HC Deb 03 April 1957 vol 568 cc539-48

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. R. Thompson.]

10.5 p.m.

Mr. John McKay (Wallsend)

In drawing attention to this subject, I want to emphasise a point which everyone connected with the Tyne has tried to make—that the question whether a bridge or a tunnel shall be constructed is one of great importance to the North. At present, we scarcely know what the Minister is likely to do. Whatever is to be done, we want a definite decision as soon as possible.

In 1946, an important Private Act—the Tyne Tunnel Act—was passed which dealt with this matter. At that time there was no doubt whatever about what both the Government and the people in Northumberland and Durham wanted: unanimously, they wanted a tunnel. From 1946 half of that Act was implemented when a tunnel was operated for pedestrians and cyclists.

The question arises: what change has taken place since 1946? Have any buildings been erected since 1946 which would provide a reason for a change in the decision to build a tunnel? One can see no change whatever. If, in his present investigations, the Minister were to put the same question, "Which is the more desirable, a bridge or a tunnel?" he would get the answer which was given in 1946.

Every indication is that the answer he would receive from every professional man and everyone else in close touch with the situation, knowing the Tyne and its future possibilities, is the same answer as that which was given in 1946: that what people want and what is the most desirable and efficient method of transit, the best thing for the district, is a tunnel. If he puts the question in that form, "Which is the more desirable, a bridge or a tunnel?" the answer will be that the most efficient method is to bring a tunnel into operation.

What is the difficulty? Everything points to the fact that money alone is the difficulty. If the Government continue to say that they cannot afford the money for a tunnel, we are faced with a serious problem in connection with transport and production in the Counties of Durham and Northumberland. What is the chief cry from the Government today? Is it that we should take second place in production and industry? No, the whole cry of the Government and of everyone interested in industry is to modernise our methods of production and not to accept a second-class article. They say, "When we are doing the job, let us do it to the best of our ability." Always, the cry is for the best. That being so, the question of money scarcely comes into it.

The Tyne tunnel is the transport key of Northumberland and Durham, but the attitude of the Government today is based on the fact that it will cost money. We are a bit hard up for money at the moment, it seems, although we will spend up to almost any amount in certain directions. When it comes to whether to have a bridge or a tunnel across the Tyne, the Government say that they want to save money, and to do so they will substitute for the tunnel something which everyone in the area admits is a second-rate article and will not do what the tunnel would.

Why are the Government meeting this problem in this particular way? Such a big operation as the building of either a bridge or a tunnel will be an expensive job, in any case. The Government ought to remember that what is to be done will last not for five to ten years, but for a hundred years or more. The Government should realise the importance of this project. We are dealing with the big question of transport in the North. If expenditure to the extent of £10 million or £12 million is the small and the big side of the problem, surely the Government will not, in spite of the unanimous public opinion in the district, and when experts and others declare that a tunnel is the real solution, refuse to build one. At a time when we are shouting continuously for everyone to put his best into industry and transport it is surprising to find that on this particular matter both the Minister and the Government seem to be blinding themselves to the actual needs of the district for the sake of saving, in the meantime, perhaps £6 million.

In such a matter as this, who would be the best people to consult? I think that it will be agreed that it would be best to consult those specialists who know the intricacies and difficulties of such a problem, and know, also, the transport needs of the area. Surely the people who are connected with the Tyne know most about it. They know its past, present and future possibilities.

At this critical time in the North a decision must be made in the forthcoming months on this vital problem. The Tyne Commissioners have sent a letter to the Minister. There is no doubt about their attitude to this matter. They say without hesitation and without any ambiguity that there is no question about the practical solution of this problem. A sum of £60 million has been spent on the River Tyne. They say that the Tyne can be enlarged to accommodate bigger ships. They also say that the Tyne has the second largest port in the country and that the largest ships afloat can be built on the Tyne.

The Commissioners, as the guardians of the river, have told the Minister that in view of the future capacity of the river and the improvements that they intend to make the idea of building a bridge 173 ft. high is not practical. They say that a height of 173 ft. is not sufficient because ships with even higher masts will be using the river. They add that there is already a ship which needs a clearance of 190 ft. to enable it to pass through. Yet it is suggested that a bridge 173 ft. high should be built and that this height is sufficient to enable most ships to get through.

The Tyne Commissioners say they want to build bigger docks; that they want to maintain the reputation of this port as being the finest one for repairs; that this proposed bridge would be too near to the open sea and that all the shipping of any importance would need to pass it, so that to erect a bridge 173 ft. high in that locality would limit the future capacity of the Tyne. The Commissioners add that the only practical solution to this problem is to build a tunnel.

Wallsend, which I have the honour to represent, says the same as the Commissioners have said. Wallsend Council says the same thing as has been said by the Durham and Northumberland Joint Tyne Tunnel Committee, which has been set up to consider this problem. It has been expecting the implementation of the proposal for a tunnel for years. Land has been sold for the purpose and a large amount of expense has been incurred with a view to building the tunnel in accordance with the idea which was initiated in 1946. This part of the work has been half done. The Act providing for the building of a tunnel is on the Statute Book.

Mr. Ernest Popplewell (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West)

My hon. Friend keeps mentioning 1946, but is it not more correct to say that the Coalition Government, in 1944, decided, and the Government, in 1945 endorsed the decision, to erect a Tyne tunnel?

Mr. McKay

I think that that is quite true. The Tyne tunnel project was given great priority in the years that have gone since then, but now it is slipping down the priority list.

The Town Clerk of Wallsend tells me that a new dry dock is to be opened in Wallsend this month. He put the same kind of case before me as did the Tyne Commissioners, and he tells me, also, that one of the objections of Wallsend is that the council has only a small amount of land that can be used for building houses. A large area of land has been rendered sterile through mining, and now it is proposed to sterilise more by means of a bridge.

I therefore appeal to the Minister and his colleagues to give this matter serious consideraion, and not to allow the question of about £6 million to stand in the way of a great project for the benefit of transport in the north. I conclude by reading some of the remarks made by the Chairman of the Tyne Commissioners, which I think are emphatic enough to provide a good finish to what I have been trying to say: He said: The Commissioners are concerned with accommodation to provide for any liner which may at any time come to the Tyne for repairs or survey, and for any modern liner which may be launched at any of the shipyards whose premises are westward of the site of the contemplated bridge between Jarrow and Howdon. I need not remind you of the firms whose premises are westward of the Jarrow/ Howdon site—they are all well-known to you. The Commissioners are concerned with the question purely as the navigation authority. It is their paramount duty to safeguard the rights of navigation. It is a duty which has had and will continue to have a considerable influence on the prosperity of Tyneside. Expansion on the Tyne is not complete. In the reach of the river above the proposed site of the bridge, there is room for further yards —there is room for dry docks greater in capacity than any existing dry dock in the United Kingdom today, and I have no doubt that a dry dock or even dry docks of that magnitude will be built on the River Tyne. It would be a tragic position if a bridge were to be built and the fulfilment of that desire removed. It is not sufficient to contemplate the dry docking of even the biggest tankers nor of the biggest dry cargo ship. The Tyne must also be prepared to dry dock the largest liners and when the 1,000 ft. dry dock comes to the Tyne—as it will—both the liner and the tanker will come to make use of the accommodation. We must be very careful to see that we do not prejudice that usage. I am sure you will all appreciate that a dry dock of such dimensions must be fully used to make it an economic proposition. It cannot afford to stand idle, and it must, therefore, deal with liners as well as tankers. The shipbuilders and ship repairers on the Tyne have spent vast sums of money, and the cost of a new mammoth dry dock may fall not far short of the difference between a bridge and a tunnel. In other words, the Commissioners are prepared to spend millions of pounds upon this, and they appeal to the Minister to see that the tunnel is constructed.

10.24 p.m.

Dame Irene Ward (Tynemouth)

I intervene only for a few moments, because I realise that the important thing is to have a reply from the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, but I want to make two observations. One is that, personally, I am prepared to stand by the decision of the experts, but I only hope that their decision will not be too long delayed. Secondly, I want to emphasise the fact that a new form of communication between the north and the south of the Tyne is absolutely essential. I should like an assurance from my hon. Friend that the delay which has been initiated by him will not lose us our priority.

If the experts come down against the bridge and in favour of a tunnel, then I hope that the pledges which have been given to the Tyne will be implemented. I have noticed with very great interest that Dartford has got its tunnel, and that it is costing about £15 million. I am very glad to see my hon. Friend the new hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North (Mr. R. W. Elliott) sitting in the House listening to this debate, because we take a great interest in the future of our county communications. I want an assurance from my hon. Friend that if, in view of the passage of ships up and down the River Tyne, a bridge is not recommended, the pledges will be implemented and we shall get our communications. My local authority has built up a very large trading estate, and has partly got that trading estate on the understanding that there will be these new communications between north and south of the river.

10.26 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent)

I can assure the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. McKay) that my right hon. Friend and I in no way under-estimate the importance of this matter. We are fully aware of the great importance of the industry of Tyneside, especially the shipbuilding industry, to the life of this country. We shall do nothing which will interfere with that in the final solution of this matter, vital for the North-East of England, of the Newcastle Tyne crossing.

I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) that there is no delay which my right hon. Friends or I have initiated in the discussion of the alternatives of bridge or tunnel. The date for starting this crossing has not yet been fixed. All that has been undertaken by my right hon. Friends in the past is that there shall be a crossing, and, when the tunnel alone was being discussed, it was to be given priority following the Dartford-Purfleet tunnel.

Mr. Popplewell

The hon. Gentleman's observation is most interesting. Is he aware that, on 5th May, 1954, the right hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lennox-Boyd), the then Minister, said: I fully recognise the importance of this project, and it is my present intention, subject to any unforeseen development, that the Tyne Tunnel should be the next tunnel to be approved in the road programme after the Dartford-Purflect Tunnel ". He gave a pledge for a tunnel on that date. He went on, in reply to supplementary questions, to say: I hope the fact that the Tyne Tunnel now ranks as the next major project after the Dartford Tunnel, subject to what I have said, will bring some measure of comfort to the North-East ".—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 5th May, 1954; Vol. 527, c. 357] That was the declaration of the then Minister, that the tunnel project was going ahead. Does the Minister now require further consideration, in view of his predecessor's declaration? He is surely going to honour that promise now, is he not?

Mr. Nugent

The hon. Gentleman's intervention, which has lengthened into a speech, unfortunately for his hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend, because it will prevent him from getting a full reply, merely confirms what I have said, namely, that an undertaking has been given that this would be the next scheme after the Dartford-Purfleet Tunnel—

Mr. Popplewell

A tunnel, not a crossing.

Mr. Nugent

—and since then my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), following his visit to the neighbourhood in 1955, discussed the question of whether a bridge would be a suitable alternative. More recently. my right hon. Friend and I saw a deputation from the Tyne Tunnel Committee on 1st February. The members of the deputation expressed their predominant wish for a crossing as soon as possible, much on the lines which my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth has just mentioned. Although preferring a tunnel, they were willing to consider a bridge if that would improve the prospect of their getting their crossing. Their consulting engineer told us then that a bridge was possible with headroom of 173 ft., as the hon. Member for Wallsend has mentioned.

At that meeting, there were also present representatives of the Jarrow Borough Council, who told us that they roundly opposed the bridge and that the approach arches would seriously interfere with the amenity of the town. The Wallsend Borough Council, from the hon. Member's constituency, whilst preferring the tunnel, was willing to consider the bridge if issues of cost made it, in the Minister's view, essential that that should be considered.

Since that meeting, we have been consulting the shipping interests and the Admiralty. These consultations are incomplete. The Tyne Improvement Commission, as the hon. Member for Wallsend has rightly recorded, is strongly opposed to the bridge and has said so, and continues to say so, on the ground that it might interfere with future needs of shipping, either in building or repairing it, even though the headroom of 173 ft. might be adequate at present.

The Liverpool Steamship Owners' Association has just let us know that although it objected when the headroom was to be 150 ft., it has no objection now that the project has 173 ft. headroom. The Chamber of Shipping, whilst preferring 173 ft. to 150 ft., is at present non-committal. The summary of the shipping considerations, therefore, is at present inconclusive. I assure the hon. Member that no decision will be taken until we have the whole picture before us and my right hon. Friend can take a decision in the light of it.

From the viewpoint of road transport considerations, I must tell the hon. Member that he would not in any way be getting the second best with the bridge. The road transport considerations are conclusively favourable to the bridge. The bridge with 173 feet headroom and with dual carriageways would cost £6¼ million. There would be slightly sub-standard gradients but there would be dual carriageways which would carry a great volume of traffic.

The tunnel that we are now considering —the hon. Member referred to its cost as £l1 million, but about £12 million is probably the correct figure—would have only two single tracks. In order to have the equivalent road transport capacity of the bridge, it would be necessary to have two tunnels, which would cost well over £20 million. So that even on the basis of the reduced transport capacity of the single tunnel, the cost is nearly double that of the bridge project, and to get the equivalent road transport capacity would cost three or four times as much.

These financial differences are really very substantial, and I am quite certain that the hon. Member would not expect my right hon. Friend and myself to ignore them, any more than he would do so himself. In either case, there will be tolls.

Finally, of course, there is the amenity consideration, which is very weighty. My right hon. Friend and I fully accept its importance, both for Jarrow and for Wallsend. My right hon. Friend will in any event visit Tyneside to see for himself how the bridge project would work out before a decision is taken. It is my intention also to go there in the course of the next few months so that I may also have the benefit of first-hand experience of the problems.

Tonight, therefore, I cannot say what will be the final solution, but I do have to say this. If shipping considerations make it impossible for the bridge to be built and we must rely upon the building of a tunnel, the greater financial cost is bound to handicap to some extent the date of starting of the actual crossing that we all so earnestly wish to have there. It still retains its place—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-five minutes to Eleven o'clock.