Mr. Speaker, with your permission and that of the House I should like to make a statement on port organisation.

I asked the National Ports Council last year to advise me on the future of the ports in the Forth Estuary and the Bristol Channel. I hope that it will be able to let me have its reports on these particular questions shortly. In the meantime, it has told me that it has found it impracticable to consider organisation in these two areas without at the same time coming to a provisional conclusion about estuarial organisation generally, with particular reference to the future of the British Transport Docks Board.

The Council has now reported to me its conclusions on these questions of principle. First, the Council is satisfied that, in general, its national plan should be based on a limited number of major port authorities, in most cases on an estuarial basis, on the lines proposed by the Rochdale Committee. The organisation and ownership of these new authorities may well follow varying patterns, depending on what is best suited to the area. But it recognises that there will continue to be a number of independent medium-sized and smaller ports with important functions to fulfil.

Secondly, certain of these major groupings should be under the control of the British Transport Docks Board. In these cases methods will be worked out to secure full consultation and co-operation between the Board and local interests.

I told the House on 10th July last year that the Government accepted in principle the general idea of estuarial or regional groupings wherever likely to promote greater efficiency. In most cases these groupings will be brought about by harbour reorganisation schemes in accordance with the Harbours Act. Detailed proposals will, of course, have to be considered on their merits in accordance with the procedures, laid down in the Act. I have asked the Council to go ahead on the lines is proposes. But I have made it clear, in view of my responsibilities as Minister under the Harbours Act, that I am not forming any opinion in advance about any particular amalgamation scheme.

I welcome the Council's proposal that the Docks Board should continue as a permanent feature of the ports industry. The Board has achieved a major success since its establishment under the Transport Act of 1962. In some areas the Council's proposals for estuarial reorganisation may mean the loss by the Board of certain ports. In other areas, where the Board is already the predominant dock authority, the proposals may involve the assumption of wider responsibilities.

So much for general principles. Today, I can only speak about one particular case—that is, the Ports of Bristol and Newport. The Council has told me that it sees no advantage in proceeding with any amalgamation of these two ports. I accept this conclusion.

We welcome the Minister's statement, which shows that the National Ports Council is already getting down to this important job. I should like to ask one or two questions. First, I gather that a report will be made to the right hon. Gentleman reasonably soon about both the Forth Estuary and the Bristol Channel. Will the House be informed of the decision of the Minister?

Secondly, in his statement the Minister said: The organisation and ownership of the new authorities may well follow varying patterns, depending on what is best suited to the area. Many of us who have port interests, would like to know exactly what that means and how it is proposed to be worked out. I ask the Minister for an assurance that the House will have a chance to discuss it.

Thirdly, we welcome the Minister's remarks about the Docks Board. There is only one mistake in his statement. He refers only to 1962. Before he brought in the 1962 Act the Docks Executive also did a magnificent job. We welcome its continuation, but would like an assurance that the work that it is given to do is compatible with the best interests of the whole nation.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) for welcoming the statement. As for the Bristol Channel, the whole of the Bristol Estuary must await the detailed proposals of the National Ports Council. I mentioned only two cases because I thought that it was desirable to get them out of the way as quickly as possible.

Secondly, the House will have many chances under the Harbours Act to discuss any proposals that the National Ports Council may put forward, and I am sure that those hon. Members who are interested in certain ports will have their chances to say what they wish to say.

Finally, I agree that the Docks Section of the British Transport Commission did very well. I think that it has done even better since 1962.

I appreciate that the same sort of formula will not apply to different estuaries, but can my right hon. Friend tell me whether there is any chance of a voluntary amalgamation between Newport and Bristol? Has he anything further to say on that point?

The information that I have, and the advice that I have received from the National Ports Council, is that an independent port authority would not be desirable there, nor would it be desirable for Bristol to take over Newport or for Newport to take over Bristol. I accept that conclusion.

In connection with the Forth Estuary, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when we can expect a decision from the Ports Council with regard to the proposed extension of the Leith Docks, which has been before the Government for four years how, and which has been warmly supported by the Rochdale Committee, the Scottish Trades Union Congress and the employers? Can he now give us a date when he can make an announcement about the future of this scheme?

I cannot give a date about the scheme, for the simple reason that the Ports Council is at present working on this and hopes to make a submission to me shortly. I saw Lord Rochdale last week and I specifically asked him about this, because I knew that the hon. Member would be in his place and I forecast what question he would ask. I therefore asked Lord Rochdale what his views were. He said that he had not formulated them finally, but when he had he would let me know. I asked whether he could tell me today and he said, "No". I hope to have a decision from him in the near future.

Has my right hon. Friend any immediate plans for the reorganisation of those ports serving the rivers which empty into the Wash? In particular, can he give me an assurance that before any change takes place in respect of the amount of trade which is encouraged at King's Lynn the Borough of Wisbech will be considered as a harbour authority for that port?

I said in my original statement that I could not say anything about plans for particular groupings in any estuaries until the National Ports Council had made specific proposals. That is what the Council was set up to do, and I cannot decide anything until it does. But it will be some time before it comes to my hon. Friend's area, because the docks and ports there are on the small, side.

Is the Minister aware that there will be general satisfaction with the energy that the Docks Board is showing in connection with South Wales, but that there will be one major disappointment in respect of his statement, namely, that it contains no reference to the future of the Port of Barry? As there is a growing trade in the port, and as the Rochdale proposals have been initially condemned by nearly everyone, can the Minister tell us why it has not been possible to say that Barry will continue as a port?

Again, as I said originally—I put this in the statement quite deliberately—in respect of Barry, as in the case of other estuaries, I must wait for the Council's report. I should like to meet the point put by the hon. Gentleman if I could, but I am sure that I cannot until I have received the full report of the Council.

The Minister mentioned smaller ports which will still have important functions to discharge. Would it be within the terms of reference to consider the need for harbours of refuge? Is he aware that there has been discussion of the point that, apart from the Port of Bristol, there is no harbour of refuge from Bristol to Land's End? Would it be possible for these matters to be considered by the Council?

If it were something necessary for trade, yes. I should like notice of the question about ports of refuge.

The Minister will realise that Barry occupies a special position, as it is under sentence of death, unlike other ports about whose future there is no doubt. Can the Minister, therefore, ask the Council to give a special decision about Barry in advance of its general reorganisation proposals as firms there are waiting to know what the future will be before proceeding with other developments?

I realise that there is uncertainty in the case of Barry, but I must point out that there is uncertainty about almost every other estuary. I will convey to Lord Rochdale the sentiments and feelings of the hon. Gentleman.