§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]
11.42 pm§ Mr. James Hill (Southampton, Test)It was inevitable that one day this debate would take place. To my distress, it relates to the demise of a great port covered by the Dock Work Regulation Act 1976—Southampton container port, which is the most modern part of the port complex. The 1976 Act promised to regulate the allocation and performance of cargo handling in the ports round Great Britain. It can do no such thing, and the reasons are obvious: a world recession; a vast reduction in the number of British ships; new and aggressive shipowners from the far east; the need to have accurate costings at a minimum cost; and, most importantly, the need to have a reliable work force able to give continuity of service at a price that ship owners can afford.
To give the recent history of the port, 1981 was a disastrous year for labour relations. We should all bear in mind the fact that there are six unions in the port; in 1981 they were all jealous of each other's conditions of work and pay, and leapfrogged each other until the harmony disintegrated. A general dock strike became inevitable because of the 1976 Act.
Not only the stevedores will suffer because of the port's demise, but many ancillary workers, including the Trinity House pilots. The Southampton area has 47 self-employed pilots, whose earnings have been slashed by half. Among the many others who will suffer are the men who operate tugs, the men who operate businesses such as freight forwarders and provisions suppliers, the checkers, crane drivers and manual workers, the maintenance and repair workers and taxi drivers. The well-being of the port is essential to the city.
The catalogue of disaster is long. On 26 June this year the port director addressed the staff. He pointed out some of the commercal realities. For a considerable time shipowners have been saying that the port at Southampton, particularly the container port, had become uncompetitive in terms of price and reliability of service. Associated British Ports has held regular meetings with staff groups to push home that message. A mass meeting of all groups of workers was held on 26 June. They were told about the seriousness of not heeding the message. The meeting was well attended by about 1,200 staff. The message was that business would be lost if performance at the port was not improved.
The foremen's dispute from 16 June to 27 June brought the port to a standstill—but only temporarily, because the foremen and the dock labour force did not always see eye to eye. Indeed, the Southampton dockers took the bombshell decision to cross the foremen's picket lines.
Then came the first dockers' national strike, called because of fears that the Government were planning to rethink the Dock Work Regulation Act 1976. After a few days the Government, through the Secretary of State for Transport, made the concession that they were not planning any review or abolition of that measure and the dispute was settled. The workers at Felixstowe came out on strike during the first national dockers strike.
The second national dockers strike was in support of the general principle of solidarity with the National Union of Mineworkers. It started on 28 August and lasted until 18 1275 September 1984. It was a tragedy for Southampton. The workers there were among the first to go out. They picketed Portsmouth and Poole, but their chief rivals at Felixstowe were working normally. People in the shipping industry began to think that Felixstowe was perhaps the better bet.
A further strike started on 20 October over manning and conditions of work. The main issue is whether there should be two men for the van caniers—the straddlers who lift the containers—or whether, as the Associated British Ports director says, only one. This may seem a small matter for dispute, but it is estimated that, if ABP does not get its way, it will cost about £1½ million.
Therefore, many people have lost faith in the port of Southampton. United States Lines has lost faith, although I always felt that it was not as tightly glued to Southampton as has been suggested. The Dart Containerline, the Mediterranean Shipping Company (East African Service), BHLR (South American Service) and now finally the South African container traffic, have left. Today the container port is empty. The Trio line, the far eastern container service, comprised of German, Japanese and British interests, is still there, but for how long?
In all fairness to the trade unions, they realise at long last the seriousness of the situation. They have been showing Associated British Ports a certain amount of good will in the way of savings. Unfortunately, Associated British Ports is insisting that it cannot compete, certainly with a contract being offered by the South African container service. It cannot compete with other ports such as Felixstowe.
Much of the blame is to be put on the Dock Work Regulation Act 1976. It has given the dock worker a false sense of protection because he feels that he has a job for life, as the Act says, and because he thinks that that will take him through any economic storm. We are now seeing that it is impossible in the real world to protect men from redundancies, or, indeed, in the case of many ancillary workers, unemployment, by an Act of Parliament. Real jobs are created and kept by putting forward a far better proposition to the shipowners than they have enjoyed in the past.
The port of Southampton has the highest costs in this part of Europe. Mr. Ray Williams, president of the Southampton chamber of commerce, who is also a shipping agent, said:
There are lots of trade effects that spread throughout the city when this sort of thing happens. When a ship does not dock the whole city suffers.A well-known haulage firm, Pitters, gets about £200,000 worth of business a year from the Dart contract. A spokesman confirmed that there might have to be redundancies.A top Japanese business man, Mr. Sadoo Oba, said that poor industrial relations in Southampton docks could rule out the new freeport's hope of attracting money-spinning Japanese companies.
§ Mr. Christopher Chope (Southampton, Itchen)The freeport is just within my constituency. I know that both my hon. Friend and I lobbied hard to get the freeport to Southampton. It was the first freeport to open in the country. The sad thing is that since it opened it has hardly done any business because of a row over the national dock labour scheme and whether work that is carried on within the freeport is the job of registered dockers or other 1276 employees. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a further example of the way in which the national dock labour scheme is destroying jobs in Southampton?
§ Mr. HillSo far, the freeport of Southampton has handled one container. The dispute concerns the trade unions' wish to pack and unpack containers occasionally. The dock management board and the union should meet to establish guidelines for when a container has to be handled by the stevedors.
§ Mr. Richard Ottaway (Nottingham, North)Will my hon. Friend accept it from someone who spends quite a lot of time in the shipping industry that it is precisely this sorry catalogue of incidents in trade union relationships in the port of Southampton that makes many shipowners unhappy to use the port? In spite of involvement with the dock labour scheme, until the unions make a gesture, serious shipowners will not return to the port.
§ Mr. HillI agree. There must be good will on both sides. The present dispute is nothing to do with a national one. It concerns shift patterns and whether one or two men can work a van carrier. On the basis of such issues the port of Southampton can be brought to a standstill. A joint committee of the unions has been formed. That is a good step forward. The management is apparently unable to discuss two small points with the unions. First, a judgment will have to be made about whether a freeport is part of the national dock labour scheme and the second is too complex for hon. Members to decide. We cannot say whether it is a one or two-man operation to work a van carrier. That is not our job. The two bodies concerned are near a solution.
I hope that shop stewards of the Transport and General Workers Union, the joint committee and the Associated British Ports director will be able to get together to solve some of the irritants. Southampton does not enjoy this catalogue of despair. Nobody enjoys seeing the port empty. In view of our great past and what we could become, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will give my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope) and me a little hope. We realise that it is a private company, that it is no longer under the auspices of the British Transport Docks Board, that private companies can become insolvent and that docks can be put to other uses. That would be a retrograde step, however, and I sincerely hope that all sides can come together and find a solution so that shipowners will be reassured and return to Southampton.
§ 12 midnight
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Mitchell)My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) has raised an important and disquieting matter. It is important and disquieting for his constituency, about which he has spoken eloquently, and for the country generally. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope) has intervened to draw attention to the interrelationship between the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Test and the free port in his constituency.
What is happening in Southampton is a tragedy for the city, the port, the county and, not least, the 3,000 whose jobs are closely related to the port. What is more, it is entirely unnecessary. The port has natural advantages as 1277 a container port. There are the famous double tides, deep-water access without the need to pass through locks, ample good, flat back-up land for containers and good, fast road and rail communications to important centres of population and of industry. I think especially of the A34 and the improvements that have been made to it as it comes down from the midlands. Southampton has the potential to be one of the great ports of Europe but for the moment a few muddle-headed, short-sighted and stubborn men seem determined to chuck away all that promise and hope for the future.
If a container port is to be in business and provide secure jobs, it must offer its customers a good, quick and cost-effective service. It is in the same position as any other service industry. Customers will not continue to go to a shop, be it a newsagent's or a grocer's for example, if they never know whether it will open. In 1981–82, the port of Southampton was strike bound for the best part of a year because of a dispute over shiftworking arrangements and relativities. More recently there have been the two national strikes, referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Test. During one of them, as he said, there seemed to be an enthusiasm in Southampton to be out in front and in support of the National Union of Mineworkers. Then, when it became known that Associated British Ports could not get an agreement on realistic manning levels, can any thinking man be surprised that the customers pushed off elsewhere?
The tale that my hon. Friend told was like a death toll. Since the end of the second national dock strike in mid-September the following major customers have gone: the United States Line, the Dart Containerlines, the Mediterranean Shipping Company, Blue Star, Houlder Bros., Lamport and Holt and the Royal Mail Consortium. The loss of the South Africa-Europe Container Service is hoped to be only temporary. The result of losing these customers is that the huge berths 201 and 202 have ceased operating.
In these circumstances one would have thought that every effort would be made jointly by men and management to make the port efficient and cost-effective. Indeed, one would think that common sense would demand that. My hon. Friend has described the circumstances which led to the work force's refusal to cooperate with the new manning scales introduced by ABP on 21 October and the company's subsequent decision to close the container port. My information is that the rest of the port is working normally.
The dispute is about manning scales. Southampton, like other old ports, is switching over to modern and less labour-intensive methods of handling cargo and it has had to reduce the size of its work force. It has already made large reductions in the force. Port work is a competitive business, especially in the handling of containers. If a port is not able to bring down its costs to the minimum, its trade will go elsewhere.
Management has tried hard to cut costs, and reduced manning is the most significant key to doing so. I am given to understand that the stumbling block is the manning of the straddle carriers. It is a classic case of an attempt to spread work, with the understandable aim of increasing employment, but in reality it is pricing everyone out of any job. Southampton Containers will not stay in business 1278 unless it cuts its costs and is able successfully to compete. I am aware that that is a painful process, but if adjustments are to be made they must be made as quickly as possible. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that the port management and work force must jointly find a solution to the dispute, and quickly.
I have referred to the shipping lines which have decided in the last few weeks to move their business from Southampton to other ports. Most of those moves took place before the dispute reached its present critical stage. No doubt, shipowners, mindful of Southampton's record and of its dockers' full participation in the two recent national dock strikes, were fearful of what might happen and felt that they must have a more reliable and trouble-free British base for their operations. One of the container terminals had already lost all its business before the management decided that it had to close the container port. The longer the dispute goes on, the less likely can it be that Southampton will see its container business return.
My hon. Friend the Member for Test referred in trenchant terms to the national dock labour scheme in connection with not only the harbour but the free port. My hon. Friend the Member for Itchen referred to that point as well. I would say only this. The ports industry, employees as well as employers, must be seen to make the scheme work. If it is to provide the benefits which its champions claim for it, it must be seen to provide those benefits—not just for some interests, but for the whole of the industry. What is happening now at Southampton demonstrates only too clearly and sadly what will happen to dockers, and to others working in or closely associated with the ports business, if dockers misuse the privileges that the scheme gives them. I deliberately mention people closely associated with a port as well as those working in it, because it is often forgotten that in addition to those directly employed by a port authority there are many others who are engaged in providing essential back-up services or whose trade and commercial activities hinge on the existence and effectiveness of the port. As my hon. Friend the Member for Test said, his friends in the Southampton chamber of commerce have drawn attention to that fact. It is as true of Southampton as it is of anywhere else.
Lest anyone should think otherwise, let me make it quite plain that the Government have no power or influence to bring to bear on this dispute. Like all industrial disputes, it can only be settled between the management and the work force. The responsibilities for ports of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State do not and cannot extend to the industrial scene. He would have been powerless if ABP were still the nationalised British Transport Docks Board. He is equally powerless now that it is wholly owned by Associated British Ports Holdings. The Government are not among those shareholders.
If the Government have no formal position, I very much hope that what I have had to say this evening and the points that have been so eloquently and forcefully put by my hon. Friend will be taken to heart by the work force in the port of Southampton and especially by its leaders. What is happening there is a tragedy for the town and the port, and it lies in the hands of those who work there to prevent that tragedy from continuing.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes past Twelve o' clock.