closed for the reasons that the Port of London Authority has stated.

4.15 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Neil Carmichael)

I am sure that the House will be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Alan Lee Williams) for raising this important matter and for the typically fair-minded way in which he has explained the issues as they affect the lighterage industry. As my hon. Friend will realise, the decision whether or not to close the western entrance to the Royal Victoria Dock is a matter of management for the Port of London Authority and my right hon. Friend has no power either to approve or disapprove of such a closure.

Naturally, however, the Government can understand and sympathise with the concern which has been expressed by the barge and lighterage industry and by the unions about the effect of the closure upon the industry and its costs. My hon. Friend has explained these problems in some detail. Equally, the Government can understand and sympathise with the efforts that the Port of London Authority is making to reduce its expenditure so as to improve its financial viability. I am not here to take sides, with either party, merely to provide what information I have available.

First, let me say that I am sure the House will welcome the Authority's decision to postpone the closure for at least a month so as to give time for full consideration in collaboration with both sides of the industry on possible solutions to the problem.

I am sure that the House would wish me to pass on the very full explanations which have been given to me by the Port of London Authority about the reasons for its proposal to close the western entrance to the Royal Victoria Dock. It is desirable that I should, because it is right that the House should know these reasons, which seem to make it clear that the Authority has not put forward this proposal without having very carefully weighed up the relevant issues as it sees them. Equally, I am sure that the Authority will wish to take careful note of the points that my hon. Friend has made about the issues as they appear to the lighterage industry. In this way this debate may prove a useful background to the further discussions that are to take place.

The Authority has explained that in common with other ports the Port of London has been undergoing a period of very rapid change and that to maintain its position amongst leading world ports it has been engaged in massive developments which have placed a severe strain on financial resources. It says that with the object of reducing expenditure to the minimum, while maintaining an efficient service, every aspect of the Authority's activities is being subjected to critical examination. I understand that as part of this process the operation of the entrance locks giving access to the Authority's enclosed docks systems has been studied in depth and one of the conclusions arising from this study is that the Royal Group of Docks is over-provided in terms of locking capacity for barges.

There are at present, I am told, three entrance locks in the Royal Group of Docks. Two—the King George V entrance, which is the main ship lock, and the Lower Gallions entrance, which is predominantly used for barges, but can also handle ships—are situated at the eastern end of the docks. The third lock, the western entrance, is situated at the western end of the docks, and is a barge lock only and cannot handle ships because the Silvertown Viaduct passes over the inner end and restricts the headroom available.

The Port of London Authority says there has been a serious decline in barge traffic in the Port of London and that this decline was continuous, but at a slow rate in the period 1960 to 1965. Since then it has gained momentum and in the last three years has resulted in a reduction of 29 per cent. in the number of barges using the Authority's docks.

The total annual barge movements throughout the Authority's docks have dropped from about 150,000 in 1960 to less than 90,000 in 1968. In the Royal Docks, movements in and out have dropped from 60,000 to 29,000 in the same period and are still declining. My hon. Friend has referred to the fact that larger craft are now being used, and that while the numbers may have declined tonnages may not have done. Detailed tonnage figures for the Royal Docks are not available, but in the enclosed dock system as a whole, total tonnage handled by barge has dropped from 10 million tons in 1960 to 4.2 million tons in 1968, a reduction of nearly 60 per cent.

The Authority says that at the Royal Group of Docks the decline in the number of barge movements has been most marked in the period since the western entrance was reconstructed, and that the position has now been reached where the two main barge locks are only in use for less than half of the time they are operationally available for traffic. I gather that even during the time the locks are in use their capacity is substantially under-utilised and that on the majority of occasions less than eight barges are locked at each of the entrances, although they can hold up to 17 craft.

The Authority has made a simulation of the situation in which one lock is closed, and the results indicate that even on busy days a single barge lock could handle all the barge traffic with only minor delays and still have about 40 per cent. of its available operational time unused.

The House will be aware from a previous debate that under a statutory provision, usually referred to as the "Free Water Clause", barges normally use the Authority's docks without payment. According to the figures provided by the Authority the total cash operating costs incurred by it in maintaining and operating entrances in connection with the barge traffic and other services relating to it is nearly £400,000 per annum, while the cash cost of operating and maintaining the Western Entrance Lock is £65,000 per annum. It is in the light of these substantial costs that the Authority considered that this was one area in which substantial economies could be made and that in view of the declining traffic the closure on one entrance lock was justifiable.

The Authority assures me that careful consideration has been given as to which lock should be closed and that a major consideration is that the Lower Gallions entrance has the capacity to handle ships and can be used as a relief to the King George V Lock, and a possible alternative in case of emergency. I understand that it can also handle a larger number of barges than the western entrance and that the decision has, therefore, been made to take the western entrance out of use.

Mr. Alan Lee Williams

Is my hon. Friend aware that there has been an increase of 60 per cent. in the use of this lock by ships? That being so, it is clear that barges will have to wait before they can get their turn to go through the lock.

Mr. Carmichael

There has been a simulation by the P.L.A. which I am sure would take into account any increase or projected increase in the number of ships using the lock. We still believe that although there might be a slight delay, nevertheless there will be 40 per cent. spare capacity even with the western entrance closed. We must accept the figures which the Port of London Authority has produced. It has made the investigation and we must accept that it is the authority for controlling the docks and is fully aware of any increase or potential increase.

I am told that the effect of the closure of the western entrance will be to increase the number of barges using the Royal Albert Dock basin to between 100 and 120 per day and that no serious congestion is anticipated as a result. The Authority admit that 10 years or so ago, there was congestion in this area, but at that time there were more than 190 barges passing through the Royal Albert Dock basin per day.

My hon. Friend has referred to the various disadvantages, both to the industry and by possible delays to road traffic, of using the other entrances. The Authority admit that the use of the lower entrance at Gallions Lock may involve some delay to barges from Tilbury bound for the Royal Victoria Dock. This is because two swing bridges have to be negotiated. I imagine that to some extent this may be offset by the increasing use of the larger craft in which the industry has invested, which should presumably enable the same tonnage to be transported in fewer units.

As regards delays to road traffic due to the opening of swing bridges for the passage of craft, the Authority informs me that these are minimised as far as possible, by agreeing certain times during which the bridges are left available to road traffic. However, these are obviously problems of the sort which need to be carefully examined in detail between the P.L.A. and the industry.

My hon. Friend has pointed out that substantial capital expenditure—about £2 million—was invested only relatively recently in reconstructing the Western Entrance lock. I think that the House should be given some explanation about this decision, as the work was completed as recently as March, 1967. I am informed that the Port of London Authority made this decision in 1960 at a time when the severe decline in barge traffic could not be foreseen, and a significant factor was that the reopening of this entrance would enable the Upper Gallions entrance to be reconstructed. This, in fact, has since been done. Although work did not start on the western entrance recon- struction until 1963, because financial restrictions, made it difficult, the same situation obtained at that later date.

The Authority has told me that in the event the work proved much more difficult and costly than had been anticipated and that there is no doubt that it would not have been undertaken if the facts as they are now known could have been foreseen. Their present proposal is, of course, related to the operating costs. The fact that the structure would remain in existence and capable of being brought back in operation if the traffic justified it would, of course, mean that this capital investment would remain in being.

The Port of London Authority sympathise with the concern which has been expressed by the Association of Master Lightermen and Barge Owners and the unions as a result of the closure decision, and they are anxious to explore as fully as possible whether there is some other way of dealing with the situation. They appreciate the need to provide a breathing space for possible alternatives to be gone into thoroughly and have already had discussions in the last few days with both sides of the industry.

As I have said, I understand that in the light of these talks they have undertaken to defer the closure for at least a month so as to give time for thorough consideration, in collaboration with the employers and unions of possible solutions to the problem. Among the aspects the Authority wants to discuss are, I understand, whether there are ways and means of getting over the basic financial difficulties, for example, by an agreed contribution from the industry, towards meeting the operating costs of the lock system in the docks.

I hope that the House will agree, therefore, that we should welcome this offer by the Port of London Authority to consider the matter with the two sides of the industry and hope that the discussions will lead to a satisfactory outcome of the problem.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Four o'clock.