HC Deb 07 March 1961 vol 636 cc255-66
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay)

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement about the Glen Nevis scheme and hydro-electric development in Scotland.

It is eighteen years since the Cooper Committee submitted the Report which led to the setting up of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board. Since then the Board has developed Highland water power resources effectively and with general approval. It has so far connected 92 per cent. of the present potential consumers and has brought great benefits to the area it serves. During these years there have been technical advances in other methods of generating electricity and, while the relative cost of thermal generation is taken into account when individual schemes are under consideration, there has been no general examination of the whole subject since 1942.

The stage has now been reached where the basic issues involved call for careful and thorough examination in principle rather than in the context of a public inquiry into an individual scheme. I have, therefore, decided that the general interest would best be served by the appointment of a Departmental Committee which would review the general arrangements for generating and distributing electricity in Scotland, and I am glad to say that Mr. Colin H. Mackenzie, C.M.G., former chairman of the Scottish Committee of the Federation of British Industries has agreed to act as chairman.

The other members of the Committee will be:

Sir Josiah Eccles, Deputy Chairman of the Electricity Council.

Professor Alan Peacock, Professor of Economics at Edinburgh University.

Mr. James Keyden, Director and General Manager, Pressed Steel Co., Linwood.

Mr. James Craig, County Clerk of Aberdeen.

Mr. James Grant, Editor of the Stornoway Gazette.

The Committee will have the following terms of reference: To review the arrangements for generating and distributing electricity in Scotland having regard to

  1. (i) the availability and cost of hydroelectric power and of other sources of electricity;
  2. (ii) the rate of increase in the demand for electricity;
  3. (iii) the needs of the remoter areas;
and to make recommendations.

The appointment of this Committee will not preclude the simultaneous consideration of the specific objections which have been lodged regarding the Glen Nevis scheme and I am considering whether a public inquiry into these objections should be held at an early date. No final decision to proceed with the Nevis scheme would be made until the Departmental Committee's report had been received and considered.

Hon. Members

Shocking.

Mr. T. Fraser

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there will be very considerable concern in Scotland that he has already decided that there will be no final decision on the Glen Nevis scheme till this Committee's report is received?

Many of us would not have objected to there being another look at this whole business of the generation and distribution of electricity, but it seems quite wrong to hold up a scheme which is much needed for the economic development of the Highlands till this further inquiry has been completed.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the Cooper Committee inquired into electricity development and electricity distribution in the north of Scotland only? Is there any significance in the fact that this new Committee will consider the generation and distribution of electricity over the whole of Scotland? Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that under the 1943 Act, which was the first Act to give us nationalised electricity and was for the north of Scotland only, a very special duty was put on the Hydro-Electric Board to look after the economic well-being of the Highlands?

May I ask him further, whether there will be any possibility of a scheme other than the Glen Nevis scheme, for instance, the Maree scheme, being proceeded with before this Committee concludes its work?

May I, finally, ask him why it is that on a Committee of this character, and bearing in mind the appointees he has mentioned, he has not seen fit to invite one or more representatives of the Scottish Trades Union Congress?

Mr. Maclay

I will try to deal with all those questions, if I remember them. First, I am glad that the hon. Member agrees that there is a case for studying the whole economics of the generation of electricity in Scotland. On the question he asked about whether this applies to the whole of Scotland, the answer is that it does apply to the whole of Scotland, because, as hon. Members know, the problem of generating electricity by hydro methods is linked very closely with the use of electricity so generated for the relief of peak loads in the South. There is a continual crisscross of movement of electricity at different times of day and to meet different conditions.

The hon. Member asked me if this would hold up any other scheme. There is no other scheme before me at the moment and I cannot make any comment on that, because it is a hypothetical question. This simultaneous inquiry is being carried out deliberately so that we lose the minimum amount of time, but, clearly, it would be extremely difficult to make a decision on one individual scheme, the Glen Nevis scheme, and on the economics of it, when another body was studying the general economics of hydro-electricity. I do not think that there need be very much delay, because these inquiries are simultaneous.

I have tried my best, in inviting people to join this Committee, to get a proper balance of people who represent no par- ticular interest, but who will take an objective view of the issue before them as a whole.

Mr. Fraser

Does what the right hon. Gentleman has just said about keeping the Glen Nevis scheme in abeyance till this report is received mean that he could not possibly approve of any new thermal stations being built in Scotland till he has received the report?

Mr. Maclay

My remarks applied only to the scheme at present before me, which is the Glen Nevis scheme, which is the subject of a statutory inquiry anyway.

Mr. Nabarro

While congratulating my right hon. Friend most warmly—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—on behalf of my hon. Friends and myself, who have pressed him strongly in the matter in the last two years, may I ask him whether he will say, first, whether the report of the Committee of inquiry will be printed for the consideration of the House: secondly, whether any volunteer willing to give evidence to the Committee will be acceptable—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—oh, yes, I shall offer to do so at once—and, thirdly, what length of time he anticipates the deliberations and inquiries of this Committee will occupy?

Mr. Maclay

Yes. The report of the Committee will be made public. Secondly, it is up to the Committee to determine its own methods of working. I am sure that it will welcome the evidence of anybody who cares to give evidence to it, including the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro). It is very difficult to estimate at this time how long the Committee will take. I do not think that it would necessarily be very long, but it certainly must be a matter of six to nine months.

Mr. Woodburn

Does the Secretary of State not think, in view of the fact that Lord Cooper was recognised as a quite impartial chairman of the former Committee, that it is a slight mistake that anybody so clearly representing the Federation of British Industries—I do not know the gentleman personally—should be chairman of this Committee, when there has been such a campaign by the Aims of Industry to sabotage hydro-electric development? It has been alleged, and, I think, with some truth, that certain Highland landowners are mixed up with the Aims of Industry to protect certain interests in the Highlands.

Should the Secretary of State not have thought that, instead, a judge, or somebody who is clearly impartial, would have been the best person to have been the chairman.

Finally, would the right hon. Gentleman answer my hon. Friend's question and say why, if industry is to be so strongly represented, the Trades Union Congress has no representation on this Committee?

Mr. Maclay

I can well understand the reasons for the right hon. Gentleman's first question. I did give very careful consideration to whether this was a Committee which should be headed by a judge. Considering that this Committee is to look into the technical side of the matter, although I know that judges are suitable people for dealing with technical and all kinds of matters, I came to the conclusion that this was one occasion, and that this was very much a type of body, when the chairman should be someone like Mr. Mackenzie, for although he has been connected with the Federation of British Industries that does not imply that he is partial. We have to have someone who will take a dispassionate interest in the subject.

I repeat, I considered very carefully the composition of the Committee and came to the conclusion that this composition was just about right.

Mr. W. Hamilton

Wrong.

Mr. Hendry

Can my right hon. Friend give me an assurance that pending this inquiry the extension of rural electrification will not be held up?

Mr. Maclay

Matters will proceed exactly as they are proceeding now. There is no implication of any delay in connections or of their being held up pending this Committee. My hon. Friend knows the present position of the Hydro-Electric Board in this matter.

Mr. Grimond

Does this mean that no new schemes will be entered into for the remoter areas, even when they are not dependent upon water power, until the Committee has reported?

Mr. Maclay

I repeat that the only scheme that I have mentioned in relation to the inquiry which will have to await final decision until I have the report is the Glen Nevis scheme.

Mr. Eden

Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that he will not seek to increase the borrowing powers of the Board at any rate until the Committee has reported?

Mr. Maclay

That is a matter on which I should like more notice than I have been given.

Mr. G. M. Thomson

Is the Minister aware that the connecting of the remoter consumers to a supply depends on the Board being able to go ahead with its new projects? While hydro-electricity is being developed very speedily in the Soviet Union and in other countries, is it necessary for the Government to conduct this kind of inquiry? Is not this a retreat in the face of pressure from Aims of Industry, which employs the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) as one of its paid propagandists? Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance— —

Mr. Nabarro

On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker

I must require the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) to withdraw that observation.

Mr. Thomson

I will withdraw if there is any implication against the hon. Member for Kidderminster— —

Mr. Nabarro

On a point of order. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) has just said that if there were any imputation— —

Mr. Lawson

Is it not true?

Mr. Nabarro

On a second point of order. The hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) has just said, "Is it not true?" May I invite you, Mr. Speaker, to call on both the hon. Member for Dundee, East and the hon. Member for Motherwell to withdraw unreservedly these imputations, on account of the fact that I have no pecuniary interest, direct or indirect, in the North of Scotland Hydro-Electricity Board, or in any other branch of the electrical industry?

Hon. Members

Oh.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I think that this matter should be treated quietly. The particular allegation which I invited the hon. Member for Dundee, East to withdraw was, if I remember, that the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) was a paid propagandist of Aims of Industry. I am not quite sure that that has been completely withdrawn because of the prompt interruption, but I am sure that the hon. Member was in the act of withdrawing it.

Mr. Thomson

I made the comment because I believed that I was stating a fact, but in view of your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, that there was an implication in such a statement, 1, of course, in obedience to your Ruling, absolutely withdraw that remark.

What I was going on to ask the Secretary of State was whether he had taken steps to ensure that none of the business members of the Committee which he has set up has any connection whatever with the Aims of Industry which is playing such a sinister part in these matters?

Mr. Maclay

The answer to the last part of that supplementary question is Yes". I resent any implication that I have been influenced by anybody or by any consideration other than my desire, which ought to be shared by hon. Members opposite, to be sure that our arrangements for generating and distributing electricity are those which in the light of the latest developments are best calculated to meet the economic and social needs of the areas which we all want to serve.

Mr. G. Brown

I hate to interrupt, because I think that this is important business, but, Mr. Speaker, you seemed to me to make a Ruling which I would like, and I am sure that Ruling House would like, to be clear.

A term was used by one hon. Member of another hon. Member that he was a paid propagandist of a named body. You did not require evidence that the allegation was true or untrue before proceeding to invite the withdrawal of the term. Are you ruling that the term "paid propagandist" of a particular body, if true, is an unparliamentary term?

Mr. Speaker

The imputation, I thought, was of an unavowed motive, and whether it be true or not is, for this purpose, quite irrelevant, because if such an imputation was to be made it would require a specific Question before the House. It was on the basis that on the particular issue at the moment—which is nothing at all, and we shall have to come to an end of it soon—that I ruled that at this particular moment it is not proper to make an imputation, whether true or no.

Mr. Brown

I do not quite see this. There are, with great respect, Mr. Speaker, propagandists on behalf of bodies, both paid and unpaid. It is a very ancient craft in this land, if "craft" be the right word. There must have been very many hon. Members of this House, at all stages of its history, of whom it was proper to say that they were propagandists for a particular body, and there must have been some of whom it was true to say that they were paid propagandists.

Aims of Industry is a well-known body which exists for particular purposes and conducts campaigns, and, while it would be wrong to say of an hon. Member that he was a paid propagandist if he was not—and the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) has not said that he is not— I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider the matter again. It may be that you may wish to take time to consider it. I ask because this seems to me to introduce a completely new Ruling to our proceedings, where one is forbidden to say of an hon. Member, if one believes it to he true, that he is a propagandist of a particular body, or that he is paid to be a propagandist of that body.

Mr. Speaker

I have considered this as carefully as I can and I do not want to start new hares or create difficulties at all. It would be a great nuisance. But what is right—and I am afraid that the House sometimes forgets it—is that all I may permit on a statement is a limited number of questions and that what one cannot do under our rules relating to questions is to make imputations against hon. Members in a question.

As to the meaning of the words "paid propagandist" for a body, I am left to my knowledge of the English language. For me, to say that an hon. Member is a paid propagandist in this place contains at least the tang of saying that he is paid for expressing the views that he expresses here. Of course, if others interpret the English language in a different way, and do not feel that it has that implication, I am wrong, but this is the principle on which I have acted in relation to a question.

There is no Question before the House and we clearly cannot debate this matter now. I mean by that not my personal error, if there was one, but the Minister's statement.

Mr. Lawson

May I say to the Secretary of State that it seems to me that this matter of appointing as chairman a former chairman— —

Mr. Speaker

Order. No, I indicated, and I think that the hon. Member did not hear me, that we could not debate the statement further now as there is no Question before the House.

Mr. Gaitskell

You are, I think, Mr. Speaker, to consider this matter further. I wish to say that as far as we are concerned "paid propagandist" does not necessarily mean that an hon. Member is paid to speak in a certain way in this House, nor, I think, was that in the mind of my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) at all. The matter, of course, could be easily cleared up if the implication, as you call it, is false and the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) can reply to it.

Mr. Speaker

With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, he really has not followed what I have been putting. Whether it is true or false is irrelevant on the basis that this was an imputation of the kind that I thought it was and it was made in a question when, even if it were true, it would have to be made on another occasion. I do not think that we should waste time in arguing about this. I have said that I will look carefully at what I have said, and I will. I am obliged to the hon. Member for Dundee, East for withdrawing the implication purely in obedience to my request on behalf of the House to enable us to get on with business.

Mr. Maclay

I wish to make one slight correction in what I said earlier, Sir. I said that I was certain that no member of this Committee was connected with Aims of Industry. I know for certain about the chairman, but there is one member about whom I should have to check finally before I could say that no member is connected with that body.

Mr. Hector Hughes

May I put a point to you, Mr. Speaker? Questions about the personnel of this Committee were rather sidetracked by the various points of order. I do not propose to raise a point of order, but may I ask a very important question about the personnel of the Committee?

Mr. Speaker

No. I am sorry. I have reached the conclusion that we ought not to debate the statement further now without a Question before the House.

Mr. Gordon Walker

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have given us two reasons for your request to my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) to withdraw. One was that what he said was inappropriate to the proceedings before the House. The other was that it contained a tang of an imputation. It was this latter point which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition took up—that it would be, in our view, extending the range of what was unparliamentary. It was that that we were asking you to consider—not whether it was appropriate to the proceedings before us, but whether or not it was unparliamentary in the way that you implied.

Mr. Speaker

I followed the point which the Leader of the Opposition put. It is a question largely of the English language, of implications, if hon. Members prefer that. But I will consider it firmly and dispassionately, as best I can.

Mr. Manuel

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. A most important statement for the people of Scotland has been made by the Secretary of State. We have had very little opportunity to put probing questions. Will there be an opportunity to debate the statement, which is of supreme importance? Or is it to come into operation before we have a right to speak on behalf of our constituents?

Mr. Speaker

I cannot answer the hon. Member's question, because I do not arrange the business of the House.

Mr. Manuel

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of that Ruling, do you not think that, as this is the only opportunity we have, some back benchers should have an opportunity of putting probing questions?

Mr. Speaker

No. I am in the difficulty which I always meet. On these occasions I have to ask the indulgence of hon. Members. When there is a statement, some questions are allowed. But there is no Question before the House, and there does come a time, unless we are to disrupt other business, when the Chair has the difficult duty of deciding when to stop questions. I cannot claim to be always right. I have to reach a decision, and I have reached it.

Mr. G. M. Thomson

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for rising again, but, since I was involved, can I clarify my position? I withdrew, as you requested, any imputation. I intended no imputation on the hon. Member for Kidderminster in the sense of implying that he was a paid propagandist in this House of an organisation. I was stating what I believe to be a fact—that he is paid to be a propagandist by this organisation by writing outside the House.

Hon. Members

Let the hon. Member for Kidderminster deny that.

Mr. Speaker

Order.

Mr. Nabarro

Listen to Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker

I understand what the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) is saying to me. I am grateful to him for saying it. I suggest that we do not bother about matters which do not relate to what happens in this House.

Mr. Gaitskell

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I had no intention of saying any more, because I understood that you would consider the matter further. But do I take it, from what you have just said about not being concerned with what happens outside the House, that that does not mean that you are going back on your undertaking to consider the matter, and that you have not changed your mind and will still give us your Ruling tomorrow?

Mr. Speaker

I have most certainly not changed my mind. I do not understand how I contrived to give that impression. It is obvious that I did, but I do not understand how I did. I had in mind that investigating here whether someone was a paid propagandist in the sense of being paid to do something outside this House should not be a matter that should detain us further.

Mr. T. Fraser

The relevance of bringing up the question of this organisation, Aims of Industry, is that this is an organisation which has conducted a campaign throughout Scotland in favour of holding up the work of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electricity Board, and, in particular, of stopping any progress on the Glen Nevis scheme. It was in that context, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) is employed by this organisation, that it was reasonable, surely, to request the Secretary of State to bear that fact in mind in listening to anything the hon. Member had to say in respect of the statement that we have heard from the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker

I follow that, and it may be so. But I promised to look at this matter. I must look into the precise context in which the matter arose, which, I confess, is now rather confused in my mind. I do not desire to initiate any new doctrines whatsoever. I intervened in what the lion. Member for Dundee, East was saying because I thought that in doing so I was following the ordinary practice of the House.