HC Deb 10 February 1971 vol 811 cc749-60

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

2.8 a.m.

Mr. Neil McBride (Swansea, East)

I was surprised, on Monday, 1st February, to hear the Secretary of State for Wales say that no inquiries had been made of him about the future potential of the South Wales ports, with special reference to Swansea.

I believe that the ports are one of the principal assets of the nation and should be listed in value to the nation. I believe that the reversal of this procedure, lack of inquiry, indicates a lack of liaison between Ministers of the Crown. Where Swansea and Wales are concerned, we cannot disregard the sea communications position in the Bristol Channel.

The future potential of the Port of Swansea is a matter of great importance to South Wales and, indeed, to the United Kingdom. The continued and increasing trade through the port must be maintained, and it is necessary to maintain a prosperous port in Swansea and a prosperous industrial hinterland behind the port, because each is interdependent on the other.

When we look for the ideal spot where sea traffic ends and overland traffic begins, we find that Swansea's position in economic, physical and commercial terms places it unquestionably in the top ten of the United Kingdom ports. Of all ports on a convergent point between sea and inland transport, none is better placed than the Port of Swansea.

The present success story of Swansea shows the willingness of all concerned to work with boldness and foresight for a policy adopted to secure a great future for the Port of Swansea. It is natural, therefore, to look for the Government's blessing and to hope that this will be forthcoming. Industrial relations in the port are good, and I say regretfully and sincerely that the only visible worsening agent to that is the Bill which we have been discussing tonight.

So we come to the bread-and-butter part of our national life and the part that Swansea plays now and the port's potential, and if I commence with the present position and project the future potential I would say that 1970 was a record year for the port. The total traffic through the port exceeded eight million tons. If 1952 is taken as capacity, with traffic through the port at 11.6 million tons, in 1970, with more than eight million tons, the operation could be said to be 50 per cent. below capacity.

Yet, without extending the dock estate, there are potentially 12 new berths within the port, and this could provide employment for about 450 men. Vessels of up to 18,000 tons could use these facilities at all times, and with favourable tides vessels of 30,000 tons could use them. Within the dock boundaries there are about 70 acres of land available for marshalling cargo, and a further 35 acres will be available soon, and here I congratulate the British Transport Docks Board on its excellent management of the Port of Swansea.

I now come to two concepts where I think the potential of the Port of Swansea is something that should be assisted now to provide for the future. The first concept is that of a port of Europe, the so-called Europort. For several years there has been heavy insistence on the development of an east coast port, or ports, as so-called Euroports. It seems to me advisable that, having regard to all the circumstances which I shall mention later, one of these could, with profit to the country, be created in Swansea. If thought is given to the choice of Swansea, it will be seen from a lot of what I shall say latterly that the choice will be well made. Money would require to be spent, but in my view this would be a sound investment for the United Kingdom, Wales and Swansea, and I shall mention an example of how this induces speedy and heavy private capital investment in an area such as I shall describe.

The establishment of Swansea as a Europort could be done in two or possibly three stages. In stage one, there would be a modernisation programme and usage of the present facilities relating to sea, land and air transport. In stage two, there would be the building of a new dock on a site between the Neath River and the existing dock, the rebuilding of Swansea airport, connecting up motorways and the rebuilding of the railway system. In stage three, there would be the building of a breakwater across Swan-sea Bay where large ships could be berthed in an artificial harbour.

Stage one would be an interim measure to accommodate present-day needs and to provide for container and roll-on-roll-off ships. It is in stage two that the speculative planning must be developed. It would be necessary to build a new dock between the Queens Dock and the Neath River for the new ships. Ships of the twenty-first century would require a dock such as this. The length of this dock would be 1,500 feet and the width would be 200 feet. The lock would have sliding casson gates and it would be possible for this dock to take the largest ships. The approach channel of 1,500 feet width and two miles in length would require to be dredged and this channel would be 10 fathoms deep at low water spring tides to enable ships drawing 55 feet to arrive and sail off for a full 24 hours a day.

The airport would require enlargement to transport away the goods and passengers to the rest of Britain and Europe, and air travel would be an ancillary service. The roadways in stage two would have to be those presently planned, and the railways, with freightliner terminals, would be speeding up transportation overland.

Next we have to consider the possibility of a Channel Tunnel being constructed. A hovertrain is another possibility. The journey from Swansea to the rest of Europe could become an overnight trip. All these things are realisable. It is amazing how the seeming fantasy of yesterday becomes the reality of today. In relation to the airport, this development would be a rewarding outcome for the great part that the City Council has played in the development up to date. The whole of stage two would require expert planning on a long-term basis to serve our country and the rest of Europe.

Stage three would be a progress development where big transports from overseas could lie moored in open water. These would be liquid carrier and bulk carrier ships, parent/barge ships, gas ships and similar large vessels.

If we look at the latitudinal and longitudinal position of Swansea, the city is nearer the Americas than is any other major West European port and certainly any British port. It is on a direct route to the U.S.A. and has deep-water entry from any part of the world. It is interesting to note that Swansea is nearer to New York, Cape Town and Suez than is London, Liverpool or Southampton. When one considers the congestion of Liverpool and London and the fact that recently in Swansea we have been taking overspill dock traffic from there, one sees that the point has stronger emphasis. From the marine angle, a convergent point of sea traffic, Swansea, means that it is the nearest point for continental Europe and for which ships can make.

In relation to inland transport, where the sea meets the land, the excellence of the geographical position of the port is again revealed. The city is approached by two main arterial road networks from the Midlands, with similar arterial and motorway roads from east and west which give access to the rest of Britain.

There are those in the House who know that rail communications lead everywhere from Swansea, with fast city-to-city services to London. If we assume that Birmingham is the centre of industrial Britain. Swansea is nearer the centre, give or take a mile, than many other towns. The distance from Swansea to Birmingham is 127 miles. The distance from London to Birmingham is 110 miles; from Southampton to Birmingham it is 128 miles; and from Liverpool to Birmingham it is 90 miles. Swansea is more accessible and nearer in steaming distance than other ports in the Bristol Channel. Ships can speed at 15 knots to Swansea. Bristol is 66 miles further on. Four hours and 24 minutes steaming time could gain another tide either way. Ship expenses are a matter for consideration.

There is a question of the inclusion or exclusion of Swansea as a maritime industrial development area. But in any case, exclusion is purely academic. In 1969 the then Secretary of State for Economic Affairs referred to the preservation of areas around ports suitable for inclusion in what was termed M.I.D.A.S. The prerequisite here was 5,000 acres of mostly flat land, a favourable hinterland, and a port with deep water access. Swansea Bay has all these minimum criteria and presents a more favourable case as a maritime industrial development area than do ports in the upper Bristol Channel—and certainly much more favourable than Portbury or other developments in that area. With 6,000 acres between Kidwelly Flats and Llanelli, it follows that Swansea and the Swansea Bay area form a good port site suitable for modern facilities. We live in an age of large bulk carriers, and Swansea could he developed with these in mind.

The advantage in South-West Wales of relatively low-cost land is another factor. Industrial land in or near to large towns costs from £2,500 to £5,000 per acre freeehold. I contrast that with industrial land in the Midlands, which costs £10,000 per acre and upwards, and, as we know, the price in London is even higher—even more astronomic.

Development costs money, but spending must be weighed against the provision of national assets. I think that both the concepts to which I have referred, the Europort and M.I.D.A.S., are developments in the area which would be assets for the nation. I ask the Minister to consider the evidence. The national need must be provided for and, if it were assisted by the Government, Swansea could provide the need for a modern port complex. Today, the port is part of the nationalised Port Authority.

I come to the economics of the affair. It has been shown in Rotterdam and Antwerp that the creation of new port facilities is a prerequisite for large-scale development. The rapid industrial growth of these Continental ports followed decisions by the respective port authorities in 1947 and 1954 to expand their port facilities. So rapid is the effect of such decisions today that the mere announcement that Rotterdam intends to build a new oil channel costing 150 million guilders has resulted, within six months, in private industrial development decisions involving the total investment of 1,200 million guilders.

I hope that the Government will consider our part of the country when they come to the choice of site for a new port complex. Swansea has vision and is reaching out for the future. But the city and the port face the future with reality, and I have tried to back them in their arguments for the Europort and M.I.D.A.S.

The potential of the port is there. All the arguments are based on reality. With Government interest and support and inclusion in the list of the nation's top 10 ports, Swansea could take her place at the centre of one of the trading crossroads of the world.

2.23 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths)

The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. McBride) has spoken powerfully on behalf of the great port which he helps to represent, and has outlined a most ambitious vision of its possible future. I am glad to have this opportunity to discuss one section of the ports industry which is so important to our country and to South Wales in particular, and I welcome the presence of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Welsh Office.

The port of Swansea is one of the group of South Wales ports owned and run successfully by the British Transport Docks Board. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is a success story. I believe, too, that it has a bright future, but it is a future which, in my judgment, is founded not so much on the uncosted visions that the lion. Gentleman has outlined as on the concrete achievement of the port's management, its dock workers, and the many private firms which are investing in its future development.

I do not deny that Swansea has important advantages, but the fact that it is closer, as the hon. Gentleman puts it, to New York, Cape Town and Suez can hardly be counted among those advantages. A few score miles one way or the other make comparatively little difference when one is considering voyages of many thousands or tens of thousands of miles. Therefore, to claim that Swansea has a competitive advantage over Liverpool or London in shipping freight to North America or east of Suez makes no particular commercial sense, since it is virtually the same as claiming that Chelsea and Kensington are nearer to Cardiff than is Westminster. It is a marginal point.

What matters more than distance is the comparative speed and efficiency and the comparative costs of loading and unloading ships between one port and another. I would guess that a 1 per cent. cost advantage in, for example, the speed of turning ships around would more than make up for many scores of miles of so-called distance advantage enjoyed by one port over another.

But I do not want to dampen the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm, although I noticed that he carefully refrained from putting any costs to his ambitious schemes. My preference is for the sound and sensible policies of my right hon. Friends the Minister for Transport Industries and the Secretary of State for Wales, which are admirably designed to provide Swansea with what it most needs—confidence and competitiveness. The confidence is already apparent and it is based not on dreams but on facts.

Currently, Swansea is handling some eight million tons of cargo per year, including over five million tons of petroleum products, most of which are shipped from the B.P. refinery, and over one million tons of anthracite coke.

Mr. McBride

I agree that the confidence and the ability are there, but one plans by standing back and seeing that something is needed for the future. That would need to be costed, but if we are to create a new society that would be one of the preliminaries.

Mr. Griffiths

I shall come to some of the future plans in a moment. The financial results at Swansea are also better than in most British ports. Its net surpluses have risen over the years to some £72,000 in 1969, and the results for 1970 are expected to be much the same, which is a healthy indication in a year which, due to last summer's dock strike and strikes in other industries surrounding the docks, was not generally a good year for the ports as a whole.

As the hon. Gentleman said, labour relations are good, and this, too, is a favourable portent for Swansea's future. I gladly pay a tribute here to the contributions of the Port Director and his staff and of the trade unions in the port.

I understand that the hon. Gentleman made a broadcast today in which he said, among other things, that there were no plans on the part of the Secretary of State for Swansea's future. I must disabuse him of this idea: he could not be more wrong. Take industry, for example. Around Swansea Bay, a great deal of capital investment has already been put in by the British Steel Corporation, B.P. Chemicals, the Ford Motor Company, International Nickel, A.L.C.O.A. and many other great growth companies. In the port itself, more than £4 million has been invested in capital works in recent years, on such projects——

Mr. McBride rose——

Mr. Griffiths

If the hon. Gentleman wants an answer, he must not interrupt.

Mr. McBride

My mention of there being no plans related to any developments in relation to the concept of which I spoke.

Mr. Griffiths

I am glad to have that clarification. Then there is the reconstruction of the West Pier, the Eastern breakwater and the new road facilities. The future investment programme of the British Transport Docks Board provides for a further £3.5 million on the extension of wharves, the renewal of cranes and fork-lift trucks and the modernisation of sheds and workshops over the next few years.

To put figures to it, in 1971 new investment will amount to £609,000. The projected figures for 1972, 1973 and 1974 are £479,000, £786,000 and £920,000. These are my right hon. Friends' projected plans for the growth of this port. Against this background I was surprised to hear that the hon. Gentleman in his radio broadcast had spoken of "neglect."

The future plans for Swansea are most encouraging. It would be wrong for me to describe in any detail the progress of confidential commercial negotiations, but I can say that discussions are proceeding between the British Transport Docks Board and the British Steel Corporation with a view to improving and expanding the tin plate exporting business. Petroleum exports, too, are growing nicely. Future prospects look good. The recently inaugurated roll-on-roll-off service to Cork is another success story. I am hopeful that the operators will be attracted to run new services to France and to Spain. Passenger traffic passing through the port has risen from about 4,000 in 1963 to the present figure of over 150,000 passengers a year.

Road access is a problem at most of our ports, but, thanks in large measure to the efforts of my right hon. Friends, ambitious plans for further improvements are already in hand. By the end of this year the M.4 will be completed as far as Newport. There are firm plans to extend it to beyond Bridgend. The Pyle by-pass is in the programme, so that by about 1976, looking to the future, virtually the whole of the A.48 between Cardiff and Swansea will be dual carriageway. Meanwhile, by the end of this year the current major bottleneck in the centre of Cardiff will have been relieved by the completion of the Eastern Avenue scheme.

As regards traffic to the Midlands—the hon. Gentleman mentioned Birmingham—the last stage of the new Midlands road linking the M.5 and the Ross Spur with the M.4 at Newport is under construction. This means that by next year there will be a dual-carriage road all the way between Birmingham and Newport, and this will link with the A.48. This road has already been completed as far as the Usk. The dualling of parts of the A.465–the Heads of the Valleys road—is being extended towards Swansea with the construction of the Glyn Neath bypass. A further length of new road is to be provided between Aberdulais and Llandarcy.

For all these reasons, I hope that the hon. Member will agree that, far from there being neglect or a lack of plans, there is abundant evidence of the Government's care for the future of the port of Swansea and of South Wales generally.

I am aware that a number of South-Wales Members, including the hon. Gentleman, have expressed misgivings about the effect on the South Wales ports of the Government's decision last November not to withhold approval under Section 9 of the Harbours Act for the Port of Bristol's proposal for a new West Dock. The hon. Member has been frequently on record in criticism of that decision.

I must tell the hon. Gentleman, because it is relevant to this debate, that this decision was made after the most careful examination of the submissions made by Bristol and of the comments and recommendations made by the National Ports Council, which had considered the area on both sides of the Channel as a whole and which is the Government's statutory adviser in matters of this kind. The Government were satisfied that the commercial prospects for the proposed new dock at Bristol offered satisfactory expectations that an adequate return would be achieved on the capital invested. Taking into account the cost of the scheme, which was less than that of its two predecessors, and the prospects of increased trade and revenue for the Port of Bristol, there was no reason whatsoever why Section 9 approval should have been withheld. Indeed, it would have been quite wrong for us to prevent Bristol's investing what, after all, is its own money, at its own risk, in its own port development.

Here let me emphasise to the hon. Gentleman that in this matter of submitting proposals for port development projects there can be no question of Government direction of trade or direction of ports. If any port can produce a good case which satisfies the detailed scrutiny to which it is subjected by the National Ports Council and by my Department, there is no reason for the Government to withhold their approval on the ground that some sort of similar development might be undertaken at another port. I should tell the hon. Gentleman here that, in fact, no other port, and certainly not Swansea, has submitted any such proposals for consideration.

Therefore, I see no reason why the construction of the West Dock at Bristol, which is a natural development, bearing in mind the decision to close the Bristol City docks over a period and to concentrate dock development nearer the sea, should adversely affect the prospects of the South Wales ports in general or of Swansea in particular.

The traffic of Bristol, on the one hand, and of the South Wales ports, on the other, are in many respects complementary. Swansea handles mainly oil, coal, iron and steel, tin plate and non-ferreous ores. Bristol's principal cargoes include grain, feedingstuffs, molasses, fertilisers, wood pulp and chemicals, though it handles considerable quantities of petroleum products as well.

There is no reason I can see why development on both sides of the Bristol Channel should not continue to progress in a similarly complementary fashion. But it would be wrong, both from the point of view of the ports themselves and from the point of view of the national interest, to attempt to put an artificial brake on healthy competition. Indeed, if our ports of the future are to be prosperous, financially stable and forward-looking, the spur of competition is needed as much in the ports industry as in our industry and commerce as a whole.

I know that the hon. Gentleman was disappointed when the British Transport Docks Board decided not to oppose Bristol's Private Bill which will give powers to construct the West Dock. I found his reaction—I must tell him—somewhat surprising. The British Transport Docks Board is the owner of Swansea Docks. He has himself paid tribute to its effective management of it. The British Transport Docks Board, as the custodian and, I believe, the best judge of Swansea Docks' interests and future, having given the most careful thought to the Bristol Bill, came to the conclusion that it would be wrong to oppose it. Its decision was clear, and, in my view, it was right.

I remind the hon. Gentleman, also, that the British Transport Docks Board was not alone in thinking that it would be wrong for South Wales' interests to adopt a dog-in-the-manger attitude to the West Dock scheme or to drum up a scare story that somehow it represents a threat to the trade of the Welsh ports. The hon. Gentleman may have read the letter written by Professor Hallett of the University College of Cardiff last November to the Western Mail. He said: I welcome the decision to allow Bristol Corporation to proceed with the plan, provided it bears the full cost"——

The Question having been proposed after Twelve o'clock on Wednesday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-two minutes to Three o'clock.