Port of London Authority (Hansard, 2 August 1978)

§ 15. Mr. David Hunt
asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends next to meet the chairman of the Port of London Authority.

§ 23. Mr. Viggers
asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends next to meet the chairman of the Port of London Authority.

§ 24. Mr. Gow
asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends next to meet the chairman of the Port of London Authority.

§ Mr. William Rodgers
Late in August, I expect.

§ Mr. Hunt
Is the Secretary of State aware that Sir John Cuckney declared that there could be no commercial basis for the right hon. Gentleman's decision on the PLA? Does he therefore agree that his decision has been solely political 744 and that it will not only cost the taxpayer millions of pounds but will, in the chairman's words, delay the re-establishment of a viable port and place even more jobs in jeopardy?

§ Mr. Rodgers
I think that the hon. Gentleman asked three questions. The answer to all three is "No".

§ Mr. Viggers
Is the Minister aware that that is not an acceptable answer? Is he not aware that it will cost between £250,000 and £500,000 per month not to accept the advice of the Port of London Authority, and that he is flying in the face of all opinion and comment that has been made to him, except that of the dockers?

§ Mr. Rodgers
That is not true. I did not wish to be cavalier with the hon. Member for Wirral (Mr. Hunt), but I tended to be rather shorter in my answers than is sometimes the case. This matter was looked into with great care, and it would be quite wrong to assume that the decision was made this way because of pressure from any quarter. I do not think that the views of the chairman of the PLA are as clear-cut as has been suggested. The main cause of losses in the Port of London is plainly overmanning, and my proposals deal explicitly with that. I have also made plain that there must be changes in working practices. Unless those occur, and unless we have a plan to make the Port of London viable, money will not be paid towards it.

§ Mr. Gow
Is the Secretary of State telling the House that it is not the view of the chairman of the Port of London Authority that the failure to close the two Royal docks will cost between £250,000 and £500,000 per month? Secondly, is it not the case that this use of public money to this extent has nothing to distinguish it from the highwaymen and bandits of former times?

§ Mr. Rodgers
The hon. Gentleman's second remark is nonsense. I should like the Opposition to make plain whether they believe that the only solution to the problems of the Port of London is to close one dock. This is simply not so. The problems of the Port of London are far more deep-seated. They involve not only economic and industrial considerations, but also social and human factors. I think it would be very foolish of the 745 House not to look at the matter seriously and in depth.
Of course, the chairman of the Port of London Authority put forward certain proposals as a basis for receiving support from the Government. I expect that he is somewhat disappointed that we have not been able to accept them all.—[AN HON. MEMBER: "Cowardice."] But we have, in fact, endorsed his recommended strategy, and that is the important factor.

§ Mr. Rooker
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. A few moments ago, I distinctly heard the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) use the word "cowardice" in respect of the first answer by my right hon. Friend. Will you call upon the hon. Gentleman to withdraw that charge?

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. It is out of order to accuse anyone of cowardice in this House. We all know that none of us is a coward.

§ Mr. Moate
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It was I who levelled that accusation of political cowardice. As it is against the rules of the House, I withdraw the accusation.

§ Mr. Speaker
I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman.

§ Mr. Rooker
I apologise to the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington.

§ Mr. Spearing
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that much of the decision that he has made, which will be welcomed in East London, is based on the Government's policy for the regeneration of industry and society in Fast London, and that whatever may be the finances of the Royal docks at present, much of the loss arises from the present position, not necessarily from the position of the Royal docks as they could be in the future?

§ Mr. Rodgers
Yes, I think that my hon. Friend is right. Certainly he is right to emphasise that there was no suggestion at any time that closing the Royal docks or any other would be a solution to the problems of the Port of London Authority. As the House knows, before reaching a final view on the PLA's recommended strategy, I had the advice of a leading firm of accountants, Price 746 Waterhouse and Company. It did not recommend the closure of a dock, and that is precisely my position.

§ Mr. Norman Fowler
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is absolutely no doubt that the chairman of the PLA disagrees profoundly with the policy that the right hon. Gentleman has announced? May I put two matters to him? First, do the Government accept the traffic forecasts of the PLA itself, which show that the upper docks will receive a declining share of a declining market? Where, then, is the trade coming from to justify his decision? Secondly, is he now saying that there is a permanent future for the Royal docks? If so, is he aware that so far his answers in the House and outside give the clear impression that he himself does not believe that to be the case, so that this is simply a cynical device for getting past an election?

§ Mr. Rodgers
The hon. Gentleman is entitled to make his last remark, but that is not the case at all. It is a serious attempt to deal with a very real problem. If the hon. Gentleman had been as close to it as I have been, he would recognise the real complexities of getting a solution which will work. I hope very much that our solution will work. I think he will find that the chairman does not disagree "profoundly"—the hon. Gentleman's word—with the decision that I have taken. Obviously, in so far as he put forward a proposal for closure of a dock, he must be disappointed. But I believe that he and the board will be glad that I have otherwise endorsed their recommended strategy.
As for the future, nobody can forecast the extent of world trade. Nobody can forecast the share of it coming to Britain which the PLA may secure. I should like the Port of London to have a viable, stable and prosperous future. But the future of the port lies with all who work in it, and they will decide whether the Royal docks and the other docks stay open for a matter of months, a matter of years or for a very long time ahead.

§ Mr. Loyden
Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the remarks from the Opposition Benches this afternoon show a cynical attitude towards the docks and the problems of the traditional docks 747 and a disregard for the broader problems that the closure of docks represents? They also display complete ignorance of the effect that this has on communities and on the environment in areas where docks are closed. Does not my right hon. Friend agree that if the Opposition's proposals were carried out in the major traditional ports, this would cause absolute chaos in the docks industry?

§ Mrs. Kellett-Bowman
Too long.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. A lot of hon. Members have been asking lengthy questions this afternoon. I heard, but I do not know whether the Minister heard, the concluding part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question.

§ Mr. Rodgers
I think the attitude of the Opposition to this has been cynical, as my hon. Friend says. It has also—and this, to me, is more relevant—been very superficial indeed. If they think that the very real problems of dockland can be dealt with simply by a quick surgical operation, they should think again. Of the many representations that I have received, there have been a great number from the community of East London in many different ways, certainly not principally from the trade unions. These are the people who are very deeply concerned about any immediate decision to close the upper docks unless there are overwhelming reasons for doing so.