§ 17. Mr. Gordon Campbellasked the Minister of Transport what consultations he is having with the industries concerned about ocean terminal facilities in the Clyde Estuary, where ships of over 300,000 tons can be accommodated without dredging, in view of the world trend towards vessels of such sizes and the economies likely to be achieved thereby. 30 British Railways are held. I am aware of the most unfortunate and annoying week which my right hon. Friend had when he was a passenger in five trains which were all excessively late, I have read the correspondence, and the Chairman of British Railways went to some trouble to give my right hon. Friend details of why the series of incidents caused delay. But punctuality has been improving.
Mr. Edward M. TaylorDoes the Minister realise how general this problem is? Does he appreciate that in 1968 44 per cent. of all express trains and over 22 per cent. of all other trains did not arrive at the scheduled time? The Minister says that the figures are improving, but does not he appreciate that during the last four years they have been deteriorating?
§ Mr. CarmichaelIf the hon. Gentleman will wait until the figures are published in the OFFICIAL REPORT, he will see that there has been an improvement, although I would not say the improvement is sufficient to show an absolute change of direction. In reply to the supplementary question about the London area which was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), the difficulty is that the commuter network is carrying far more traffic than it was ever designed to carry.
§ Following is the information:
§ 18. Mr. Youngerasked the Minister of Transport whether he will initiate further studies of the prospects of sheltered berths being provided in Great Britain for ships of 250,000 tons or more; and in what areas this is possible without dredging.
Mr. Edward M. Taylorasked the Minister of Transport whether he will take further steps to ascertain the nation's future requirements for ore terminals with facilities to accommodate 31 the new generation of ore carrying vessels; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. MarshWith permission, I will answer Oral Questions Nos. 17 and 18 and Written No. 14 together.
Specific requirements for new terminal facilities are, in the first instance, for the industries concerned to discuss with appropriate port authorities. The general picture of availability of such facilities, and potential demand, has already been studied by the National Ports Council and is described in their recent "Port Progress Report".
§ Mr. CampbellAs in a few years ships of 100,000 tons may appear to be midgets if the present trend continues, will the Minister ensure that Government Departments and nationalised industries recognise the national asset of very deep water in the Firth of Clyde and keep their plans flexible accordingly?
§ Mr. MarshOf course. That was why I said that the National Ports Council had already studied the availability and the likely future requirements of port facilities for carriers of this size.
§ Mr. YoungerIs it not the case that the only place that can take fully laden ships of this size at all stages of the tide is the West Coast of Scotland? Will not the Minister, therefore, in recognising this bear in mind that this is a national asset which ought to be put to the use not merely of this country but Europe as a whole?
§ Mr. MarshIn the first instance, it is for those who would be using such facilities to negotiate with the port authority. This is already happening in a number of cases on the Clyde.
§ Mr. Ronald AtkinsHas my right hon. Friend looked into the economics of merry-go-round, long-distance ore-carrying trains enabling deep-water ports to be used to serve steel plants far inland?
§ Mr. MarshThat is another question, but certainly much work has been done on facilities of this kind.
Mr. TaylorIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is a matter of great urgency on Clydeside where present ore terminal facilities can accommodate vessels only up to 30,000 tons? Will his Ministry and the Ports Council be in- 32 volved in the discussions between B.S.C. and the Clyde Port Authority?
§ Mr. MarshOf course. Under the Harbours Act, 1964, I have responsibility for giving consent to any port investment in excess of £500,000, so if there were any investment in excess of that I would have to be approached.
§ Mr. RankinAre any plans in being to enable Upper Clydeside to handle vessels of this size?
§ Mr. MarshI thought that I had made it clear that the present position was that a number of discussions were taking place with potential users to see whether an accommodation could be made between them. It is after that, when there is a demand which has been identified, that the Ministry comes in.
§ 19. Mr. Gordon Campbellasked the Minister of Transport which ports in Great Britain can now provide terminal facilities for ore carriers and other ships of over 200.000 tons.
§ Mr. MarshNo ore carriers over 200,000 tons exist or are contemplated. It will be possible to make provision at Port Talbot for the largest ore ships now being envisaged, and possibilities for similar facilities at other ports are being considered. All the ships over 200,000 tons in service or currently planned are oil tankers. Provision for tankers of 200,000 tons and upwards is at present being made at Milford Haven and on the Clyde.
§ Mr. CampbellAs the right hon. Gentleman and the Minister of Power are due to consider the plans of the British Steel Corporation which were announced last Friday, will the Government ensure that they allow for the probable use in future of such very large ore carriers in order to reduce costs, and will he bear in mind that such carriers will require very deep water?
§ Mr. MarshOf course. That is why the British Steel Corporation is already engaged in discussions with the Clyde Port Authority on this and will take this into account.
§ Mr. HefferWhat plans are likely to develop on Merseyside, particularly to meet the ore requirements of Summers?