HC Deb 19 March 1957 vol 567 cc345-54

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

10.9 p.m.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon (Greenock)

It is in somewhat sad circumstances that I raise the question of a graving dock on Clydeside tonight, for we know that the shipbuilding and ship repairing industries are in the midst of great industrial conflict. However, I am sure that once the issue has been resolved, to the satisfaction, I hope, of most parties, and certainly to that of the nation, we shall turn again to the problems which confront the shipbuilding and ship repairing industries.

I wish to raise the subject of the proposed graving dock on the Clyde, not strictly from a constituency point of view, although I immediately confess to a substantial vested interest in the matter, but because I am concerned, as a Clydeside Member, that the prosperity of the Clyde Valley shall be maintained and, indeed, improved as the years go on.

I want to go over briefly the case for a dock in this area. There are, I understand, in the United Kingdom 11 major dry docks suitable for ship repairing. Four of these docks are in use for liners and are almost always occupied in that kind of work. Two of the docks are at Southampton; one is the Gladstone Dock, on the Mersey, and the fourth is the King George V Dock, at London, leaving seven dry docks.

I would direct the Minister's attention to an article I had in one of the shipbuilding journals in the spring of 1955. It was a long article and a well-known one in the business. It pointed out the lack of docks in the whole of North-West Europe, quite apart from the actual seven docks which exist at present in Great Britain. These docks alone are capable of taking today's large ships. When one turns to the Clyde, which does not have a large graving dock, it seems rather surprising that in an area which builds two-fifths of the United Kingdom tonnage, and repairs a substantial number of ships coming into our harbours, we are unable to accommodate a ship with a beam exceeding 85½ feet.

I understand that the Govan Dock No. 3 is the largest dry dock we have that can accommodate such a ship. A ship of that size is of a tonnage of probably 30,000. At present, oil tankers of 38,000 tons are being built in this country and they are by no means the most ambitious of the ships that are being envisaged. An oil tanker of 38,000 tons has an average beam of 95 ft., which means that not one of the tankers being built in this country can be repaired on the Clyde.

There are, I understand, 24 of these ships in the United Kingdom under construction or on order, and there are in the world more than 100 such vessels being constructed which, at some time or other, will visit our ports, this country being a great shipping nation. Each of these ships will probably have a beam exceeding 100 ft. There again, the ships being constructed this year will not be able to be accommodated in our docks.

We know how the prospect of the dock arose on the Clyde. It was during the war, in 1943, when naval strategy was somewhat different from what it is today. It was during that year that the Admiralty launched out with the idea of constructing a large dock and it started off the initial investigations. It stimulated to a certain extent inquiries on the civil side and the investigations resulted in the Cooper Report of 1946, which argued that there ought to be an authority which governs the whole of the lower and upper reaches of the Clyde. The Clyde Navigation Trust extends just to the boundary of the Greenock Harbour Trust and it was in this latter area that the proposed dock of the Admiralty was outlined.

There were several alternatives and I am sure that the Minister will not make play with the local friction which exists in choosing one or the other. That is a matter which can be easily resolved by the navigational people concerned. This dock is now resting in the limbo of improbability because the change in Admiralty strategy is such that the Navy no longer needs this dock and, therefore, the Admiralty would not be a senior component either in the construction or the maintenance of the dock. So much so that local or private interests have tended to think that their chances of raising money and getting help are not so good. It is to that end that I raise this matter tonight because I want the Civil Lord to reply. He is, after all, a Clyde-side Member and, therefore, I am sure that if he has any bias at all which he may not have, it is bound to be in our favour. I want to ask him whether he will give certain assurances which I think Clydeside would welcome.

First, we should have the Admiralty's blessing for this project and it should exert some influence with the Chancellor so that in the next Budget we have some tax relief for the construction of dry docks in this country. We had tax relief for certain aspects of shipbuilding investment in the last Budget, but no alteration in the tax allowance for investment in dry docks. We would very much like that this year, because it would enable one obstacle in the construction of this dock to be overcome.

The second assurance I should like is that the Admiralty has not dismissed the idea of some assistance to whatever consortium of private ship repairers, or whatever quasi-public body, possibly the Clyde Navigation Trust, or a body like that, decides to construct this dock and that it is not outside the bounds of probability that the Admiralty or the Treasury will make a direct contribution to the dock as such, and/or—I use the oblique—that the Admiralty will give an assurance that some money will be worth-coming, at least for the maintenance of the dock once it is constructed.

I respect the fact that there are other parts of the United Kingdom, for example, Tyneside, which, of their own accord, have been able to build these docks to repair ships, but there are substantial differences in the positions. One has only to study company reports and the different kind of custom to which these people in Tyneside, for example, are used, in which ship repairing is done on a much more extensive scale and where overheads have already been covered by past investment programmes. I need only underline the fact that on the Clyde, in John Brown's, £1 million is being invested—this change is long overdue—for converting three yards to two to construct 65,000 ton tankers. In my constituency the process of conversion to build these larger ships is taking place, also.

For those reasons, the tendency to be anxious to repair on the Clyde is bound to increase and I submit that there is a case for an assurance at this juncture of negotiation with the commercial world to encourage this proposal to go forward, a proposal which, I am sure, will be applauded by ship repairers, ship workers and the nation as a whole.

10.18 p.m.

Sir James Hutchison (Glasgow, Scotstoun)

I and all Scottish Members will be indebted, and all British Members should be indebted, to the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) for raising this important matter. It is not a new story. For many years efforts have been made to get a large-sized graving dock somewhere in the Clyde. I am not so parochially-minded in this matter as to try to seek to get it in my own constituency, Scotstoun. I am prepared to see whether we can get it provided in Britain. As the hon. Member said, the situation at present is topsy-turvy.

The hon. Member referred to 35,000-ton oil tankers, but many oil tankers now in project, under construction or at sea are of very much larger dimensions than that. I understand that with very large-scale tankers it becomes a paying proposition, financially feasible, to sail round the Cape instead of going through the Canal and that is, therefore, one of the solutions of the oil problem. Many minds are turning continually and progressively to building bigger and bigger tankers. There is no political or party content in this matter, and I am delighted that the hon. Member has raised it. The Clyde is proud of having built the "Queens" and vessels of that sort of size, but it s with a sigh that we see them depart, because we know that they cannot come back to the Clyde.

The nation needs more large-scale graving docks, because the size of ships is always growing, and because of the tanker problem. I hope that my hon. Friend will have noted the sort of help that might be given to any body which is prepared to go ahead with this much-needed scheme, which will be greatly beneficial to Scotland.

10.20 p.m.

Mr. John Rankin (Glasgow, Govan)

The hon. Member for Scotstoun (Sir J. Hutchison) has said that this is an old story on Clydeside. It is more than an old story; it is an old complaint. We are deeply indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) for providing us with a chance of impressing upon the Civil Lord the importance of this graving dock.

As a representative of the upper reaches of the Clyde, I can say that we shall be very glad if the dock is placed in the lower reaches, at Greenock. During the weekend, as my hon. Friend has said, the Chairman of the Shipping Conference, who is also the Vice-Chairman of John Brown's, told us that they were investing £1 million in converting three berths into two berths, in order to be able to take 85,000-ton tankers and to meet the problem to which the hon. Member for Scotstoun has referred. On Wednesday last week, when we were debating a similar subject, we had not got that information, neither had the Civil Lord himself, as was evidenced when I put a question to him. We are glad to have it now from Sir James.

If we are to build 85,000-ton tankers it is important that we should also be able to fit them out and service them. It is an old complaint on Clydeside that although we build the greatest ships in the world we are unable to fit them out and service them. Not only from the shipbuilding point of view, but also from the point of view of the total number of ships moving in and out of the port of Glasgow, we need a graving dock there, and I hope that the Civil Lord will accept the plea that has been made and use his influence to see that this graving dock comes to Greenock.

10.23 p.m.

Vice-Admiral John Hughes Hallett (Croydon, North-East)

I shall detain the House only for one minute. I support the plea of the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) in this matter. If the Government are going to give support to this project, however, I would ask them to do so in a big way. It would be a mistake to think in terms of only 85,000-ton ships. In twenty years' time I am sure that we shall have vessels of 150,000 or even 200,000 tons, and if we are going to invest an enormous amount of capital in a dock we may as well make certain that by the time it is finished, it will not already be on the small side.

10.24 p.m.

The Civil Lord to the Admiralty (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith)

This proposal to build a graving dock on the Clyde has been under discussion for many years, as hon. Members have said. I am glad that the persistence of the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) in trying to have this matter debated has at last been successful. As the project for a Clyde dock has a long history, I shall not worry the House with details of its earlier stages, but shall confine myself to the more recent events.

In 1955, the Clyde Navigation Trust brought a deputation to see my predecessor, the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby), at the Admiralty. This deputation recommended that a dock having a length of between 1,500 and 1,200 feet, and a breadth of between 140 and 160 feet. should be built on one of three sites in Greenock, at an estimated cost of between £3½ million and £4½ million.

This local initiative we in the Admiralty regarded as a most helpful sign; but the proposal. as then made, still left unanswered three basic questions, to which the hon. Gentleman has referred this evening: firstly, as to the organisation which would run the dock; secondly, as to the exact site of the dock; and, thirdly, and most important, as to the means of paying for the dock. Obviously, the kind of organisation required to run the dock, and the best site on which to build it, are matters for local decision.

The hon. Member for Greenock said he hoped that I would not make play with the fact that local decisions had not been made. I hope he will not think that I am making play with that fact when I say that to me, as a Clydesider and a Scotsman, it was extremely distressing to learn when I came to the Admiralty in 1957 that no definite answer had yet been found to these fairly simple local problems. When the people involved have not been able to find an answer to these simple local problems, it is no wonder that the tremendous task of financing the project has met with hardly any success at all. Indeed, I have been informed that none of the money required for the project could be found on Clydeside.

I was proposing to make a quotation from the Scotsman, though I do not know how wise it is, in a debate concerning Glasgow and the Clyde, to take a quotation from an Edinburgh newspaper. But on 13th February of this year, the Ship Owners' Association, knowing the facts which I have just stated, is reported to have said that it could now only hope that the Government might be prepared to assume financial responsibility. Commenting on this, the Scotsman said that surely this was a counsel of despair. I am afraid that is precisely what it is—a counsel of despair.

Mr. Rankin

They were thinking of this Government.

Mr. Galbraith

A lot has been made of the strategic need for a dock on the Clyde. Indeed, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, that is how this whole thing started. I know that at one time it was hoped that the Admiralty might be induced to contribute on the grounds of strategy. When it became clear that strategy did not justify the expenditure of public money in that way, the suggestion was made that the dock was a national necessity. That was one of the points made by the hon. Gentleman, and also by my hon. Friend the Member for Scotstoun (Sir J. Hutchison). I must confess that I am not certain what "national necessity" means in this context. At the moment, there is an approximate balance between berth and docking facilities for large ships——

Dr. Dickson Mabon: At the moment.

Mr. Galbraith

—but, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, and it was also pointed out by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett), there is a continued tendency towards the construction of ships of an even wider beam, particularly tankers, which, naturally, will require bigger docking facilities. If that is what the hon. Gentleman meant when he said there was a national necessity for the provision of larger docks, I am more or less in agreement with him. However, I would point out to the hon. Gentleman, and to everyone who has taken part in the debate tonight, that so far as the country is concerned, the important thing is not so much the situation of the dock, but the existence of the necessary docking facilities somewhere in this island.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett

May I point out to my hon. Friend that the great advantage of Greenock is that it is one of the few docks which it is comparatively easy to enter in any states of weather for ships of a very great size?

Mr. Galbraith

That may be so, but at the moment new projects, privately financed, are being undertaken in other parts of the country, for example, on the Mersey and at Falmouth. Those docks will be capable of docking ships very much bigger than anything which is being built in the country at the moment. To my mind that is precisely what the shipbuilding interests of the Clyde should be doing. They should be doing the same as is being done on the Mersey, and at Falmouth, and what is planned at Milford Haven. I am afraid they are missing a great opportunity.

The hon. Member suggested that the Admiralty might try to bring together the various interests and stimulate them into enthusiasm. I do not think that action would be at all appropriate. If this venture is to succeed the driving force behind it must be the force of local enthusiasm. Because of that I was very interested to read the other day in the Press a report that the Scottish Council for Development and Industry had taken the matter up and was giving a lead in seeking to establish a new fitting-out basin on the Clyde as a preliminary to, bringing together the interested parties capable of financing the dry dock project. That is the right spirit and it is most encouraging to know that the supposed inability of local interests to finance the dock is to be reviewed. Everything depends on that.

I know that financing the dock is a tremendous task. The hon. Member referred to taxation problems. Perhaps he will be interested to know that at the moment the Drydock Owners' Central Council is discussing taxation problems with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I cannot tell the hon. Member more than that at the moment. The task of financing the dock is a tremendous one. I do not underestimate the difficulty in any way, but, however, sympathetic I naturally am as a Clydesider and a Scotsman—there is nothing I should like to see more, although with the exception of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett) my constituency is less likely to be involved than those of the hon. Members who have spoken in this debate—no Government, if the conditions were equal, could assist financially a new dock on the Clyde when on other rivers in the United Kingdom large new docks are already being financed wholly from private resources.

Sir J. Hutchison

I am interested in what my hon. Friend is saying, but are they graving docks, or discharging facilities?

Mr. Galbraith

They are graving docks. It is difficult to understand the reluctance of the Clyde to finance their own development on this occasion as they have always financed developments in the past with conspicuous success. I would remind the hon. Member that it was not by talking of national necessity or holding out their hands for public money that the Clyde has developed from a small insignificant stream to being the greatest shipbuilding area in the world. All that was achieved by hard work and self-help. Now that the shipbuilding interests on the Clyde know that it is general Government policy not to aid from public funds the construction of graving docks, the way is open to them for a new beginning back to the old spirit of their ancestors, the spirit of independence and enterprise which won so much for the Clyde in the past and which I am sure is still the key to a brilliant future.

Mr. Ross

Will the hon. Gentleman appreciate that help from the Government at the right time can do a lot? He has spoken about private initiative. Does he remember that the two greatest ships, the "Queens," were only built because the Government came in to help private enterprise at the time? Will the Government do the same again?

Mr. Galbraith

I believe the hon. Member could have made a good case if graving docks were not being built of the requisite size in other parts of the Kingdom and if on the Clyde resources could not be found to do what people think is necessary for facilities there.

Dr. Dickson Mabon

I am indebted to the hon. Gentleman for his reply and will not argue now the point about the peculiar circumstances of ship repairing. What I should like the hon. Gentleman to answer is the last two questions which I asked about the assurances concerning sponsorhip, either in the initial construction or later in the maintenance. I only-ask him to give me, if he likes, a statement in the double negative—that is, that the Admiralty or the Government are not disinclined towards or have not put out of their minds entirely the idea of being a contributory participant in one or other or both of these ideas.

Mr. Galbraith

I would like to be able to give that assurance, but in view of the developments which are taking place other areas it is, as I stated, general Government policy not to aid from public funds the construction of graving docks. I am sure that the shipbuilding interests on the Clyde ought to realise that and ought not to hope that the work will be done for them by any Government Department. They really must get together themselves and do something much more constructive than they have done so far.

The Admiralty and the Government are most anxious to do anything that they can to help in all sorts of ways, for instance, by giving advice, but Government policy is not to aid from public funds the construction of graving docks.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes to Eleven o'clock.