HC Deb 05 July 1955 vol 543 cc1088-98

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Colonel J. H. Harrison.]

9.56 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Osborne (Louth)

I wish to raise a matter which affects a large number of my constituents, whom I have had the honour to represent for the last ten years—the subject of Immingham Docks. I am thankful to have this opportunity of bringing up what they consider to be grievances. I hope that my hon. Friend will not consider me to be like the importunate widow. I can assure him that I do not regard him as an unjust judge. I have been told, however, that it is only by continual pleading and prodding that we can get things done.

This is a matter which concerns the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation and the British Transport Commission. I know full well the great difficulties facing the Commission at the present time, and that because of the recent strike those difficulties have been increased enormously. I appreciate that it is unreasonable for Members to bring up here what are called day to day administrative problems of the nationalised industries. What I want to talk about, however, is not merely a day to day matter. Indeed, it has been growing for several years. My constituents regard the House of Commons as the place—as it always has been—where the grievances of constituents can be aired, and, therefore, I hope that my hon. Friend will not feel that I am being unreasonable in submitting these grievances tonight. I am not so much bothered about what has happened in the past as concerned about what my hon. Friend, having heard the representations I am trying to make to him, can do for us in the future.

It was on 16th October, 1952, that I first brought up in this House the question of the re-equipment of Immingham Docks. Immingham is probably the best port on the eastern seaboard. It will take vessels at all times, and it has enormous potentiality for development. I raised the question of new cranes, because the old equipment, with which my constituents had to work, was mostly installed before the First World War. They had to work in difficult and uncomfortable circumstances, and it seemed to me at that time that it was not unreasonable that I should ask on their behalf that they should have some of the modern equipment being supplied in great quantities to the great port of Hull, just across the river. I picked on one special item, the provision of four new 10-ton portal cranes for the mineral quay. I said on 16th October, 1952, that the expenditure there was authorised on 1st November., 1951, and that the tenders had been accepted.

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Colonel J. H. Harrison.]

Mr. Osborne

I asked the Minister what, at the time, seemed to be this reasonable question: Can the Minister tell us when the work is to be started and when he thinks it will be finished? The then Parliamentary Secretary, later in the debate, said in reply, that …it was decided some time ago to order four 10-ton electric portable cranes fitted for grab working at a cost of about £135,000. I am glad to be able to tell him "— That is, myself— that delivery of the first of these is expected next month, while the fourth and last should arrive in May, 1953, unless unforeseen circumstances arise. Further stages of re-craning will be considered."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th October, 1952; Vol. 505, c. 555–60.] That was a definite promise by the Parliamentary Secretary which gave comfort to my constituents, and for which I was most grateful.

We waited a long time for those promises to be fulfilled. Again, I was prodded by my constituents and I raised the matter in February of this year. On 16th February, I put a Question to the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation. I asked the Minister when these four great cranes would be available for my constituents and would be completed and in working order. He replied: I understand from the British Transport Commission that the first crane should be ready for operation by April and that they expect all four to b2 in operation before the end of July. It seemed to me that the new machinery for the supply of which I was pleading was being put off again and again.

I asked my right hon. Friend, therefore, whether he did not think that a wait of two-and-a-half years was rather overlong. Again, I had the reply: This is a matter between the owners of the port—the British Transport Commission—and the manufacturers of the cranes. What my right hon. Friend did was to pass on the information which the suppliers had given to him, and which turned out to be unduly optimistic."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 16th February, 1955; Vol. 537, c. 386–7.] Not only was the information which was given in 1953 optimistic, but the information which I was given by my right hon. Friend in February of this year has also proved to be unduly optimistic. He had been promised—and l do not blame him, because, obviously, he is not carrying out the work—that this equipment would be in my constituency, all ready and working before the end of the month.

The position is that, so far, only one of these four great cranes has been erected. I was promised on the third occasion that it would be ready by April. Building is just starting on the other two, and no start has been made on the fourth. As far as local people can see, there is no prospect of work on the fourth being started in the immediate future. Therefore, I think it reasonable for me to ask the Minister to go through the appropriate channels to the Transport Commission and use his authority and power to ask when the Commission will get the job done and whose responsibility it is that it has not been done, as it was promised to me that it should be done.

I do not expect the Minister to give me all the information tonight, but it would help my constituents, and it certainly would satisfy me, if I could get to know why the work is held up. Is the work being done on a cost-plus basis? If it is, that system should be ended. Nothing delays constructional work so much as the cost-plus basis. Is there in the contract a penalty clause and a time limit? If so, will they be enforced? It is of great importance to my constituents, who are willing workers and who want only good equipment to do a better job. It is unfair that they should be promised new machinery year after year and not have it supplied to them.

I should like to remind my hon. Friend that these three great cranes are being put into "A" berth of the present mineral quay. The "A" takes up about one-third of the whole of that quay, and it handles a good proportion of the trade that goes in and out of the port. While this construction work is on that quay is out of commission. The "A" berth is completely immobilised and it is, therefore, vital to my constituents that this new machinery should be installed without further delay. I hope my hon. Friend will not think me unreasonable when I ask him if he will use every means in his power, through the Transport Commission, to see that whoever or whatever has delayed the fulfilment of the previous promise is removed.

I do not think anyone would say I am being unreasonable in asking for the delivery of this machinery for my constituents. It was promised to them as far back as November, 1951. Here we are in the middle of 1955, and in a few weeks' time Parliament will be entering on the long Recess and I will not have a chance of pleading my constituent's case for some months to come. I wonder whether my hon. Friend will make such inquiries as he thinks he can with a view to securing happier results.

There are two other points that I should like to put to my hon. Friend. I understand that in addition to these four cranes that were agreed in 1951 there are other plans that have been tentatively agreed with the Transport Commission. They have not yet been officially approved. What I cannot discover is who is to approve them finally. If it is the Minister, could I ask that these other plans for further equipment shall be approved without delay? I understand that the officials of the Commission have agreed the wisdom of these other plans and if my hon. Friend could hasten the approval I should be most grateful.

What has been agreed on both sides is that the next lot of equipment that is needed is, first, five six-ton cranes to be installed on No. 1 quay, six three-ton cranes to be installed on No. 2 quay, four single purpose grabbing electric cranes for the mineral quay "A" berth, and two three-ton hydraulic cranes to be installed on the mineral quay "A" berth. This will put into the hands of my constituents machinery that will help them to do a better job for the country and, what is important, help them to earn better wages. It is unfair to expect our people to work with machinery that was installed before 1914.

The greatest difference between American productivity and British productivity is not that the Americans are better workers than our men. Far from it. In many industries the British worker is not only as good but a great deal better than the American. The vital difference is that the American has three to four times more horse-power at his elbow than we have. It is not reasonable to expect our men to produce as good results as their counterparts on the other side of the Atlantic if we expect them to do it with pre-1914 machinery. I would ask my hon. Friend to see how soon this approval can be obtained, doubly so since I understand that the B.T.C. officials are in favour of the scheme.

My constituents have also requested me to ask that since the previous scheme has, unfortunately, been so long delayed —again, I am not saying whose fault it was; I am not interested in that, but I am interested in action—the new scheme should be given a priority. Can my hon. Friend do something about that?

My constituents who, in earning their living, are doing well for the country by helping to run these docks, say that there are one or two other facilities which they should have that have only been discussed tentatively with the Transport Commission. If I mention them to him, I hope that my hon. Friend will consider them favourably, and if he can influence his right hon. Friend to sanction them I shall be greatly obliged.

My constituents want an enlargement of the oil berth on the eastern jetty, which would enable two ocean-going tankers to berth together.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Hugh Molson)

But they asked for three.

Mr. Osborne

They will be satisfied with two, which is what they asked me to ask for, but if my hon. Friend could give them three, I am sure they would be grateful. If I am under-stating their case, I should prefer two-thirds of a loaf to getting no bread at all.

They also ask whether my hon. Friend can do anything to help with their appliances for use with the coal trade. These were originally built to take on coal exports for the Baltic before 1914, but that trade has gone and coal comes in now instead of going out. The appliances with which my constituents have to work, therefore, are old-fashioned and out of date.

Lastly, I want to reiterate what I have asked before in this House, that there should be better transport facilities for the workers who come to and from these docks. I raised this matter in March this year and I am grateful to you, Sir, for giving me the opportunity of doing so again. My hon. Friend said: I shall do what I can to make certain that the two different forms of transport are considered in comparison with each other, and that a decision is expedited as much as possible."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 7th March, 1955; Vol. 538 c. 124.] I understand that the B.T.C. will not agree to modernise the small railway in and out of the port until it is certain that the Minister will not build a direct road between Immingham and Grimsby. Once they know that the Minister is not prepared to spend a lot of money on that road, I understand that the Commission will do something to modernise that old railway which was built before 1914. My hon. Friend was good enough to tell me in March this year that he would do what he could to expedite a decision on this matter. If he could do that, I should be grateful to him, and so would my constituents.

If, as I believe, trade between the East and West will grow again; if the Iron Curtain that has cut off trade between East and West is removed, then the ports on the Eastern Coast will be required much more in the future than they have been in the past ten years. Immingham is one of the ports that is fitted to do this trade and, I hope, will increase it in the next few years. I therefore ask my hon. Friend to use what influence he can exert with the Transport Commission to get the facilities for my constituents which they deserve to have.

I would remind my hon. Friend that during the labour troubles in the docks in recent years, the men at Immingham have never been on strike. They have stuck to their job. They have done well. They have done well for themselves, I agree, but they have also done well for the country, and they deserve better equipment.

I ask my hon. Friend to answer the plea made on a greater occasion by the previous Prime Minister when he said, "Give us the tools, and we will finish the job." If my hon. Friend can help with a quicker supply of the new machinery, I can assure that it will be well used and that we shall be very grateful to him.

10.16 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Hugh Molson)

I make no complaint that my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) has again raised the difficulties which afflict his constituency and, especially, the important deep-water port of Immingham. I fully recognise that in availing himself of his rights to raise the matter upon the Adjournment, as he has done again tonight, he is trying to keep before the British Transport Commission and the Ministry of Transport the need for speed in dealing with the re-equipment of the ports.

Let me begin by admitting frankly that the history of the cranes at Immingham is an unfortunate one. When my hon. Friend first raised the matter, on 16th October, 1952, there was an unfortunate, but, I think, very natural, misunderstanding. There are two kinds of cranes, portal cranes and portable cranes. Portable cranes had been on order for some time, and my Department had been doing all it could to expedite their delivery, and we naturally, but wrongly, jumped to the conclusion that the cranes to which my hon. Friend was referring on that occasion were, in fact, the portable cranes which were on order, and not portal cranes, which he desired to have ordered. My predecessor, Sir Gurney Braithwaite, took the first opportunity of writing to my hon. Friend to explain the misunderstanding which had taken place.

I fully recognise that since then, while my hon. Friend has, as he has said, been continuing to prod the Ministry upon this subject, there has unfortunately been great delay in the delivery of the cranes. We have on no occasion made any promise on our own behalf about the matter. What we did—perhaps unwisely —was to pass on to my hon. Friend for the information of his constituents the dates which had been given to us by the manufacturers of the cranes as those upon which they expected to begin delivery. I am sorry that, owing to a number of reasons, the delivery has been very much delayed.

I do not wonder that my hon. Friend has asked certain questions tonight. I am, I am glad to say, in a position to answer some of the questions through the courtesy of the British Transport Commission. I ought to make it plain that we regard the provision of equipment for a port by the Commission as part of its day-to-day administration, and I do not feel that I have any right to call upon the Commission to provide information of this kind. I recognise, however, Mr. Speaker, that this is a custom which has grown up under your guidance and, therefore, when, with your approval, questions are raised on the Adjournment, we sometimes deal with matters which would be out of order were they put at Question Time. None the less, I felt that the British Transport Commission was under no obligation to give the answers to these matters, and I should like to express my appreciation of its courtesy in doing so.

My hon. Friend has asked whether the contract was on a cost-plus basis. The answer is "No." The contract was given by the Commission to the lowest tenders after tenders had been invited from all crane makers. This contract did not provide any penalty for late completion. The person in general charge is the Chief Docks Engineer of the Humber Ports. As I understand it, he has responsibility for all the ports in the area, Kingston-upon-Hull, Immingham, and so on. My hon. Friend asked who was behind the contractor. I do not fully comprehend the meaning of that question and therefore I have not been able to obtain an answer to it.

I understand that there is a proposal for the further re-equipment of the port with cranes for Nos. 1 and 2 quays and the mineral quay. That matter is at present under consideration by the Commission. My hon. Friend asked whether priority could be given for this new scheme. As a result of the change of Government in 1951 there is very much less supervision and control in these matters than there used to be under the previous Administration. It would not be possible, therefore, for us to give what my hon. Friend calls priority. At the same time, I can assure him that the Commission is fully alive to the importance of providing Immingham with new and up-to-date equipment.

My hon. Friend asked about accommodation for oil tankers, and I ventured to interrupt him to ask whether he was asking for berthing accommodation for two or three oil tankers. My information is that at present there is accommodation for two oil tankers to come alongside, and for the future it is planned that by having a mooring slightly out to sea and making fast the other end of the third oil tanker to the oil quay, it may be possible to enable three oil tankers to fill or empty simultaneously. That matter is at present under consideration.

My hon. Friend also asked about facilities for loading coal. It is intended to do whatever is possible to facilitate the shipment of coal in a more modern way. I understand that the appliances consist of radial tipplers, conveyors and chutes, and it is hoped that they will have a capacity of a million tons per year each. For several months the Commission has been engaged on preparing specifications for these appliances. Tenders for them have recently been invited, and will be considered in the early autumn.

As my hon. Friend knows, the Chairman of the British Transport Commission paid a personal visit to Immingham not long ago, and he was concerned at the delays which had taken place. After a thorough inspection of the port, and learning about the delays in the delivery of the cranes, he personally drew the attention of the manufacturers to the matter, emphasising the importance which the Commission attached to the early delivery of this equipment.

Finally, my hon. Friend referred again to the difficult subject of the Immingham Railway and the road which, if it were modernised and improved, might so compete with the railway that neither would be fully used. Upon the same visit, the Chairman of the Commission looked into the matter, and I rather think that he discussed it with my hon. Friend. He can, therefore, be assured that the Chairman is following up the matter at the present time.

I beg my hon. Friend not to be in any undue hurry. He quoted what I said on 7th March. Fortunately, I have available a record of what I said. On that occasion he asked me for an undertaking that within three months I should be able to give him a definite answer. I warned him that in view of the division of responsibility between the Commission and the local highway authority it might be some time before it was possible to arrive at a conclusion.

I hope that what I have said will give my hon. Friend the assurance that these important matters are still under consideration and that everything possible will be done to expedite the delivery of equipment to Immingham Port. I also hope that there will be no unnecessary delay in the consideration of the Immingham Railway.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Ten o'clock.