HC Deb 01 February 1972 vol 830 cc403-14

11.9 p.m.

Mr. James Johnson (Kingston upon Hull, West)

I begin this debate about the future of two docks in West Hull with a quote from the Hull Daily Mail of 21st January. It said: It was a sombre day for North Humberside yesterday. The shock announcement that there are now more than 10,000 people out of work in the area was grim enough, but it was not the only blow to befall Hull and its immediate neighbours. On 27th January the leader said: What must puzzle many people is that this docks closure comes at a time when the country as a whole is being urged to prepare for entry into Europe. This, if it means anything at all, must be a tremendous challenge to those docks most likely to be affected by European imports and exports, of which Hull is preeminent. On Thursday, 20th January, at 9.30 a.m., the Hull docks manager summoned some 80 gentlemen—port users, trade union officials and others—to see him and at 11 a.m. the bombshell burst upon them that the docks were expected to close by 31st March and there would be 200 redundancies. These would be among members of the N.U.R. —dock porters, loaders, shunters and others. The Hull Docks Board is having universal odium showered upon it all over the city. The situation calls into question the board's whole administration and management.

The able N.U.R. secretary, Mr. Tom Waddington, got in touch with me. The action taken by my colleagues and myself has been taken in consultation with the unions concerned, the N.U.R. and the Transport Salaried Staffs Association. We have their full backing. I wish there had been the same sort of teamwork between the board and the unions as there has been between the National Coal Board and the N.U.M. over pit closures.

A leading Hull industrialist, Mr. Weekes, President of the Hull Association of Engineers, said: To the people who build ships at Goole and have to fit engines at William Wright Dock, Hull, closure of the dock would be most unfair. There should be collective discussion and much more notice given of any intention to close the William Wright and Albert Docks. The Hull Chamber of Commerce, in much the same strain, said it was gravely concerned" about the planned closure. It explained its objections. We immediately got in touch with the Chairman of the British Transport Docks Board, Sir Humphrey Browne, at Marylebone. He saw me and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). The Minister said it was a matter for the board management. He added that he could not interfere with the board in anything it considered necessary to keep the docks viable. I do not accept this. I put down a Question to the Minister to which the answer was a monosyllabic "No". We were told by the chairman that the closing of two docks at some stage was inevitable since the modern Eastern docks had more than ample capacity. We got the usual bromides, for example that the closure was vital to the health of the port, and—another magnificent cliché—that no one a few years ago had contemplated the speed at which cargo handling methods would change.

To allay any fears in Hull, particularly in West Hull, about the fish dock, I am assured that the commercial docks administration is kept separate from the fish docks and that as far ahead as can be estimated there will be fish docks on both sides of the Humber.

We were told that the loss on the docks to be closed was £860,000 in 1970 and would be just over £1 million in the current year. To our dismay the chairman refused to give any more detail beyond stating that the closure of the Western docks would make economies of perhaps a £¼ million or £400,000. These docks represent £4 million in assets. It is scandalous that these modern, well-equipped docks should close on the west side of the city where there is easy access to the West and Yorkshire by means of the railway freight terminal and main highways. What puzzles union leaders, and of course Members of Parliament, is the nature of the financial and economic arguments which are advanced since we have been given no breakdown of the port's finances.

For example, what are the interest payments and total overheads? Do they amount to £1¼ million or £1½ million, as I have been told? What percentage is due to the East docks or the West docks? Without detailed figures any argument or debate is completely phony, particularly as I am told by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn), who has allowed me to use his name, that Liverpool Members of Parliament are willingly given access to financial information by the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board.

The docks board in Hull owns large areas of land. Why can it not sell some of the land to obtain money to pay off debts? In my constituency we have no land for building houses; we have to go to the east of the city to get land to house our people. A firm named Kinsey's has investigated the finances of the guildhall and the city. I wish that it could have a go at the docks and the Railways Board, which has a dead hand over Hull.

At a meeting of workers and port users, considerable criticism was voiced. The docks board set up a two-tier system whereby most things at the Humber Ports Association level are duplicated in the four Humber ports. The workers and port users criticised and charged the management with being completely ineffective in running Hull docks and for failure to secure traffic. The docks manager indicated that prices quoted to consumers for handling traffic at Hull were higher than anywhere else in the country except London.

The unions have found unusual allies at this time in that the industrialists and those who do business in the port have sent a telegram to the Prime Minister signed on their behalf by a former colleague. Mr. George Odey, a well known industrialist and a former Member of Parliament for Beverley. A storm of feeling has been aroused in the city. I ask the Minister to examine Hull's position again. He must surely know that future Humberside development is on the way if we are to enter the European Economic Community. Bearing in mind that his Government have given the go-ahead for the Humber bridge and for motorways linking with the M1, he must also bear in mind that there is a slump in world shipping. When we become more buoyant, as the Minister so often on behalf of his Government tells us we shall, we expect him to show this with reference to Hull. He must show this to maritime and commercial circles.

There is also the worsening of the further deadening impact on unemployment figures. In the light of this, I ask the Minister to consider the possibility of suspending interest payments on Government loans. In any event, I ask him to intervene with the Chairman of the British Transport Docks Board and to delay the closure until a thorough inquiry is made into the administration of Humberside docks.

Feeling in the docks amongst the workers is high. I am speaking of some of the most responsible unions in the T.U.C., including the N.U.R. and the T.S.S.A., but it would not take much to spark off industrial action. We therefore-expect the Minister to make a positive gesture and give an indication of the sort of action that he feels it is possible for him to take.

11.20 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wall (Haltemprice)

The Conservative Government believe in efficiency and not in featherbedding lame ducks. They also believe in private enterprise. I think that the Government are right and tonight I am not asking for special help for the Hull docks, because I believe that they could and should be made to pay their way, but the present policy of the dock board is endangering many of the private enterprise firms which use the docks.

It will be within the recollection of hon. Members that about 10 years ago Hull was attracting trade from the London Docks because of London's continual strikes and inefficiency. I am sorry to say that since then owners have tended to avoid Hull because our docks have a bad reputation for labour relations. Futile one-day strikes may succeed in killing the Hull port, and these strikes have already in part been responsible for the decision to close two docks. I repeat that they will be responsible for killing the port if they go on.

But this is only one side of the story. There has also been inefficient management, and I will give three examples of what I believe illustrates this statement. It will be seen, therefore, that both sides have a responsibility for the possibly disastrous effects of the present policies on the Port of Hull, the third biggest port in the country.

First, I am informed that there are unused parts of the area of the docks the future of which we are debating, with derelict buildings and derelict railway sidings. I am told that offers have been made for these properties by local firms and that these have been rejected, probably owing to uncertainty about future planning. I believe that the loan charges already referred to could be offset by selling these properties, which could then be put to good use.

Second, I support what the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) said about the difficulty of obtaining financial information from the docks board. This difficulty is not conducive to good public relations or good relations with hon. Members of this House.

Third, there is the whole question of lack of consultation with the users of the port. As we have heard, the trade unions were not sufficiently consulted. The users were not consulted at all. This makes for the worst possible kind of public relations, especially when a decision to close the docks is announced without any consultation.

St. Andrew's is the fish dock which I know well as it used to be in my constituency before the redistribution. Here we see a good illustration of what I mean by inefficiency on the part of the docks board. Charges have risen, though this is perhaps not unusual. There has been very little modernisation of the fish docks. In fact, I am told that since 1954 only just over £500,000 has been spent on modernisation but that about £420,000 of that sum represents war damage repairs.

There has been very little future planning. The size of the lock gates determines the size of the trawlers that can use the dock, rather in the way that the size of the American fleet used to be determined by the ability of warships to go through the Panama Canal. The quayside is such that modern machinery cannot be used, because the quayside would fall in, and it is clear that there has been gross lack of planning and modernisation of these docks by the docks board. I am told that there has even been a threat to close these docks, but I have been glad to hear that this threat is null and void.

Mr. James Johnson

I want to make it clear, because this matter is bound to worry people and we do not want to make the people of West Hull scared, that what the hon. Gentleman is mentioning now is not a starter.

Mr. Wall

I am delighted to hear that. The hon. Gentleman is chairman of the Fisheries Committee on his side of the House and I am chairman on this side. Naturally we have personal interests in this matter. I am sure that if there were any foundation for the threat contained in the rumours which have been circulating, it could not have been carried out.

In the St. Andrew's dock the owners have offered to pay for a work study because they believed that the dock was inefficient and was losing money. This offer was turned down. Why? By allowing an impartial inquiry, the docks board could justify its increased charges. and demonstrate that it was being efficient.

I believe therefore that there is a case for saying that in the Hull docks as a whole there is inefficient management. It is clear that there are bad labour relations, and that there has been no consultation with port users or trade unions, that the Albert and William Wright docks constitute a major public utility and that there is grave local concern which cuts across party boundaries.

A telegram was sent to the Prime Minister, as the hon. Gentleman said, and I should like to quote the operative paragraph. It is signed by my constituency president, Mr. George Odey, a former Member of Parliament and prominent industrialist, and by my chairman, Mr. Robert Locking, a prominent solicitor in the area. They say: We urge you in the strongest possible terms to order a public inquiry into the administrative and financial position of Hull Docks to ensure the future prosperity of Hull as a port for Europe. This is the note on which I should like to end: the future prosperity. We have the possibility of the closing of these two docks hanging over our heads and no assurance that the efficiency and administration of the docks board will improve. This uncertainty may spread to other parts of the port. I therefore believe that there is a strong case for a public inquiry. I know that a Select Committee of this House is to visit Hull in the near future and that the Minister may feel that he should wait until that visit has taken place, but a Select Committee takes a long time to make its report and I do not believe that there is much time. I therefore hope that the Minister will tell us that there will be a public inquiry within the shortest possible time.

11.28 p.m.

Mr. John Prescott (Kingston upon Hull, East)

I will take no more than two or three minutes, because the Under-Secretary obviously has to reply to this important debate. I shall have to curtail what I had hoped to say, so I will restrict myself to one or two points only.

The first point that we want to get clear from the debate is that it is not inevitable that the docks will have to close. If they do, it will be the result of the financial policy which is being forced upon them: namely, that they must make a profit. That is the policy which the Government have put out. The Minister and I have debated this point before. In order to make a profit the docks must cover the interest charges. The Hull docks have made profits but they have not been able to cover the huge interest charges of over £1 million on the £25 million which has been invested in the last decade or so.

This creates a problem for a port like Hull, because it means making higher charges and competing with some of the smaller ports which do not have to cover the charges for the great amount of investment which a new port requires. For example, it costs only 17½p to unload a ton of grain in one of the small unregistered ports down the Trent compared with 60p in Hull. This presents a challenge to the policy of financial obligations which are placed on the nationalised industries.

We cannot seem to get any detailed financial information about these individual docks. We have approached the Chairman of the British Transport Docks Board but he has told us that we cannot have the information. The Under-Secretary should stand up for the rights of Members of Parliament and demand to have the information which we require about this industry. I am blocking a British Transport Docks Board Bill which is before this House and will continue to do so until we get the information. The Minister should ensure that the information about the costs involved and the alleged savings is made available to Members of Parliament. I hope that he will get on to the chairman of the board and tell him that we need that information.

My last point concerns the traffic fall. The unemployment level in Hull is so high that the unions face situations, though on a smaller scale, like Clydebank, Plessey and Fisher-Bendix in Liverpool. There comes a point, particularly when Hull is dying the economic death of a thousand cuts, when workers will say, "To hell with it; we will not accept it", and will pass a resolution, like that passed by the N.U.R., saying that they will not co-operate with the increasing closure of docks. I understand that view and support it. That seems the only way to force any sense into a Government who dictate this kind of financial policy, which is dedicated to the exaltation of profit but means 1 million unemployed, 10,000 of whom are in Hull. The workers and the unions in Hull will not accept it, and we shall do all we can to resist it and any other possible closure.

11.30 p.m.

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

In many ways this is a sad occasion. It is sad because the subject of the debate is the possible loss of jobs by some of the constituents of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson), and because the two docks which are to be closed have meant a great deal to Hull. I have had a good deal of personal experience of those two docks.

The occasion is sad because in the 1950s and 1960s a good deal of public money was invested in the William Wright and Albert Docks in the hope that they would pay their way. But, alas, they have not done so, and the losses have continued to mount. It is sad, too, because of Hull's apparent failures to grasp the great opportunities that lie before it.

For me personally it is saddest of all because hon. Gentlemen opposite, in their speeches, have simply refused to recognise that the Port of Hull's salvation lies very largely in the hands of those who work there, whether in management or in the unions, and who have, alas, in too many cases, on both sides of the table, through dispute and division, done themselves and the port no good.

Coming to the hon. Gentleman's speech, my first and most important point is that the decision to close the two docks is a matter for management. Parliament has set up the British Transport Docks Board as a statutory undertaking, and it is right that management should be left to the board. I emphasise that at the outset, because hon. Gentlemen opposite have suggested that the Government should intervene to prevent the closure of these docks. My right hon. Friend and I do not consider it right that we should intervene. Even if we did, we have no locus and no powers in law to do so. My right hon. Friend's powers under the Transport Acts—

Mr. James Johnson

Is the Under-Secretary saying that he has no powers whatever, even to ask the chairman of the board to delay any future closure?

Mr. Griffiths

We have no wish to intervene in the management's judgment of what is best for the port. We have no powers to tell the board how to run its business. I understand, too, that there are no powers in the local legislation affecting the Port of Hull that would have any bearing on such a question.

Warmhearted as always, the hon. Gentleman is rightly concerned about the effect of the proposed closures on the men employed in these docks. I hope that he will accept that I am just as concerned as he is about present and future employment prospects, whether in Humberside, Bury St. Edmunds, or anywhere in the United Kingdom; nor is the British Transport Docks Board in any way lacking in recognition of the human problems involved. Indeed, before the main board in London reached its decision on Wednesday last, the matter had been very carefully considered by the local board in Hull, and the staff representatives were informed in advance of its proposals. No one has yet been given notice of termination of his employment, and, whilst it is true that about 200 docks board employees are likely to be affected by the decision, I understand that the board will do its utmost to deal with the redundancies, as far as possible, by voluntary severance arrangements, and that this will cover the port as a whole, so that all the redundancies need not—and, I sus- pect, will not—be centred in these two particular docks.

The reasons for the closure are matters for management, but the board has been making increasingly heavy losses at Hull in the past seven years. In 1969 it lost £567,000; in 1970 it lost £830,000; and last year the losses are expected to have been about £900,000—not, as far as I am aware, £1 million. All this was in spite of efforts by the board to reduce costs and increase revenue. Therefore, the proposal to close these docks has not suddenly arisen. It results from a thorough review of the financial results of the facilities on the Humber as a whole, a review which has been going on for some years.

It is true that in the late 1950s and in the 1960s £3 million of further capital was invested in these two docks. In my view it is a great pity that that expression of confidence has not been justified in the events. The point has been reached at which the board has come to the conclusion that it is better to cut the mounting losses than to pursue further what now seems to the board to be the hopeless quest for adequate revenue on its past investment.

Hon. Members opposite and my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall), who has intervened in the debate, have raised questions about the financial situation. I am bound to tell hon. Members opposite that there is annual publication of the accounts of the Hull docks in the accounts of the British Transport Docks Board.

Mr. Prescott

rose—

Mr. Griffiths

I will not give way.

Mr. Prescott

But that is not sufficient information.

Mr. Griffiths

The hon. Member must learn that when he leaves the Government spokesman with nine minutes to reply to an Adjournment debate, he will not get all the answers to his questions.

Mr. Prescott

Look deeper.

Mr. Griffiths

The hon. Member would be wise to wait, and then he might listen and learn.

I was saying that the financial statement of the port is contained in the annual report of the docks board. The new chairman of the board, Sir Humphrey Browne, is well aware of the problems of the industry as a whole and of the Port of Hull in particular and I am confident that he will reverse, if it is possible to do so, the disappointing trend that we have confronted.

I want to deal with some of the specific points that were raised concerning land. There may well be opportunities that need to be grasped and I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice that it is most certainly the policy of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport Industries that in all the nationalised industries for which my Department has some responsibility we should encourage the sale of as much land as possible at a commercial price, in part to help the housing problems to which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West has referred and in part also to help the finances of the board.

Concerning the fish dock, perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me, since this was not the main subject of the debate, simply to say that this is a rather special case. I am, however, glad that discussions are now under way between the management of the port and the British Trawlers Federation. I will keep my hon. Friend advised about all I learn on this subject.

I cannot leave this subject without saying that those who work in the Port of Hull, whether management or labour, have not helped themselves. There is the problem of surplus labour. This is a very real problem. Within the Port of Hull a number of stevedoring firms have been driven out of business simply because they are not allowed, as the National Dock Labour Scheme now operates, to divest themselves of surplus labour.

It is equally the fact that the industrial troubles have made the port's financial situation very much worse. There has been a whole series of extremely damaging one-day stoppages arising from various disputes, and frequently these strikes have taken place without warning, doing unaccountable damage to the shippers and to foreign shippers in particular. In October, 1970, there were two one-day stoppages. In December that year and January, 1971, there were four separate one-day stoppages. In March and April last year there were other one-day stoppages—

Mr. Prescott

Why?

Mr. Griffiths

—and between May and July there were not fewer than 13 separate one-day stoppages in the Port of Hull. I am bound to say that this does not help to create a climate of confidence for the port's future.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock, 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-one minutes to Twelve o'clock.