Now! Then! By promising a bridge over the Humber, Barbara Castle (Lab.) swings the Hull North by-election, convincing Harold Wilson that he can win a general election

18 January 1966: By promising a bridge over the Humber, Barbara Castle (Lab.) swings the Hull North by-election, convincing Harold Wilson that he can win a general election

The Humber Bridge, by Pauline Eccles: “It was 1976 and my brother and I went to see what was happening. Both towers were in place by now. It was an awesome sight” (Eccles 1976).

House of Commons. 1995/12/20. Humber Bridge (Debts) Bill (Second reading). Hansard, Vol. 268. London: UK Parliament. Licensed under Open Parliament Licence, without modification. Get it:

Excerpt

Toby Jessel (Con.): On 18 January, Barbara Castle, the then Transport Minister, pledged to construct the Humber Bridge, and that led to the debt which is the subject of the bill. She wrote: “Off to Hull to speak in the by-election. Photographers at the station. Standing room only at meetings. I told them categorically they would have their bridge. Speech went down well.” Iain Macleod referred to the plan for the Humber Bridge as a pre-election bribe: “First one of the junior transport ministers said that one was not needed. Then came the by-election. The same junior minister promptly became much more enthusiastic about a new bridge. But the by-election continued to turn, and something more was needed. So Mrs Castle says in Hull that there will be a new bridge.” Anyone could predict – and many people did at the time – that the bridge would never pay. If the hon. member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) drove from Nottingham to Hull, regardless of whether he used the M1 or the A614, he would go along the motorway that skirts the southern side of Doncaster. The shortest way from there to Hull – well, the quickest way – is by using the M62 and not to go south of the Humber and then across the Humber bridge. With a toll, it will be more expensive as well as slower. From looking at the map, one sees that there are no large cities to the south of Hull.

Order the book

Subscribe to the free daily email

To facilitate reading, the spelling and punctuation of elderly excerpts have generally been modernised, and distracting excision scars concealed. My selections, translations, and editions are copyright.

Abbreviations

Comment

Context from Chris Cook and John Stevenson’s excellent History of British Elections since 1689:

Given the very close result in 1964, and the precarious majority of the Labour Government, an early second general election had long been forecast. Moreover, with the Conservatives still on the defensive, and the Liberals (despite a by-election victory by a youthful David Steel in the Scottish Borders) hardly relishing a general election so soon, an early election was attractive. By the end of 1965, Wilson was considering the timing of his general election appeal. The Cabinet reshuffle of December 1965, which brought Roy Jenkins to the Home Office and switched Barbara Castle to the Ministry of Transport, had strengthened Wilson’s team as well as bringing in new faces.

Should Wilson risk an appeal to the country? The Prime Minister remained unconvinced that the electorate wanted an election. But there were other factors. Troubles threatened on the industrial front. At Westminster the Government had survived a debate on the future of the Territorial Army by a mere one vote, a reminder of their vulnerability. The Labour backbenchers were increasingly restive over Vietnam. With Iain Macleod as Shadow Chancellor, the Finance Bill would face a very rough ride.

In the event, it was the Hull North by-election which decided Wilson. The Conservative Opposition had convinced themselves that they could win there on 27 January 1966. Labour in fact held the seat with a 5,000 majority, on a swing of 4.5 per cent to the Government. In an age accustomed to by-election reverses, this was a remarkably good omen for Labour. After Hull North an atmosphere of electioneering pervaded Parliament. Despite all his difficulties, Wilson rode a wave of confidence. Labour began dressing the window for the election. By the time Wilson left for an official visit to the Soviet Union on 21 February it was quite clear that the campaign was about to begin. On 28 February Wilson ended speculation concerning the date of the election and polling day was fixed for 31 March.
(Cook 2014)

In his reply to Toby Jessel, Labour’s Kevin McNamara, who defeated Jessel in 1966, says that no bribe was needed, and that the Conservatives supported the bridge’s construction:

Whatever chaff goes from one side of the House to the other, we should realise that we are talking about one of the most stupendous examples of civil engineering in Europe, which is of enormous credit to British builders, designers and workmen. It was built on the most difficult terrain over a very wide estuary.

The building of the bridge was delayed because of problems on the south bank of the river—in a Tory constituency, but I do not hold that against the hon. Member responsible—when the south towers were being built. In addition, it is one of two very important bridges in the area. There are two great examples of civil engineering; the other is the bridge over the River Ouse. It was built on a bog, it has no bottom, it carries the M62 and has no toll at all.

The point that we should be addressing is what is the difference in principle between part of our transport infrastructure—the M62 bridge, a great engineering feat in itself—which carries no toll, and the Humber bridge? That is of the utmost importance…

The hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) said that the bridge was the crystallisation of a bribe. I must make a confession to the House. I did not know on the night that Barbara Castle was going to make that statement. The advice that I gave throughout the campaign had been, “Don’t. You don’t need to.”

In many ways the campaign for the bridge at that time was media-led by the Hull Daily Mail. The demand for the bridge emanated from that newspaper, which had long campaigned for it. It saw a Government whom it felt might be vulnerable on that point, and led a very strong and powerful campaign for the bridge. I salute those at the paper for their effort, especially Charles Levitt, who was political correspondent at the time. Mr. Levitt was in fact — and still is, I understand — a Liberal…

The campaign for the Humber bridge was media-led, as I have said. Indeed, I have been since told by those who conducted in-depth polls at the time among groups of people who discussed such things, that the Humber bridge scarcely appeared in the list of priorities of people in the Kingston upon Hull, North constituency who were seeking to re-elect a Labour Member of Parliament.

I turn to the history of the bridge and the myths surrounding it, especially those that have been put forward by the hon. Member for Twickenham… The hon. Gentleman said that the bridge crystallised the bribe, but let us consider the situation.

In 1959, a private Member’s Bill was introduced with the approval of the then Conservative Government to establish the bridge board. In 1965, the House debated the Humber bridge and some of us listened from the Gallery. The Minister of Transport — the late Stephen Swingler, a very fine man — poured cold water on the idea and wished that my former colleague the late Mr. James Johnson had not introduced it.

We then had a campaign in Hull, which Lady Castle attended. Her words at the meeting in Lambert Street school were: “When the planning is completed, then you will have your bridge.”

I did not attend that meeting because I was at a meeting at Endyke school. In those days, great election meetings were held.

Ian Macleod, to whom the hon. Member for Twickenham referred, was Chancellor of the Exchequer for part of the time when the Conservative Government gave the go-ahead, allowed the contracts and tenders to go out and voted the money, and the noble Lord Peyton was Minister of Transport. They could have stopped the building of the bridge. I understand that the Tories’ complaint is that the Conservative Government fulfilled a Labour election promise… The issue is that the building of the bridge was agreed then.
(House of Commons 1995/12/20)

Original

Mr. Toby Jessel (Conservative, Twickenham)

The bribe occurred because, in the general election of October 1964, Hull, North, which was a marginal seat, was gained by the Labour party; unfortunately, the newly elected Member, Mr. Solomons, died about 13 months later, in November 1965; the by-election was fixed for two months later, but his death reduced Harold Wilson’s majority from three to two; if the by-election had gone the other way, it would have been reduced to one.

At the time, there was enormous interest in the by-election. There were very big public meetings. I remember one that was addressed by the late Lord Home, at which 1,200 people were present in Hull City Hall. On 18 January, Mrs. Barbara Castle, the then Transport Minister, pledged to construct the Humber Bridge, and that led to the debt which is the subject of the Bill. On page 95 of [Fighting all the way], she wrote:

Off to Hull to speak in the by-election. Photographers at the station. Standing room only at meetings. I told them categorically they would have their bridge. Speech went down well.

She wrote that in her diary. The day before yesterday, I had it on the authority of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Sir Keith Speed), who cannot be present, that he was at Mrs. Castle’s meeting on 18 January 1966, that she said, “You will get your bridge,” and that there were loud cheers. The Minister has already quoted the words of the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer at that time, that great man Iain Macleod, who referred to the plan for the Humber Bridge as a pre-election bribe. He went on:

First one of the junior Transport Ministers said that one was not needed. Then came the by-election. The same junior Minister promptly became much more enthusiastic about a new bridge. But the by-election continued to turn … and something more was needed. So Mrs. Castle says in Hull that … there will be a new bridge.

Mr. Macleod was quoted as saying that in The Times on 22 January 1966. Anyone could predict – and many people did at the time – that the bridge would never pay. If the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) drove from Nottingham to Hull, regardless of whether he used the M1 or the A614, he would go along the motorway that skirts the southern side of Doncaster. The shortest way from there to Hull – well, the quickest way – is by using the M62 and not to go south of the Humber and then across the Humber bridge. With a toll, it will be more expensive as well as slower. From looking at the map, one sees that there are no large cities to the south of Hull.

475 words.