HC Deb 22 March 1965 vol 709 cc279-92

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

2.56 a.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (West Lothian)

The bulb from which this debate grows is simple to identify. It is the office block, the potential nerve centre of Livingston new town that was scheduled as late as the summer of 1963 for completion in spring, 1964. It does not look like being finished until late autumn, 1965. Coupled to this is the gross delay in the building of houses on the Livingston station site. These delays have injured the embryo new town during pregnancy.

My view is that, had the office block been ready on reasonable schedule, much ill-feeling among the architects would have been avoided and the situation would not have developed where a chief architect felt obliged to resign. The move from the Scotsman offices to Melville Street has had an unsettling effect on staff. Had the homes by Livingston station been ready, many key personnel would not have had to travel from as far away as Dundee and Glenrothes, to the detriment of work on the site, and perhaps some of the 14 key personnel on the staff who have left the corporation since Peter Daniel's exit would have remained.

Perhaps the picture is best seen in human terms. An architect or engineer applies successfully for a post there. He is promised a house on a particular date. He sells his present home or leases it and his furniture is packed away. Then the move is delayed. Frantic arrangements are made and his wife and children have to go to live with mother-in-law. He has to travel, to find "digs", and every Friday has to tell an exasperated wife that the move has been postponed for so many weeks. Uncertainty of this kind is unsettling to domestic life and creates discontent. Good men go as a result.

Fault there is in plenty. The position cannot sensibly be seen in terms of black and white. It is more a picture of dark grey and light grey. I present my view of where each of the main participants went wrong and suggest what we can usefully learn for the future. First, there is the case of Messrs. Pert's. Here is a comparatively small firm which had a good reputation north of the Tay; but I say bluntly that it was a downright bad decision to give this under-capitalised firm the first major Livingston contract.

I have little patience with those who stay silent when an event is taking place and pour out criticism when and after it has gone wrong. The contract for Messrs. Pert's was a decision I questioned loud and clear at the time. I wrote to the right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble), who was then Secretary of State, on 24th August, 1963: Where do Messrs. Pert propose to find the skilled joiners, at present creating a bottleneck in Central Scotland? Are they to be lured away from other firms by higher wages? If so, will this affect the original tender? The result has been as predicted—appalling craftsmanship, slothful finishing and structural faults.

On 13th March, 1965, my wife and I visiting the incomers, witnessed, for example, a formidable crack which had developed in the wall of a house which had been occupied for three weeks. We were told of baths from which dirty water had to be baled out because they were set at the wrong angle. My information is that towards the end of Pert's time paint was being slapped on the walls cheerfully by three sub-trained painter lads not under supervision. Certainly, the end product looked like it.

That things should come to this pass in a third generation of new towns casts a pathetic reflection on all concerned. I am aware that Pert's was ill-served by Logan's, which produced a series of faulty castings, but is not a lesson to be learned here that the main contractor must be so big that he can quickly overcome being let down by the subcontractor?

I wrote to the right hon. Member for Argyll last Thursday, saying that I would be criticising him and he replied courteously that he could not be here for obvious reasons.

The Secretary of State for Scotland has one of the most difficult jobs in the Cabinet. He has to turn his mind from the problems of marginal farms to educational Scottish joint councils and from social engagements to new towns. My complaint against the right hon. Member for Argyll is not that he did not interfere in the first place, but that after our considerable public correspondence of the autumn of 1963 he should not even have then "twigged" that he should keep an eye on Livingston. The section of the Scottish Development Department dealing with it, at June, 1964, at the latest, from the information available to it but not me, should have told him what was going on that Pert's was grinding to a halt and he should have grasped the nettle.

It is a good British tradition that we do not attack civil servants in this House. I content myself by saying that I am disenchanted by the way in which the right hon. Gentleman conducted the administration at St. Andrew's House. I ask my hon. Friend: if he had been in charge of the Scottish Development Department would he have slept while this situation at Livingston festered? Does his administration intend to take a similar passive view of the rôle of the Scottish Development Department in relation to the new towns? I believe that it will not. If it does, then I warn him that I will be equally critical of his right hon. Friend as I have been of the right hon. Member for Argyll.

We must look a little more carefully at this aspect of the matter. I will quote from a recent television interview of the vice-chairman of the new town. Bruce Mackenzie put this question: Would you say that the organisation for the launching of the new town was adequate? The reply from the vice-chairman was: No. I don't think so. I think it would be true to say that in the Scottish Development Department itself there ought to be a clearing house for ideas for the new towns, because the experience that each new town has had would be of tremendous value to the other new towns that follow after. I am deeply shocked that there should be a third generation where advantage has not been taken of the experience of the first and second generations of new towns. Why did the board not mention some of the difficulties in the annual report? It would have been much more convincing than the propaganda. Let it treat us like adults who are capable of making a judgment and not paternally as children who should not be told. It was the board's business to smooth out difficulties among the staff and to bring about harmony.

I can only say that when it was announced in the Press that this Adjournment debate was taking place, my telephone rang so many times from callers, anonymous and otherwise, wishing to vouchsafe information, pro-Danielising and anti-Danielising, to give the feeling that there had not been such a struggle in a town since the Guelphs and Ghibbelines feuded it out in mediaeval Florence. It was an eye-opener.

Secondly, the board must bear responsibility for the bad contract to Pert's and, more seriously, for letting the building grind to a halt during Pert's death agony. Is this lack of vigour due to the average age of members of the board? I do not think that a man is too old at 64, but the composition of the board is far too venerable. Could we not have one representative of the generation whose working life will extend to the 1990s and two of the generation who will be working in 1985, when Livingston may be approaching completion?

I turn now to the chief architect. Peter Daniel is a gifted man. He has produced an imaginative master plan. He induces deep and lasting personal loyalties. There are, however, some questions of a critical nature to be asked. Was he continually changing his mind? For example, was the decision to use or not to use blaes delayed so long that it embarrassed Pert's? A package deal is not a package deal when one party is for ever making alterations.

Did Mr. Daniel have a gay contempt for Treasury limitations—the attitude that "We are building for the future and we will consign the Treasury to the inferno"? If this is so, and if this is the chief reason for his going, then out of innocent decency the chairman is seriously at fault in not explaining this to the staff and to the public and in letting a good deal of odium settle on the general manager.

I turn to the general manager. He has displayed great energy and initiative in getting industry. It was certainly not my impression that he had an O.R. complex, as has been suggested by the Sunday Times. Is it, however, a fact that until recently each architect and each engineer could communicate with one another only by written memorandum through the chief engineer and the chief architect? Did this create a bottleneck? Was it, as an employee put it to me, that We were so busy covering ourselves that we could not get on with the work of building the new town"? What thought is being given to the multi-professional teams that are working so impressively at Cumbernauld?

Now, a detailed question. On 5th May, 1964, Mr. McRobb, of Pert's, gave as "realistic" completion dates for the office block and finance block the end of June, 1964, for the administration block the end of July, 1964, and for the technical block the end of September, 1964. The corporation progress officer said that this was impossible. Why did the general manager take Mr. McRobb's word, and on what basis did Mr. McRobb give the corporation £750 towards the cost of delays?

As to the future, perhaps the best solution would be to give a negotiated contract of 5,000 houses and ancillary works to each of three contractors, to be completed in five years. At the end of the second year, comparison should be made of performance and quality, and a further contract might be offered to all three contractors if found satisfactory. If found unsatisfactory, other contractors could be brought in. Plans of initial submission would be scrutinised and then agreed by the corporation's staff. At the same time, prices would be carefully examined and fixed to cover an initial period of two years, with opportunity for review at the end of the two-year period.

As to accountability, the Scottish Development Department has a good idea of prices in Scotland and can easily give an opinion on the costs of the projects concerned. The Department could also bring in the Comptroller and Auditor General's Department.

This proposal follows closely on the lines suggested by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when, as Leader of the Opposition, he said at Leeds on Saturday, 8th February, 1964: To encourage new methods, there is a lot to be said for handing over the building programme of a complete new town to one or more big contractors who are prepared to use non-traditional methods because such methods are priced out of the market if restricted to contracts based on penny-numbers Factory methods involve a big layout and demand secure orders for years ahead. I would much prefer to be praising the new town instead of criticising it. With what I would take to be the inevitable reshaping of the board, I hope to be able, with other hon. Members, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. J. Hill), to enjoy a closer relationship than we have hitherto been allowed. It is because I am passionately interested in Livingston's success, and hope to change the situation for the better, that I have raised this subject tonight.

3.10 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon)

I, too, regret the absence of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble), the leader of the former Scottish Ministers, because I am concerned, to a large extent, with their stewardship in the years of origin of this new town. However, I shall try to do my best to speak not only for them, but for ourselves.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) has quite legitimately made a number of criticisms of the corporation's handling of the contracts for work on the office block and on the houses at Livingston station which were awarded to Messrs. R. Pert and Sons. When there have been serious delays in completing the work on both those important contracts, when a good deal of the work has been of unsatisfactory quality, as my hon. Friend has said, and when, finally, the firm has gone bankrupt, it would be absurd to pretend that nothing has gone wrong. However, the criticisms we are making must be fairly judged in the circumstances of the time.

The corporation urgently needed office premises and was under considerable pressure to complete 270 houses for the needs of the British Motor Corporation. It had not yet built up a full technical staff; had, indeed, only a mere handful of architects. It was out of the question to do the detailed work involved in going out to tender in the orthodox way. In these circumstances, the corporation approached three selected large firms for designs and estimates for the office block and 10 selected firms for offers for the construction of traditional houses. On the advice of the corporation's technical officers Pert's was awarded these contracts. The Scottish Development Department and its technical advisers approved the proposals as the reputation of Pert's for speedy and efficient work was high at the time. Indeed, as late as December, 1964, public housing contracts outside Livingston were being awarded to Pert's.

Having said this I must say that there are matters where it seems to me that the corporation or the officers whom it appointed are more open to criticism. It is unfortunate that Pert's claimed to have built elsewhere the house types it proposed to build at Livingston, but that the fact was never checked; it emerged later that it had never done so. Secondly, while the insertion of a bonus-penalty clause is not normally recommended it might well have been a sensible precaution in the particular circumstances of the Pert's contracts where speedy work was essential. Thirdly, the work on the housing contract was well behind schedule by March, 1964, and the work on the office block began to fall behind thereafter and the corporation's officers did not, perhaps, react to this delay as quickly or as vigorously as they should have done. There were also serious faults in workmanship which should have come to light much sooner than they did. Among others, the chief architect at the time must accept some responsibility for this.

Mr. Daniel was appointed by the board of the corporation and his resignation, which was requested by the board, is a matter within its discretion. The board recognises, however, his admirable talents in relation to broad planning concepts of a new town, and the master plan is largely his, as my hon. Friend said—the master plan which has been presented to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and will shortly be made public.

Reference was made by my hon. Friend to the other losses of staff. Six architects left as a direct result of the resignation of Mr. Daniel, and a further eight left for domestic or other reasons, or on obtaining higher paid posts. Of these eight, three may have to some extent been affected in their decision by Mr. Daniel's resignation, although they did not claim it as a reason for their leaving. My hon. Friend asked whether it was the practice that when an architect at Livingtson wished to contact an engineer he had to do so in writing through the chief architect and the chief engineer.

The corporation did have a rule that if an architect made firm proposals for design changes which would affect the arrangements for the roads and the site servicing, his proposals ought to be referred to the chief engineer and the chief architect and planning officer for decision, because of the danger that such changes would delay the progress of the new town. Apart from this, I am assured that the normal relationships between technical colleagues existed.

My hon. Friend referred to the right hon. Member for Argyll and the absence of any reference—

Mr. Edward M. Taylor (Glasgow, Cathcart)

rose—

Dr. Mabon

I am sorry; I have very little time—

Mr. Taylor

rose—

Dr. Mabon

I am sorry. I cannot give way. I have far too little time.

I was talking about the absence of any reference to the delay on the office block in the Scottish New Towns Report for 1963–64. May I take the second point first? Because this Report covers the year ending 31st March, 1964, and, up to that time, the work on the office block was reasonably well up to schedule, there was no occasion for any such reference to be made.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor

On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Both hon. Gentlemen during this Adjournment debate have made attacks on the former Secretary of State for Scotland. The two hon. Gentlemen on this side have waited here all evening to make a reply on his behalf. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman not to give way at all?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Samuel Storey)

That is not a point of order.

Dr. Mabon

In view of the limited time, I regret this, but notice was given and this subject has been on the Order Paper for some time. I have to say a great deal to defend the position of the present Secretary of State and the Department which I represent, and I propose to do that.

I was saying that the position at 31st March, 1964, in the Report is confirmed by Appendix A to the accounts published with the Report, on page 179, which indicates that the estimated expenditure for the year was £100,000, and that the actual expenditure achieved was a little under £93,000. This is not a large difference nor an unusual one, and could well be accounted for by delays in obtaining approvals and by inclement weather. The estimate was based on payments. I shall not say any more about the right hon. Member for Argyll, in view of the interruption, but my hon. Friend asked whether my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would behave in the same way. I should like to take this opportunity of explaining my right hon. Friend's view of his responsibilities.

The corporation is appointed by the Secretary of State to do the job of developing the new town, and within the general policy laid down by Ministers, it must be allowed a good deal of discretion as to how it does that job. It would be intolerable for the corporation and for its chief officers to feel that everything they did must be approved by St. Andrew's House, and that at each step forward which they take, they must look back over their shoulders. This does not mean that my right hon. Friend and his colleagues do not have a very close interest in the growth and prosperity of the Scottish new towns. They are concerned that the new towns should be developed with the greatest success possible. My right hon. Friend and his Departments are always ready to give advice and guidance on any subject, and may well tender advice from time to time.

This debate has provided an opportunity to clear up a number of misunderstandings and misapprehensions which have arisen about the new town. I am grateful that my hon. Friend has made these criticisms with the constructive purpose of ensuring that any obstacles in the way of Livingston's future success are removed. Let me assure him that there is every evidence that the setbacks which the development corporation has sustained have not affected the new town's long term prospects. They must be seen in relation to the scale and complexity of the complete Livingston enterprise, and, as such, may later be regarded as unfortunate but minor. Public attention has regrettably been concentrated on limited aspects of the development corporation's work. The three major advances are being lost sight of. They are: first, the master plan; secondly, the modern house building programme; and, thirdly, the industrial boom.

The master plan will provide the basic framework for development of the new town, and, to ensure that it is kept fully up to date, will be kept under continuous review as work proceeds, and revised as necessary from time to time. The plan, which makes full provision for the motor car on the lines envisaged in the Buchanan Report, also contains most imaginative proposals for development of a town centre in the Almond Valley, which would be converted into a public park containing a chain of ornamental lakes.

In preparing its master plan, the corporation has had the assistance of the Lothians regional survey and plan, which has been prepared at the same time by teams of economic and physical planning consultants under the direction of Professor Robertson, of Glasgow University, and Professors Sir Robert Matthew and Percy Johnson-Marshall, of Edinburgh University. The plan, which was commissioned by the County Councils of Midlothian and West Lothian, the corporation and the Government, prescribes a key rôle for the new town in a substantial build-up of employment and population in an area of 80 square miles. Work is already in hand on the first stage of the new town's major road system, and industrial estate roads and other essential services.

In housing, work has begun on a scheme of 1,000 houses by industrialised methods which is the first of its scale not merely in Scotland, but in the United Kingdom as a whole. The factory which is to produce the prefabricated units for this scheme is complete, and the machinery is already being installed. When it begins production, in July this year, it will have a capacity of 2,500 houses a year which other house building authorities can draw on. A third housing scheme will be going to tender next month, a fourth is at an advanced design stage, and two more are at earlier design stages. This represents a very large volume of work, and I am assured that there is every prospect of the development corporation making good in 1967 the target of 4,000 houses adopted for its first four years of activity.

Industrial progress has been outstanding by any standards, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his generous recognition of the successful efforts of the corporation and the general manager. Work has started on the site where a giant forging press, the first of its kind in Europe, is to be erected. It will form part of a very large factory which will make forgings for the aircraft, power and oil industries in British and continental markets. The scale of this undertaking can be estimated from the fact that the capital investment involved is between £8 million and £9 million and the employment potential is 2,000. Equally valuable are the advanced skills and equipment it will introduce into Scotland.

In addition, the first purpose-built factory, with an employment potential of 110 jobs, was completed in December, 1964, and contracts have been let for the first two of four advanced factories for which the development corporation has already had a number of inquiries. A cement mixing company, ancillary to the industrialised housing project, has completed its own factory, and within the last few days a second company producing houses by industrialised methods has announced its intention of building a factory at Livingston. Finally, I have every reason to hope that an early announcement will be made concerning a very valuable project which is likely to provide substantial employment of a desirable kind.

All in all, Livingston's prospects of successful and speedy development are very promising. The new town will be the centre of a whole system of regional growth and can expect to benefit as a community from the impetus built up in the surrounding areas. But not only will major industrial developments in the adjoining areas contribute to its growth. It can also expect a substantial contribution from Edinburgh not only by way of industrial movement, but also from commuters who choose to live outside the city itself and who will make a useful contribution to the social life of the new town.

With the combination of the imaginative master plan, the trend-setting housing programme, the outstanding industrial progress already achieved and the rôle of the new town as the focal point of planned regional development, the new town's future is assured. There is every ground for confidence that past and, in the long term, minor setbacks are being overcome and that by its own efforts and with the support of all concerned—in which my hon. Friend is, I know, ready to play a substantial part—Livingston will prove even more successful than the new towns which have preceded it.

I regret that I could not give way during the debate to allow other hon. Members to speak, but I think it fair to say that in the Press controversy which surrounds a great deal of my hon. Friend's criticism he to some extent suffered a great deal. He gave the right hon. Member for Argyll every opportunity to respond, and I regret very much that the right hon. Gentleman or one of the other former Scottish Ministers was not in a position to reply. All I will say is that in seeking to present this version from the new Government, we have been fair, I think, in recording all that has gone before and, what is more important, what lies ahead. Livingston can be a great town, and I am sure that we have the good will of hon. Members on both sides, particularly my hon.

Friend the Member for West Lothian and his colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. J. Hill), in saying that the new town will advance to ever widening horizons of prosperity.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes past Three o'clock a.m.