§ Mr. R. C. Mitchell (Southampton, Itchen)I very much regret the need for this debate. I wish to be careful not to say anything that could exacerbate the situation. I am speaking not on behalf of the management or workers involved in the disputes, but on behalf of the people of Southampton. They are fed up and frustrated by the seemingly endless series of industrial disputes, which is slowly killing our port.
It is nine months since the port of Southampton worked normally. Southampton is a town of 200,000 people. Its prosperity depends largely on international trade and commerce. It could and should be one of the major ports—if not the major port—in the country. It has many natural advantages, such as double tides and the capacity to deal with very large ships. It also has the geographical advantage of being close to the Continent and is ideally suited to take advantage of the new trading patterns that have emerged since Britain entered the EEC.
The major shipping companies, both British and foreign, want to use Southampton. In the 1970s, through the initaitive of the British Transport Docks Board, Southampton developed some of the finest container facilities in the country and it has the capacity for further expansion, should the need arise. All that is threatened by the prolonged series of industrial disputes, which started in March and which are still going on. It is sad to be taken round what should be a busy dock and to notice an almost total absence of ships. The problem is not only local but national. Some of the ships that normally use the port have been diverted to other British ports, but many have gone to our Continental competitors. That can only mean a loss of revenue to Britain.
The shipping companies—notably the Solent Container Consortium—have suffered severe losses. It is increasingly doubtful whether many of the shipping companies that have been forced to make other arrangements will return to Southampton when the disputes eventually end. Thousands of people in Southampton are not directly involved in the disputes, but they depend for their livelihoods on ships entering the port. Those employed in the import-export business, shipping agents, freight and forwarding agents, small firms, self-employed people and even the town's taxi drivers, have had their incomes dramatically reduced in the past few months.
I have said enough to demonstrate the seriousness of the problem for Southampton. As the Minister knows, Southampton does not face the normal type of industrial dispute between employers and workers. This is not the sort of dispute in which an employer is offering 5 per cent., while the workers are asking for 10 per cent. Matters are much more complicated than that. The dispute involves arguments about relativities in earnings and working conditions enjoyed by one group of workers compared with another. It is complicated by the fact that for historical reasons two trade unions—the Transport and General Workers Union and the National Union of Railwaymen—are involved. Early in 1981 the situation began with a dispute involving registered dock workers. After a long time, that was settled. However, it was 1034 followed by disputes involving other groups in the port. For several months there has been a dispute involving 150 checkers which shows no sign of being settled. It will certainly not be settled before Christmas.
ACAS has been involved in several of the disputes with varying degrees of success. The difficulty with ACAS is that it is equipped to deal with an individual dispute between an employer and a group of workers but it does not have the capacity to deal with the problems of the port as a whole. A settlement with the checkers could have repercussions among the other groups of workers in the port, who have threatened that if the wrong settlement is reached they will renew their industrial dispute.
It is often difficult to ascertain the facts because of accusations and counter-accusations. It is no part of my task today to try to apportion blame between management and workers or between one group of workers and another. I pay tribute to the management and to those trade union officials who have worked hard to try to find a solution to the problems in the port during the past nine months. They recognise the dangers of the position.
I am glad to see the Under-Secretary of State for Transport on the Front Bench. I wish to quote from a letter that I received from him on 15 December, in which he says:
As much as I deplore the present situation and its damaging consequencies for the many whose livelihoods depend on the Port, there can be no question of Government involvement. Day to day management of the Southampton Docks is the responsibility of the British Transport Docks Board. And the Board is convinced that its firm stance in the current dispute will, in the long run, ensure the future viability of this Port.I recognise that the Government are reluctant to become directly involved in industrial disputes. However, in this case the normal processes of negotiation are not proving successful. The position has dragged on for so long that the time has now come at least to consider an alternative arrangement. I wish to suggest the possibility of an inquiry into the pay structure and industrial relations problems in Southampton docks. It is an overall problem, although it has been brought forward in a series of individual disputes. Because of the need for speed, I suggest that one person skilled in industrial relations, with perhaps two assessors—as Armitage had—could produce a comprehensive report quickly. If the port of Southampton is to survive, we must get back to normal working as soon as possible. Furthermore, if the shipping companies are to be encouraged to return to Southampton, the settlement must be lasting. They must have a guarantee of normal working for some time.I have received dozens of letters asking me what I can do or what the Government intend to do. I wish to quote parts of a letter from a lady, which sums up the position well. She said:
How long is this dispute to be allowed to carry on in a port which has the maximum tidal facilities … the best container facilities in the country? What 'come back' do the self-employed people in the port have? My husband's money was cut by half last month, yet he cannot get any recompense. … The financial side with all its implications is bad enough, but my husband is not being allowed to do the job that he has worked for since he was 16 years old. … Why do they want to kill Southampton which could possibly be one of the best ports in Europe?Please, what is being done about the situation before still more professional people are going to be forced to look abroad for occupation legitimately due to them in the country where they trained and have served?That is a cry from the heart from a lady whom I do not know. I do not even know what job her husband does in 1035 the port. However, it is typical of many letters that I have received. I know that the other hon. Members who represent Southampton have also received such letters. It shows the frustration felt by large numbers of ordinary people who cannot understand why a settlement has not been reached. I hope that the Minister can offer us some ray of hope this afternoon.I sincerely hope that I will not have to attempt to repeat this Adjournment debate at Easter or next summer. I appeal to the Minister to do whatever he can to bring about an early settlement so that our port can once again resume its place in the trade of Britain.
§ The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. David Waddington)The hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell) has raised a matter of great concern to the Government, and that is evidenced by the presence here today not only of myself but of my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Transport. The matter is also of great concern to all hon. Members.
Happily, the industrial disruption we have seen in the port of Southampton since March of this year has not been repeated in other parts of the ports industry or, indeed, in industry generally, but it has provided a glaring example of the really bad side of industrial relations in Britain. What has been happening has been bad for trade, bad for jobs, bad for Southampton and bad for Britain, and there is no sense in it. We all want an end to it, and a settlement to be reached. I do not want to say anything that could make the achievement of a settlement more difficult, but it is right that I should follow the example of the hon. Member for Itchen and my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) who have done their level best to bring home to those concerned the harm they are doing to others.
I shall not depress myself and the House before Christmas by going into a long history. I will merely try to give the general picture. Although until this year Southampton had a relatively good record for industrial relations, there have been in recent times a number of minor disputes and underlying unrest—mainly between different grades of workers and between members of different unions. The multiplicity of agreements and working practices have not helped.
In those circumstances, the British Transport Docks Board decided to make a determined attempt to bring the various working practices into line and adopt a common working arrangement for various shift systems. That was essential to meet changing traffic patterns. Great credit is due to it for the determined effort it has made, and is still making, to achieve its objectives. It is essential for the well-being of this great port that its efforts should be successful. It never expected that its negotiations would be easy and that they would be accomplished overnight, but no one could have expected the problems that have come about. A major factor has been squabbling between the members of the different unions. It is high time that those working in Southampton docks realised that, if they are not prepared to consider the thousands of the families dependent on the docks, they must realise that their own livelihoods depend on their being prepared to work together.
The dismal story is that from March to July there were disputes stemming from the pay negotiations for registered 1036 dock workers. Those took the form of 24-hour lightning strikes, an alleged lockout when the BTDB said that port operations would cease until dockers agreed to halt disruptive action, and a ban on overtime and night shift working.
On 17 July a two-stage agreement on pay was accepted by a mass meeting of dockers but, when negotiations took place to finalise shift working arrangements for the other groups who work on the container berths, new trouble broke out. Full shift working was eventually resumed on 3 September but when, on 19 September, revised shift arrangements were introduced for the checkers, who are NUR members, to bring them in line with the working arrangements for the other groups, they refused to work the new arrangements.
Since 23 September, they have been working on a day shift basis, Monday to Friday only. All other groups then reverted to day working on 31 October and the dockers have now threatened industrial action if a settlement with the checkers is more favourable than their own. Some given to nautical metaphors might say that employers are between the devil and the deep blue sea.
Throughout the dispute ACAS has been in close touch with the situation and the parties know that it is still ready and willing to help. Hon. Members have been quoted in the press as despairing at ACAS's inability to bring the parties together, and there have been calls, before today and again today, for some sort of inquiry into the dispute, but I think that this view both underestimates ACAS's contribution to reducing the areas of conflict at Southampton over the past months and overestimates the part that an inquiry might play in achieving a settlement.
In fairness to ACAS, it must be put on the record that it helped achieve an interim settlement in the summer. Subsequent difficulties led to further conciliation and ACAS appointed a mediator in November as a result of which the difficulties which had arisen over premium payments for shift working and rostering of NUR checkers were cleared up. Unfortunately, certain matters such as manning and grading were specifically excluded from the mediation and remain to be settled. But, looking at history, we should not underestimate what has been achieved already by ACAS, and ACAS is ready and willing to help the parties further if it can. Therefore, I do not accept the assertion of the hon. Member for lichen, that ACAS has not the capacity to deal with the problems of the port as a whole.
The key issue raised in the debate is whether an inquiry would help achieve a settlement, but one wonders what is the point of an inquiry when most, if not all, the salient points are known. The British Transport Docks Board is trying to get a more rational set of working arrangements. Its proposals conflict with deeply entrenched rivalries between particular groups of workers and their unions. Trade is being lost to Southampton and more will be lost and lost permanently unless the remaining issues in dispute are settled. The jobs of other than those of dockers and checkers are at stake. Those are the facts. Everyone knows them. An inquiry is not needed to reveal them. An inquiry could elaborate on them but not change them. An inquiry is, in my judgment, less likely than ACAS conciliation to bring about a settlement.
This Christmas, in Southampton many people will have to manage on a reduced income. Perhaps they and their wives will use the opportunity of the break to reflect on their actions during 1981. As the hon. Gentleman said, 1037 Southampton is one of the finest container ports in Europe, if not in the world. Given industrial peace, its potential for increased traffic is enormous. One of Southampton's natural advantages is that it is blessed with a double daily tide, but the tide is now running out for Southampton. If the unions, if the individual members of the unions, do not settle their differences and work together, their jobs will be lost, and Southampton will cease being a prime container port. We in Government can only state the obvious and pray that people are not so stupid or so wicked as to ignore it. Thank goodness the parties are still talking. Therefore, hope for a solution still remains.