FIRTH OF CLYDE (PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT)

HC Deb 07 July 1969 vol 786 cc962-1023

3.57 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Campbell (Moray and Nairn)

I am glad to have this opportunity to start a debate on planning and development in the area of the Firth of Clyde. In the last two years this area has quickly assumed a special importance industrially. In fact, informed commentators are already writing of a second industrial revolution in West-Central Scotland. I welcome wholeheartedly this prospect, although it brings with it problems and controversy.

We must be ready in Scotland to respond without delay and to the best advantage of Scotland. It will be a test of our adaptability, and a test, also, of our ability to reconcile all legitimate local interests, which may well be in conflict at times for reasons which are wholly justified and reputable, and which should be respected and properly examined.

What is the cause of the situation which has arisen and come to a head very recently? Briefly, it is the conjunction of an important fact of geography and a continuing world trend in shipping. The fact of geography is the deep water in the Firth of Clyde which provides, or can provide, sheltered berths for ships up to 500,000 tons at any state of the tide. It can provide the deepest water terminal facilities around the coasts of Britain.

The trend in shipping to which I referred is towards larger tankers and ore carriers. At various times during the past five years it has been thought that these could not exceed 100,000 or 150,000 tons, but now there are tankers in operation of over 300,000 tons, and others of 200,000 or 250,000 tons are being built and coming off the slipways. The result is that attention is being focused on this very deep water site near a suitable coastline. It is not surprising that there have been inquiries and applications.

Although already there have been some opportunities to discuss this situation in the House and in the Scottish Committees, the increasing importance of the subject is the reason why the Opposition are providing time today for it to be debated. Of course, we do so with our usual constructive approach to such subjects. We seek to clarify from the Government what their latest attitude is to this matter and what, if anything, the Government are proposing to augment or change the existing system for planning and co-ordination to enable that system to deal effectively with the new and challenging situation.

There is no doubt of the potential in the Firth of Clyde if the present world trends continue. I make clear straight away that I do not intend to examine individual projects, but to discuss the situation in general. One project has already been the subject of a public inquiry under planning procedure and a decision is still pending; and, of course, I have no intention of discussing that. As regards tankers and ore carriers it is not surprising that the first proposals coming forward should be related to the oil and steel industries. The oil industry is already operating a system making use of the deep water in the West by its terminal at Finnart, on Loch Long, from which oil is pumped to Grangemouth.

The effect of proposals coming forward is to show that there is no adequate overall planning body to take a grip of the situation and to undertake the necessary co-ordination. There is the Economic Planning Council, which deals with the whole of Scotland and the four regional groups which work to it, but those regional groups do not cover West Central Scotland. There is not a special group for that area.

Planning procedures are being changed under the Bill which recently went through this House. The development plans of the present system are being changed to structure plans, but that change cannot come into its final use in the West of Scotland until the Wheatley Commission's report has been presented and considered and the new local government organisation, whatever it may be, has come into existence. We know that that is bound to be some years ahead.

The result is that there are a number of planning authorities in the area. This means that applications and projects coming forward are dealt with in a piecemeal way. The authorities, naturally, are concerned primarily with their own areas and not with the whole area round the estuary of the Clyde. Of course, the Secretary of State, who is responsible for the whole area, comes into the procedure, but he comes in in the later stages. It is difficult where the Secretary of State is concerned for him to start directing at the beginning because he is the ultimate appeal authority under the planning procedure.

I shall give a few examples of what can happen. A firm, perhaps a large international firm, may come forward with a project which seems highly desirable, but its first application may be for a site which is not a very sensible one. If that site is rejected as a result of the planning procedure and perhaps a public inquiry, the firm has to start all over again to apply for another site. The question is, will it be patient enough to remain in the area and go on being interested enough to put in a second or even a third application?

The same project under the present procedure could be the subject of more than one public inquiry with much the same circumstances and much of the same ground being covered in the second inquiry. This could mean duplication and delay. There is also considerable doubt, which hon. Members on both sides of the House must face, whether objectors, who may have a very sound case against a particular location, are getting a fair hearing before decisions are taken.

I make clear right at the beginning, in case there should be any doubt on either side of the House and to save time, that we are fully in favour of industrial development which will help and improve the Scottish economy. There is no question of our opposing viable projects in principle, but we are concerned that so far as is humanly possible these projects should go to the most suitable places and not cause animosity among the local community, or scar unnecessarily outstanding scenic beauty and thus damage the interests of our important tourist industry, or give rise to industrial dereliction similar to that which, in the past, has marred areas of Scotland and which we are now having to rectify.

There is another difficulty. A firm may say that there is only one site possible, for its own commercial reasons or on technical grounds. Who, then, can challenge the firm on what appears to be either its commercial considerations or technical matters? It may be that in the circumstances the site is only marginally superior to some other site which is better from all other points of view. The firm may not know all the facts. The good will that it would win by going to the second site might, in the long run, in its own interests outweigh the marginal advantage of the first site.

These are some problems which arise. I start by acknowledging that this is a complex and difficult situation. Because of the comparatively large number of different planning authorities in the area it is extremely difficult for those with projects and for the authorities to reach the best solutions, and reach them without long delays. We must not let these opportunities in Scotland slip by.

Besides those I have mentioned, there are two other bodies in the field. There is the Clyde Estuary Development Group, which was formed last year by the Clyde Port Authority. The Port Authority takes the chair and the Scottish Office has representatives who act as assessors. Therefore, that Development Group is something with which the Government are concerned. The authorities represented on it are the coastal authorities of the Clyde Estuary. Notably, they do not include Glasgow Corporation. It was this group that commissioned the Metra-Weddle Report.

In addition, the Government appear to have revived a body which has been in existence since 1947, namely, the Clyde Valley Planning Advisory Committee. That body was in existence earlier in other forms, but in 1947 it was set up with its present terms of reference. There are several authorities which are represented on the committee, but which are not included in the development group, including Glasgow. On the other hand, Argyll County Council is not on the advisory committee, although it is a member of the development group being one of the coastal authorities in the estuary.

It was announced on 26th March that the Government had proposed new terms of reference for the advisory committee. Are those terms of reference still being discussed, and have any decisions been reached upon them? I should also like to ask whether the advisory committee—which is clearly an advisory body, as its terms of reference have always made clear—is to have any executive functions.

Furthermore, who is to pay for the work which is to be commissioned by the advisory committee? Is it the constituent authorities themselves? If so, I suspect that there will be a good deal of argument about the allocation of expenditure. It seems quite clear that the development group and the advisory committee are not working together, and that neither is geared to tackle the whole situation. Do the Government consider that this machinery is enough to deal with the present situation and will it be able to do so in future?

Is there not a case for setting up a new body to deal with the special situation, at least during the coming 10 years, until the new planning authorities, which are likely to be much larger than the present ones, are in the saddle and are operating the new structure plan procedure? Until that happens, is there not a case for special action and for a new body to take over the functions of the advisory committee?

It is also vital that objections to industrial development at certain proposed sites should be heard, should be seen to be heard, and should be fairly treated. Without going into particular cases, I can say that dl objectors who have been in touch with me in regard to various schemes in the area over the past year have made it clear that they are not opposed to the development on the site in question, provided that they can be satisfied that alternatives have been fully considered and that the whole matter has been looked into and objections properly heard before a final decision has been taken, and that the procedure has been impartial and complete.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon)

This is the second time that the hon. Gentleman has returned to the theme of objectors not being fairly heard. I should like to have chapter and verse. We should be in breach of the planning Acts if we did not hear objectors fairly and properly. I should like to know when this has happened.

Mr. Campbell

What I am saying is that those who are putting forward objections to particular schemes are not against the development itself but want to be satisfied that their objections will be fully heard under the planning procedure and that alternative sites will be considered.

We in this House who have to consider planning legislation may be satisfied that everything is being done according to the law, but it is important that the procedure must be seen to be carried out. We must make it clear, where matters are being carried out quite correctly under the law, that everything is being correctly done, so that people do not feel a grievance. Local animosity can arise if persons in affected areas get the impression that the whole matter is not being fully looked into.

I shall not take time by going into cases, although one or two of my hon. Friends will probably be doing so. I will gladly inform the Minister afterwards about some of the worries, anxieties and doubts which have been expressed to me. I agree with the Minister that, if the present planning procedure is being correctly carried out, then everything possible is being done. That in itself does not remove an impression that something is being steamrollered through, whether or not that is in fact true. That is the point I seek to make.

We must seek to avoid unnecessarily long delays. At the same time, we must not lose opportunities altogether because, for example, a sponsor of a project loses patience and leaves Scotland.

I should like to say a word or two about the steel industry, which, being nationalised, must be the concern of the Government. I shall not go into questions of day-to-day administration, which is not our concern. I wish to point to the long-term potential of this very deep water for the steel industry. If the trend towards larger ore carriers continues, and there are to be ore carriers of over 150,000 tons in the future, then probably only the Firth of Clyde is the place where they can go without dredging.

The economics of the matter is that the richer ores with a greater iron content can be brought greater distances—for example, from Africa, Brazil and Australia—more economically in these large ships than ores of less iron content can be brought shorter distances in smaller ships. There is also the economic fact which has been proved in other parts of the world, notably in Japan, that if steel works are sited near to an ore terminal, transport and other costs are reduced.

In saying this, and drawing attention to the potential on the Clyde, I am not intending to knock other parts of Britain. I readily recognise that Teesside is now being considered because there is a need there, where at present a large part of the steel industry is situated, for some form of terminal.

I am saying that the Government should be careful that decisions taken now or in the near future should not proved to be shortsighted. If, in four or five years' time, ore carriers of these large sizes are operating as part of the normal scene in the steel industry, we cannot then say that it could not have been foreseen. It can be foreseen now. We must expect larger and larger ships to be launched over the next four or five years. In that event, the Clyde Estuary is probably the only place where such large ships can be brought in without there having to be an immense amount of dredging work. It would have a considerable effect on the siting of future steel works.

The Scottish Council for Industry and Development set up, a few months ago, a study group to look into all these questions. That group issued an interim statement three or four weeks ago, in which it held out the prospect of an ocean terminal in the Firth of Clyde. The statement foresaw that economies of scale of the kind of which I have been speaking are likely to make this necessary in the future. They envisaged an ocean terminal to serve not only Britain, but a large part of Western Europe, with a view to these large vessels being kept out of the comparatively shallow waters of the North Sea, in which the hazards tend to increase sharply the rate of insurance. Insurance comprises a very large item in running these very large ships.

This would entail a transshipment system and additional activity not only in the west of Scotland, but also in the Forth, in the east. The group foresaw that it would create an east-west axis through Scotland, with outlets to Europe on the east.

All these are exciting prospects for Scotland and its economic future. What attention are the Government giving to them? They are prospects which will exact a lot of hard work, good planning and wise administration in both central and local government, if we are to secure the full benefits from what could well be for this area a second industrial revolution.

4.21 p.m.

Mr. William Small (Glasgow, Scotstoun)

I welcome the speech of the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell). I am pleased to find that on this occasion, unlike previous debates, there is no element of a "Save the Argylls" undertone. As he rightly said, we are discussing a most important and pleasing prospect for Scotland.

I live close to where development is taking place. I served on the local authority for about six years, so I have a reasonably good understanding of the geography, the complexities of the subject, and the worries of those who are affected by development of this kind.

In considering these matters in terms of planning and the other aspects involved, we are talking in terms of international concern. Firms with an international reputation are involved. The dialogue which goes on beforehand between these highly reputable firms, competent and well advised, and the planning administrations, both local and national, is analogous to the work which Government Departments understand, so to that extent I do not see any great degree of secrecy. On the other hand, I see a motivation for coming to an understanding.

I take the example of what is now being planned for Portencross. In West Kilbride, there has been a meeting, full of "atmospherics", about the local planning authority and its right to come to terms with Chevron Oil. As far as I know, Chevron Oil has carefully considered where it might find the facilities best suited for it, and, in its judgment, it has now come more or less to the point of deciding that Portencross meets what it needs. The argument in the area is that the oil terminal and refinery might go to Ardrossan. The Clyde Port Authority has done its homework over the past 18 months on this great complex, including the future for steel as well, and the suggestion was that there should be a jetty 1½ miles out from Ardrossan. That is a practical possibility to accommodate oil. There is no dispute that it is physically possible for that purpose. However, for steel and ore it is impractical.

That is the judgment of people who make their living more or less from advising according to the relevant criteria in such cases. Therefore, as I say, for oil an extended jetty 1½miles out from Ardrossan is physically possible, but for the importation of ore it is not practicable. To that extent, therefore, it has been disregarded from the standpoint of the wider outlook.

We must come to a decision soon on these matters. For the last 10 years, we have lagged behind Europort, at Rotterdam. Without a good port, our nation is losing revenue. Great revenue can come in to a port from every gallon of oil or ton of ore. I have made a rough calculation of what it could be. The hon. Gentleman spoke of vessels up to 500,000 tons. The arithmetic which I have done is purely symbolic rather than accurate, and I ask for it to be treated in that way, but it leads me to this sort of conclusion.

There are 240 gallons per ton of oil. There are 240 pence in £1. There are cargoes of 250,000 tons, and a prospect of going up to 500,000 tons. Thus, at ld. per gallon, there is the prospect of £250,000 every time a ship docks. With one tanker landing in this area each month, there could be an income of £3 million every year if the surcharge were 1d. a gallon. Those are symbolic figures, but they show what the revenue could be from port facilities and what a great asset we could have in Scotland.

There has been argument on television, in the Press and elsewhere about navigational hazards. But this stretch of water has been, so to speak, the test-bed; all kinds of ships have used the measured mile, being put through their paces there. In terms of safety, therefore, all is well. There are 13 miles of channel and all deep water. As for the hazard of fog, I can only say that I know the area well and that the argument between Prestwich and Abbotsinch Airport about this hazard is an indication of the way cases can be built up by people who want to argue about location.

From the broad point of view, I urge that we move quickly. Let us close the deal and get on with the job.

4.26 p.m.

Sir Fitzroy Maclean (Bute and North Ayrshire)

I listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Scotstoun (Mr. Small), who happens to be my constituent. I am not so sure though whether he votes for me. I accept some of what he says. I agree that we ought to press on, but we ought not to do so at the cost of brushing aside objections or of careful examination of the facts.

I cannot agree, either, with the hon. Gentleman's view about what constitutes amenity. He was reported in the local newspaper last week as having said that he considers that a oil refinery would greatly add to the amenities of the Hunterston Peninsular. That is an eccentric point of view.

Mr. Small

I did not say "greatly add". I said that man-made structures, such as the Forth Bridge and other things, can sometimes contribute to greater amenity, even enhancing the natural scene as we see it at present in certain places.

Sir F. Maclean

That is not how the hon. Gentleman was reported.

Mr. Small

I cannot answer for that.

Sir F. Maclean

The hon. Gentleman must take it up with the local newspaper.

I am glad that we are having this debate. The proposals for industrial development which we are discussing are of the greatest importance not only to the Clyde, but to Scotland and to the United Kingdom as a whole. It seems to me, therefore, that we should discuss them in a wide national context, not piecemeal or in a narrow local context, as they seem to have been hitherto. This is why I strongly support the plea made in opening the debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) for better planning machinery.

My own position is clear. I have always wanted to bring more industry to Scotland and indeed to my own constituency, but I also want to try to ensure that it is sited in such a way that it does the most good and the least harm. Also, I want to ensure that in the discussions and inquiries which lie before us proper consideration is given to the views and interests of all concerned. These may not all be identical. It would be surprising if they were. But that is no reason why the views of this or that section of the community should simply be swept aside.

What is no less important is that decisions should be taken with full knowledge of all the relevant facts. These, in spite of Questions tabled and reports written, have so far been anything but easy to come by. There has been a tendency on the part of all concerned to act secretly, to put up a smokescreen and get busy behind it. This naturally makes people wonder just what is going on and whether they will be "blinded by science" and then have a lot of decisions imposed on them by one authority or another, without proper discussion of the why or wherefore.

I make no claim to be an expert in these matters. I am not a hydrographer, nor a marine engineer. I have never brought a 300,000-ton tanker into port in the teeth of a south-westerly gale, which is one of the problems involved. I am not a nuclear scientist, nor even, like so many hon. Members, an economist. I have never had to plan the layout of a steel complex, or operate an oil refinery. Nor have I ever had to deal, except on a small scale, with pollution. But, without being an expert, I have, like most hon. Members, had enough experience of life and public affairs to want to be given much more information and to have many more questions answered before decisions are taken.

Take perhaps the most important question of all—employment. In North Ayrshire, in my constituency, which is the area chiefly concerned, we have several hundred men, women and children of different ages out of work, rather under 1,000 all told. But there is also a shortage of skilled labour. It is common knowledge that I.C.I. is hard put to it to find the skilled men it needs for its new nylon plant at Ardeer. I should like to be told in due course how many new jobs will be created by each of the proposed projects, not jobs shifted from one part of Scotland to another but genuine new jobs. As a constituency Member, I would also like to know how many of the new jobs will be filled locally and not by men brought in from outside.

I should like next to touch on the only firm proposal up to now that directly concerns my constituency, and which, having passed Ayr County Council, is shortly to be the subject of a public inquiry—the proposed siting on good agricultural land of an oil terminal and refinery by Chevron Oil at Portencross on the south side of the Hunterston Peninsula. In spite of what the hon. Member for Scotstoun said, or did not say, it is bound to destroy the amenities of one of the most beautiful parts of the Firth of Clyde. An oil refinery does not add to amenities anywhere. It might be said that a nuclear power station does, but not an oil refinery.

I understand that the project is to cost £30 or £40 million. At least 40 per cent.—£12 to f16 million—would come out of the British taxpayer's pocket. It appears that it would eventually provide about 200 or 300 jobs, mainly for skilled workers, at a cost to the taxpayer of about £500,000 a job. But it would also deprive more than 70 agricultural workers of their jobs and 30 or so families of their homes. Hon. Members opposite may not think that that is very important, but it is important to the people concerned. I ask these questions genuinely and look forward to receiving answers if they are available.

Another question I want to ask is this. How desirable an addition to our economy is this project? What sort of bargain shall we have for our £12 million or £16 million? Will Chevron, for example, be competing with British oil companies on an already overcrowded market? Will the profits stay in Scotland or Great Britain, or will they go back to the United States? These questions need to be asked and answered. We must not let ourselves be dazzled by the glamour of big business and high-powered salesmanship. I should surely not have to say that to hon. Members opposite.

Chevron Oil, supported by Ayr County Council, except those members who represent the area concerned, says that economic necessity demands that the oil terminal and refinery should be sited together at Portencross, where there is the necessary depth of water to bring in big tankers. For this purpose it proposes to take a good many hundred acres of just about the best farmland in the United Kingdom. And then there is the question of the damage that will be done to the amenities of the Clyde. What is meant in this context by "economic necessity"? Why do the oil terminal and the refinery have to be sited together?

We all know that oil can be conveyed for considerable distances by pipeline. Another American oil company, Murco, proposes to do just that a few miles away up the Clyde, at Inverkip. Does it not mean, when Chevron Oil talks about economic necessity, that if it were asked to pipe its oil 10 miles or so its profits would not be quite so big?

Mr. Archie Manuel (Central Ayrshire)

Where does the hon. Gentleman mean that the oil should be piped to?

Sir F. Maclean

One possibility would be in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, between Lochwinnoch and Kilbirnie.

Mr. Manuel

Has the hon. Gentleman consulted the people there?

Sir F. Maclean

I have not consulted them. But neither have the people in my constituency been consulted. I like to think that those concerned explore every possibility and do not say, "Oh, dear! This happens to be in the constituency of the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) and, therefore, it is sacrosanct", or, "This happens to be near where So-and-so lives, so we must not touch it".

The hon. Gentleman has illustrated my point for me extremely well, because, whatever he says, if the refinery were sited a few miles away inland the land concerned would be moorland and not so valuable agriculturally. What is more, it already has some beginnings of industrial development. Then, quite clearly, the refinery would not have the same effect on amenities as it would if it were sited on the coast.

Yet, in spite of this, Ayr County Council, after no more than seven weeks for consultation, agreed to the project without apparently even bothering to find out the additional cost of siting the refinery a few miles further inland, in a position where it would do less damage to amenity and less damage from an agricultural point of view. It certainly met the requirements of the hon. Member for Scotstoun and did a quick job, considering how much there was to go into. This seems incredible, but it is, unfortunately, all too typical and bears out what my hon. Friend said about the way decisions of this kind are reached piecemeal, haphazardly and without most of the relevant information.

Nor, so far as I know, has anyone examined the possibility of making Murco and Chevron share a terminal or use offshore mooring points and underwater pipelines. These things may not be practicable—I have said that I am not an expert—but they are done successfully in other countries.

But, of course, the Chevron Oil project is not the only or the most important project which there is talk of siting on or around the Hunterston Peninsula. There is also a project for a multi-million pound iron ore terminal and steel complex, for which, according to the widely discussed Metra-Weddle report, the best site would be on the northern side of the Hunterston Peninsula between Hunterston and Fairlie. This is clearly an even more important proposition and one which at first sight is much more desirable to bring to Scotland—if it materialises at all, which, I gather, is by no means certain. On the other hand, if this project were sited at Hunterston, it would clearly do even more damage to the amenities of the Clyde. Indeed, it would change the character of the whole area.

Now, here again, it seems to me, a lot of probing must be done. I am not prepared to accept the Metra-Weddle Report as gospel. The consultants' terms of reference seem to me to have been too narrow and their study of the subject not to have gone far enough. It is true that there is the necessary deep water and also a certain amount of flat land at Hunterston and that, therefore, it would no doubt be possible to site a terminal there for giant tankers and ore carriers, with some industrial installations nearby, but a glance at the chart will show that deep water and flat land are also to be found in a number of other places on the Clyde.

What, for example, are the arguments against Ardmore, on the Upper Clyde, where, we are told, the steel industry wanted to go originally and where 6,000 acres are to be reclaimed, offering tremendous possibilities for development? Could not something of the kind be done there on an even bigger scale?

Another question needs asking in relation to the steel industry. Supposing the main weight of the steel industry is brought to Ayrshire, what will be the effect on North Lanarkshire, where it is at present and where unemployment is already serious and likely to become worse? Is this something we should worry about, or is it not? If, on the other hand, a move to Ayrshire is desirable—and I accept that it may be—what are the arguments against Ardrossan? I listened to what the hon. Member for Scotstoun had to say about this with interest, but, with all due respect, I cannot accept his views as absolutely definitive.

What, in fact, are the arguments against Ardrossan, only four or five miles south of Hunterston and crying out for industrial development? I am sure that there are arguments against it, because there are always arguments against anything, but do they necessarily outweigh the very real arguments against Hunterston? I believe that the potentialities of Ardrossan, which could be developed in conjunction with the existing growth point at Irvine, deserve very careful study. Have they had that study? I have no reason to believe that they have.

We are always being told that this or that or the other alternative would involve additional expenditure, that it would involve building jetties, blowing up bits of the sea-bed, etc., but just how much expenditure? What proportion of the total would such expenditure be? How would it compare with the additional expenditure that would have to be approved by siting the steel complex at, say, Hunterston? Because, of course, the cost, whether to the ratepayer or to the taxpayer, of providing the social infrastructure required by a green-field project of this kind would be enormous, whereas if any of these projects were to be sited on the highly populated Upper Clyde, or at Ardrossan, within easy reach of Irvine New Town and the whole of that complex, then the roads, houses, schools, and so on, would be readily available. I am prepared to be proved wrong about it, but I should like to know the facts.

A lot has been said about the damage likely to be done by both projects to the amenities of the Clyde and about how much or how little that matters. On one thing I think we are all agreed, namely, that the Clyde is a very beautiful place, that it is readily accessible to the whole of Central Scotland, that its beauties are enjoyed by millions of people every year and that none of us wants to see its amenities damaged more than is absolutely necessary. That surely is common ground. It has, of course, been said often enough that you cannot live off amenities. But that is only partly true. Whatever the Metra-Weddle Report may say to the contrary, we have in North Ayrshire a flourishing tourist trade which makes a big contribution to the Scottish economy and gives a great deal of employment. If the amenities disappeared, the tourist industry would be likely to disappear, too. How many people go to Motherwell for their holidays, after all? I mean no offence to Motherwell. I am speaking only in the context of tourism. I am sorry if I sounded rude about it. The loss to the tourist industry would mean a big financial loss to Scotland and would also mean the loss of a good many jobs.

We are often reminded of how much damage was done by ruthless industrialisation and bad planning in the 19th century. We do not want to see the same mistakes made again or to embark on projects which will be out of date in 10 years from now, as so many earlier projects have been, because views on this and kindred matters change surprisingly quickly. Bright new ideas are often very soon out of date.

Let me take one example. It is barely 10 years since a first nuclear power station was built at Hunterston—Hunterston A. It was stated officially and categorically at the time that the reason for siting it there was for safety. It had to be well away from any centres of industry or population. Now it is apparently proposed to site a vast industrial complex all around about it. What is the explanation?

As HANSARD shows, my attempts to get a straight answer out of the Ministry of Power or the Scottish Office have been notably unsuccessful. But, by one of those amusing but revealing mishaps which do not occur nearly often enough in official life, the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, enclosed in his answer to one of my letters some of the Departmental minutes written on it over a couple of months. I will read out one of them, dated 14th March last, concerning restrictions on development in the neighbourhood of Hunterston A.

The minute reads: You will see that we think it better to avoid being too specific about the actual details of the restrictions, and in this the Ministry of Power hold the same view, but for your own information the categories of restriction are:—

1. 1. Any development within a radius of one mile from the site, which might lead to any increase in residential population or might cause an influx of non-residential population:
2. 2. Any development within a radius of two miles of the site which will provide residential accommodation, permanent or temporary, for more than fifty people, or would be likely to cause an influx of non-residential population exceeding fifty people.
3. 3. Any development within a radius of five miles likely to lead to an increase of five hundred people in the population of any place".

But all this now seems to be going overboard. If so, it represents a fairly sudden change of view. It would be interesting to know what has happened to justify this and whether it is, in fact, now perfectly safe—in spite of everything that was said 10 years ago and was still being said by the Scottish Office less than four months ago—to site an oil refinery and terminal, and even a steel complex, only a few hundred yards from an old-fashioned nuclear installation of the Hunterston A type. Here is a question on which I believe the public have the right to be reassured; and this is only one of many questions that need to be answered.

What surely we must aim at is careful zoning into industrial and amenity areas and to try as best we can to keep the two separate. What I am afraid we may get, if we do not look out, is the sort of haphazard, piecemeal, ribbon development which spoils larger areas of the countryside than is necessary and for insufficient reason.

The Clyde, from Gourock to Ardrossan, is one of the most beautiful and unspoilt stretches of coast in the world and is enjoyed by enormous numbers of people annually. It is Central Scotland's playground. From the point of view of the tourist industry, it is a big money spinner and could be an even bigger one if, say, £12 to £16 million of the taxpayers' money were injected into it.

And yet, without waiting to hear if there is any real likelihood of the much talked of steel complex ever coming to Scotland, without troubling to find out whether the proposed oil refinery could be sited further inland, without examining the dangers of pollution or nuclear radiation and without paying any attention to the thousands of objections which have been addressed to them by local residents, Ayr County Council is quite arbitrarily seeking to designate the Hunterston area for industrial development. This, in the end, will mean that this part of the Clyde will have been ruined, not for any grandiose industrial project—because that may fall through—but simply to make "a fast buck" for a handful of American oilmen.

I want to see more industry come to Scotland and we should do all we can to get it to come. But I want to see it go where it will do the most good and cause the least harm, where it will provide the most new jobs and do the least damage to amenities, and where it will make the biggest contribution to the national economy with the fewest bad side effects.

This is not going to be easy. There are bound to be conflicts of interest and inevitably concessions will have to be made by both sides, to necessity, to the public interest and to plain common sense. I want to make certain at this stage that all concerned have a proper chance to state their case and that due weight is given to their views and interests. I also want to make certain that any decisions which are taken are made in the light of all the relevant information and in a truly national context.

4.54 p.m.

Mr. Archie Manuel (Central Ayrshire)

I appreciated the tone of much of the speech of the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell) and I agreed with a great many of his comments. I agreed entirely with his remarks about planning and development and particularly with what he said about the importance to Scotland of the Firth of Clyde.

The hon. Member gave tacit support to the Hunterston proposal because of the deep water facilities there. These days we must envisage ships of not just 150,000 tons but of 500,000 tons. Hunterston is the only deep water base from which ships of this size can operate, particularly bearing in mind the needs of the steel industry.

However, the hon. Member went on to refer to a change in the planning system. I agree that change is necessary in many things, but remembering the rights of objectors—not just individuals, but organisations—I suggest that to talk of changing the planning system at this stage could result in great delay which might have a ruinous effect on Scotland's chance of securing the industrial complex about which we are speaking.

Mr. Gordon Campbell

I was not suggesting a change in the planning system. I was referring to the change which will occur, in any event, as a result of the Bill which is going through Parliament. I was questioning the Government on the need for an additional overall planning body. I was not referring to changing the procedures and the whole system.

Mr. Manuel

The hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) made a contribution in his inimitable style and said much about objectors. I assure him that their views are given pride of place. In Ayrshire, every suitable opportunity is provided so that objectors have wide opportunities to make their views abundantly clear.

I hope that the hon. Member will make it clear to the objectors that they should voice not only their objections, but support them with facts. In return, I assure him that Ayr County Council will provide all the facts when appearing before inquiries on this subject. The council will explain factually why it is against the views of the objectors, who do not want industry to come to Hunterston.

One would imagine, listening to some objectors, that it is planned to establish this industrial complex on the doorstep of West Kilbride. Does the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire know how far from West Kilbride this development will take place? I have walked it. Indeed. I have trekked up and down Hunterston, but I have not seen the millions of holidaymakers to whom the hon. Gentleman referred. I frequently fish at Portencross and I have not seen millions of holidaymakers there, either.

West Kilbride is an exclusive little place, but I urge the hon. Member to visit some of the inhabitants who live in the housing schemes of the area. Let him go inland and seek the views of the workers on this subject. I think that he will get opinions of a different colour compared with his rich Tory friends who reside in the more influential parts of West Kilbride.

I deplore the quite uncalled for criticisms which have been made of Ayr County Council as the planning authority for the Hunterston area. Having been a member of the council for many years, I resent the hostility which has been shown by a section—I emphasise that it is only one section—of the population. of West Kilbride towards Mr. Miller, the county's chief legal assistant, and county councillor Lambie, the chairman of the planning committee.

Both of these gentlemen attended a meeting last week at which they were to explain their reasons for reaching certain decisions. The meeting was held in West Kilbride. but I regret to say that the section of the population to which I have referred did not want to hear the reasons that these gentlemen were prepared to give. They were ready to explain why they had decided to support the industrial complex being sited at Hunterston.

This section of the population did its best to break up the meeting; and I am informed by my local newspaper that finally the meeting ended in disorder. The two gentlemen could not make themselves heard because they were shouted down by what I will not call dervishes, but certainly educated ignoramuses. People attending a meeting to hear reasons surely should listen to the answers to their questions and to explanatory speeches made at it.

Sir F. Maclean

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one of the questions which the representatives of Ayr County Council were unable to answer at that meeting was how much more it would cost Chevron to site the complex further inland in his constituency? It was apparent that they had not even asked Chevron that question or, if they had, that Chevron had refused to answer it.

As for the meeting breaking up in disorder, I understand that what happened was that members of Ayr County Council tried to bring the meeting to a close—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to be brief.

Sir F. Maclean

The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) gave way to me.

Mr. Manuel

The local Press is not exactly against the hon. Member, but it carried the headline, "Planning convener howled down". I will not read the article, but it appears from it that the situation was worse even than I am suggesting and that those attending the meeting did not want to hear the reasons for Ayr County Council's decision.

I know many people in West Kilbride. As I understand, the people at the meeting thought that Ayr County Council was not in possession of the full facts—the hon. Member said something similar today—and, therefore, should not have decided to support the deep water port, the oil refinery, the ore terminal and the steel works being sited on the Firth of Clyde, mainly at Hunterston.

As for Ayr County Council not being in possession of the full facts, hon. Members should remember that the county council was a member of the Clyde Estuary Group which led to the Metra-Weddle Report. They should remember, too, that the Clyde Port Authority, very much in the centre of that, has also accepted that the complex should be in that area. The opinion of the Clyde Port Authority should not be treated lightly. Its opinion is to be highly valued—

Sir F. Maclean

The one question on which the county council did not seem to have been informed was the essential one of the difference in cost involved in siting the refinery on the shore and siting it inland. Why was that?

Mr. Manuel

My comrades on the benches round me are complaining bitterly that I am being too kind in giving way to the hon. Member so often, since they want to contribute to the debate. In view of that, I hope that he will forgive me if I do not give way to him again.

I understand that certain elements at the West Kilbride meeting advocated putting the oil refinery at Beith, in my constituency, midway between the point which the hon. Member mentioned and Kilbirnie. What the West Kilbride people will oppose by every means at their disposal being sited in their area, they will impose on the people of another area with whom they have had no communication. If in the proper planning sense the oil refinery is to be sited at Beith, we will accept it. I mean by that, recognising who is the planning authority for the area. The hon. Member does not accept the decision already made, but we will not accept it simply to suit the convenience of those in West Kilbride who are against it.

The people who are against the proposals for Hunterston now want another inquiry set up so that other areas can be examined in an attempt to make certain that the industrial complex shall not be near their area. Do not they realise the great danger of Scotland losing altogether the enormous benefits that this £1,000 million complex could bring? If there is to be another lengthy inquiry, in my opinion Scotland could lose out altogether by the whole industrial complex going abroad. That should be kept firmly in mind.

The people of West Kilbride will have an opportunity to state their views and have them considered fully at a public inquiry. We have deep water facilities for the port at Hunterston, and we must make sure that they are used for the benefit of Scotland, thereby ensuring that we have no return to the days of decay and depression which inflicted deep wounds on the population of North Ayrshire before the hon. Member ever knew the place.

I was there as a local councillor at that time, and we are not having that sort of thing again inflicted on Scotland. It happened in the late 'twenties and 'thirties, and our memories of those days are too vivid for us to risk losing the opportunity not only of putting North Ayrshire on the map but of opening up a new era for Scotland.

Let us not make a scapegoat of Ayr County Council. It has a record second to none as a live, progressive local authority which has led the way in the reduction of the infant and maternal mortality rates, in the introduction of school milk and meals, in the setting up of nursery schools and in introducing many other services which, to my recollection, received no support from the representatives of West Kilbride.

I call on the House to support the county council and to recognise that it stands at the forefront of the very best of our local authorities.

5.8 p.m.

Miss Harvie Anderson (Renfrew, East)

In the time at my disposal, I will not attempt to follow the arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel). Some of us came here fearful lest parochial interest should prevail, and certainly his speech has added very much to my fears—

Mr. Manuel

In what way, you silly woman?

Sir F. Maclean

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) to call you a silly woman?

Miss Anderson

Curiously enough, I could call the hon. Gentleman much worse, but I will not.

Mr. Manuel

What?

Miss Anerson

I shall not take up the time of the House by doing it now. I may have an opportunity to do so after we have left the Chamber.

The consideration before us today is how to make the proposed developments of the Clyde in the most effective way. Those of us whose constituencies lie in the heart of the area obviously feel great concern at the conflict of interests which any development on this scale must arouse.

I welcome the proposal for a deep water berth. It will secure for Scotland the base for industrial prosperity over the next half century. It is also necessary to make a major decision without delay, since one of the reasons is that, when the steel industry contemplates the renewal of its ore-carrying fleet, it must do it in the light of the knowledge of where that fleet is to discharge its cargoes. If we are to consider ships which are three times the size of those carrying ore at present, we must do so in terms of a decision clearly made as to whether there will be a deep water berth and where.

The decision falls into two parts: first, that there shall be such a deep water berth, which I fully support, and. secondly, where it shall be sited. I do not pretend to be an expert, but I suggest that, regarding the Metra Report, certain aspects vital to Scotland were not considered.

Two particular aspects I should like to mention are, first, that no estimate was asked for of the comparative costs of the areas under consideration and, secondly, that no analysis was asked for of the overall cost saving should a single location for the whole concentration be adopted. I hope that the Minister of State will note these two points, because they seem very important in regard to the best investment which we can make with a very large sum of the taxpayers' money.

The establishment of an oil terminal is only part of the story, because it will bring in its wake many associated developments. The considerations before us cover an area which, if developed piecemeal, could establish as a black country the magnificent area of beauty which, in the Metra Report, is described by Professor Weddle as comparable only with the Alps, the Rockies and our own west coast of Scotland. We should recognise the problem of interest for the tourist trade in these words. If we alter the character of this area it would certainly be permissible to do so if work was to be created for all in the years ahead. But many of these developments are high cost investment and low yield in jobs.

I heard the Minister of State mutter some rather disparaging things in connection with this point when it was made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean). It is quite reasonable to ask how many jobs will be provided from this high cost investment. It is also reasonable to ask what proportion of these jobs will be for skilled workers and what proportion will be for unskilled workers, because in the immediate future we must consider how many new jobs will be available in relation to the investment. I think that many of the projects which we are considering have not got the job yield that will translate the heavy weight of industrial population from central Scotland, where it now is, to the area under discussion. In this connection I should like to draw the Minister's attention to the picture of Bantry Bay in yesterday's Sunday Times which seems to illustrate my point.

Thus, in the foreseeable future, even taking a span of a generation—and I do not propose to attempt to look further ahead than that—a third of the population of the whole of Scotland will probably continue to be employed within the existing industrial complex. In other words, of the 11 million people in Scotland, nearly half are concentrated in an area—

Mr. John Rankin (Glasgow, Govan)

Twenty million people.

Miss Anderson

I stand corrected. But my point still remains that half the population of Scotland live in an area of minimum amenity value but are within reach of an area of maximum amenity. Ironically, because of rising wage rates this area has come within reach for the first time ever in recent years. We are considering the balance of interests for the whole of the industrial complex in central Scotland—[Interruption.] No, they do not. They used to go once a year, but they now go much more often.

I should like to remind hon. Gentlemen opposite that the area with which we are concerned is not only Hunterston, but the whole of the Firth of Clyde. These proposals cover virtually the whole area now regarded as the compensation for the terrible housing and amenity deficiencies of the last industrial development on Clydeside. Such amenity could be denied for the purposes for which they were accepted as being required in recent times.

I want to make a short reference to a minute of the Renfrew County Council in January this year. The point is that at the joint meeting of the Town Planning, Health and Landward Committtee of the County Council agreement was reached about the necessary alteration in the county plan to pursue the developments which we are discussing. At Wemyss Bay, Longhaugh and further down the river, the green belt concept has to be altered to accommodate industrial development. I am not against this, but it is important to recognise that only a few years ago highly populated industrial complexes were thought to require a green belt as lungs for the people living within them. We are curtailing the size of that green belt or lung. We are doing it in two ways. First, by altering the existing green belt boundaries and, secondly, by proposing to absorb huge areas vastly greater than the green belt in the new complexes. There is also the question of where people shall live in these new complexes. Those of us who live within oil refinery range, which is very much greater than is popularly supposed, know that problems will arise from air pollution not hitherto experienced in that area.

I should like to quote part of a letter from the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland in relation to this problem, although connected with experience at Grangemouth. The final sentence is important: You will know, of course, that there can be no absolute embargo on noxious emissions from premises of this kind and that the firms concerned are only required to adopt the best practicable means of avoiding these. I accept that this is the case, but I also recognise that it produces a situation which does not offer the best living or recreational atmosphere for people. I should like to remind the Secretary of State that the question which was so prominent in the recent inquiry with regard to the establishment of the refinery at Longhaugh was that the majority of patients in Erskine hospital are chronic chest cases.

There is more that I should like to say about points not mentioned so far, but many other hon. Members wish to speak. Among the important considerations not fully described to date is the question of the social investment already made within the industrial complexes and required for any new one and the infrastructure necessary to support effective developments.

There is also the travel-to-work pattern which has changed dramatically in recent years, and which I hope means that people will not have to live as close to their work as was the case when the difficulties in the Glasgow area were originally built up. There is then the question of the Clyde Port Authority proposed reclamation of land which must, because of cost factors, be used for industry.

All those things lead me to believe, and to support my hon. Friend when he says, that we have not enough powerful planning mechanism to make the speedy overall decisions which will on the one hand eliminate the parochial approach and on the other do justice to the conflict which we recognise. I think that it should be possible to set up a committee which would work on a truly regional basis and take into consideration the whole complex including the City of Glasgow as it is at the present time. I think that this committee could be extremely small. I have in mind a committee of nine or ten members.

I think that one member should represent the city—and here I am putting forward a concrete proposal—one member should represent the burghs jointly, two should represent the counties, one member should be a planning expert, and obviously there would have to be somebody from the Scottish office. The committee would have to move quickly. This would be its object. It would have power to make recommendations, which would in turn lead to quick decisions.

I feel—and here I join those who have made this point—that time is slipping by. We cannot afford to avoid making decisions however unpalatable, which will determine at least the initial siting of a deep water berth. I appeal to the Secretary of State to recognise the deficiencies of present procedures. I feel strongly about this for reasons of being associated with the pattern of Scotland for the future. We must develop something now and make the decisive decision on which the whole future and prosperity of Scotland depends.

5.22 p.m.

Mr. George Lawson (Motherwell)

I become rather disturbed when I hear hon. Members opposite talking about expediting planning, or setting up planning machinery to work more effectively and more expeditiously than the existing planning machinery. We have recently discussed a Bill about planning in Scotland. Although it was not as strenuously opposed as some other Bills I have known, we nevertheless saw the Committee dividing on an issue which demanded that everyone affected by a proposal should be post-carded so that he knew exactly how he would be affected. There was a tremendous amount of argument by those who wanted to ensure that everyone who was in the least bit affected by even quite minor changes in environment was informed of what it was proposed to do.

When hon. Gentlemen opposite talk about altering the planning machinery so that decisions on various matters can be expedited, and, at the same time, the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell) says that the greatest care must be taken to ensure that every interest is consulted and protected. I wonder whether hon. Gentlemen opposite—I should call them hon. Members, because they are not all hon. Gentlemen—are trying to ride more than one horse. I know that politicians are supposed to ride more than one horse. Someone once said that if a politician could not do that he ought to leave the circus, but we get this sort of thing far too often.

There are certain matters which would not trouble me very much. For example, I should not be very much troubled about tourists going to the West Kilbride area. I am more concerned about people living in the area, and those who occasionally go to Glasgow to enjoy themselves. I was there the other day with my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. John Robertson) and we certainly enjoyed what we could see of the area. We would feel very unhappy if this was destroyed. I am more concerned, however, about the people in the whole of the West of Scotland who can enjoy the area; although unfortunately most of them can enjoy it only very occasionally.

I say to the hon. Lady the Member for Renfrew, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) that it is not just a question of people being able for the first time to afford to get down there. At one time they went, if not to West Kilbride, certainly "doon the water". The trouble is that instead of going there now they go to Spain, to Majorca, to Italy, to Greece, and to various other places. I do not think that we ought to spend £12 million to £16 million to make this into a Monte Carlo. We do not have the sun, for one thing, and I should much prefer to see industrial development rather than Monte Carlo development. If one is thinking in terms of natural beauty, it must be remembered that one can destroy natural beauty just as easily by turning the area into a fairground as by the kind of development that we have in mind.

I am glad that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) is in his place. He will recall that more than two years ago he and I, with a few of our colleagues, went "doon the water", or down the Clyde, to see what was being done there. He will recall that we had a discussion with various representatives of the Clyde Port Authority. One of the questions asked was, "What are the natural advantages, if any, that we have in this part of the world? Wherein have we something, if we have anything, which would enable us to say that we have a chance of ensuring that the West of Scotland does not decline?". The answer came back at once, "Deep, sheltered water".

Some of my hon. Friends may recall that more than two years ago I spoke about the advantages to Scotland of utilising that deep water shelter. This is not just a question of Ayrshire, or Renfrewshire, or Lanarkshire. We must look at this from the point of view of asking whether we have something which presents us with the possibility of reversing the trends which have been taking place over most of the century. Most of the development has been taking place away from our part of the world. Most of it has been in the South-East. Over the years we have seen a progressive decline in the importance and stature of our part of the world.

If we try to find the reasons for this decline, we discover that geography plays a big part. The South-East is nearer than we are to the big population centres of the Continent. The advantages that we have have tended to be lost, but it seems to me that in the Clyde Estuary as well as in the Forth Estuary, and in the narrow belt of country between, there is the possibility of great industrial development. It is not just a question of how many jobs can be provided by the construction of an oil refinery. The question is whether the utilisation of what this area possesses can affect development throughout Scotland, right across to the Forth.

Already, there is a modern container berth at Greenock. We understand that liner trains will soon be operating a service to that container berth. The route from here across the Atlantic is the shortest route from these islands to the United States. Container ships, ore carriers, and oil carriers, are getting bigger and bigger all the time. With these big ships it is not just a question of size. The speed of turnround is important, because these large ships are extremely expensive to run. If an expensive container ship is held up in having to get through locks or by tides—one might almost say by industrial disputes—it becomes more and more expensive and the area less attractive.

From that point of view, there is already in the Greenock area the modern container berth, which will handle a ship no matter at what hour of the day or night it arrives and no matter which day of the week. It undertakes to handle the ship and turn it round more quickly than it can be turned round anywhere else. This means vast savings and attractiveness.

If an area becomes attractive from that point of view, it will become attractive in other ways, in terms, for example, of the location of new industry. Reaching back through Renfrewshire and Lanarkshire, we could have the growth, for which we have been looking so long, of diverse industries growing out of well-run and well-sited export and import points. It is a short move of only 30 miles from the Clyde Estuary across to the Forth Estuary, giving access to the North European market, on the one side. and across the Atlantic, on the other. There are great possibilities of considerable industrial development in the whole of the neck of land which makes up that part of the United Kingdom.

Our interest in the project is not a Scottish one as such. This development will not take place if the thought is to serve only the Scottish market. It has to be thought of as a particular advantage possessed by the United Kingdom. There is no harm in our saying that it might be very advantageous if a shift were now to begin from the South-East back up to the North. That trend happened long ago, but it was reversed. There is no good reason why it should not begin again if this type of development takes place.

That is how I ask the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) to regard the prospect. He has said that he is open to conviction, and I think that he is; he is essentially fair-minded. I appreciate his problem and also the problem of people living in the area rather than holidaymakers who come in. There is something beautiful which should, as far as possible, be retained.

If this is the key to everything, if this is the only area—I do not know; I am prepared to be guided—which will give us the advantages which we need to have and which will reach back over the whole industrial belt of Scotland, it is reasonable to say that decisions should be taken quickly to ensure that this type of development takes place.

I want to say a word concerning steel. In Lanarkshire as a whole, a very reasonable attitude has been adopted. The Lanarkshire County Council has not come out against developments in Renfrewshire or Ayrshire. I hope that when we think in terms of planning for the whole area, Renfrewshire and Ayrshire will be prepared to co-operate.

Mr. Manuel

Ayrshire will. I cannot speak for Renfrewshire.

Mr. Lawson

I hope that they will cooperate in planning the area and will not adopt a dog-in-the-manger attitude because they might think that all the development is to be in that area. The people in Lanarkshire are entitled to think that their interests will be protected.

I am happy that the Lanarkshire Council is ready to co-operate. It wants to see a planning authority covering the whole area and including Lanarkshire, Glasgow and Dunbartonshire as well as Ayrshire and Renfrewshire. That would be a proper planning authority. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will tell us that that is what the Government intend and that they are pushing ahead with it.

On the question of the ore terminal, I am not at this stage pressing for any siting of steelworks. That is not because I would oppose the idea, but because it is not on the cards that any great steel complex should be sited at Hunterston. What is on the cards is the development of a deep water iron ore terminal.

It is important that the decision on this matter be taken soon for the following reason, quite apart from what might happen with "green field" developments in 1975 or in the 1980s. The present facilities possessed by the steel industry in Scotland are adequate, but they are adequate only at the present time. The iron ore which comes to the steel industry in Scotland has to come right up the Clyde to the general terminus quay. That is an efficient quay which will efficiently handle a ship of up to a maximum of 28,000 tons. My understanding is that it will serve the steel industry in Scotland adequately until 1971 or possibly, 1972. Thereafter, if the present steel industry in Scotland develops, the general terminus quay will become restrictive.

When looking to the future, one cannot put up a deep water terminal in five minutes. By 1970, 1971 or 1972, when the general terminus quay will be no longer adequate for bringing in the necessary ore for the existing industry, we ought to have this deep-water terminal ready to take over. From the viewpoint alone of meeting the needs of existing industry, which we hope to develop, we would expect a decision on the iron ore terminal to be taken very soon.

We know that this decision will not cost the British Steel Corporation anything. The Clyde Port Authority has undertaken to build the project. In that respect, it is reasonable to expect a decision very soon. The Government should accept that the existing steel industry cannot be served beyond 1971 or 1972 by the present import arrangements and that the new ore terminal should be almost ready when that time comes. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will tell us that this development is more than on the cards and is well decided and that the decision will be announced very soon.

5.38 p.m.

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith (Glasgow, Hillhead)

I am glad that we are having this debate today. I am only sorry that it is not a whole day's debate, because the development of the Clyde affects not only neighbouring constituencies. Its proper development is of vital consequence to the whole of central Scotland.

What does this conception of vital consequence and well-being really mean? I hope that I will not be misunderstood if I ask some probing questions, as I was misunderstood when I did the same thing on the Shipbuilding Industry Bill. Had my questions then been heeded, perhaps the Upper Clyde Shipbuilders would not be in the position they are today. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes. The trouble is that anybody who asks questions about development is always regarded as being the enemy of the people. All development is not necessarily, by any means, beneficial. It may not necessarily be for the good of the people. Presumably, it is for the good of the company, otherwise it would not be sponsored.

Let us look at the proposed development. There is to be oil and there is to be steel. With oil, there is held out the bright prospects of growth of an ancillary petrochemical industry. If oil refining naturally leads to that growth, however, can the Minister explain why there has been such a modest growth at Grangemouth? Surely, if petrochemicals is the natural consequence of oil refining, one would expect it to go ahead speedily where the oil industry is already established, but there is nothing automatic about it. We do not want to be in the same position as the Irish in Bantry Bay who, according to yesterday's Sunday Times, complain in their outspoken way that all they have had out of the oil is "sweet Fanny Adams".

Then there is steel. This is supposed to be absolutely essential for the wealth of Scotland, but the really wealthy areas of Britain have no steel or oil. They leave other mugs to do that sort of dirty work and despoil their countryside with primary industries, while they sensibly grow rich in pleasant surroundings on the proceeds of secondary manufacture. Is not that precisely what Scotland wants—not more primary industry but more secondary industry? For too long, we have been depending on the heavy industries, with all the ugliness and squalor and financial uncertainty which that means.

What we want now, if we are ever to provide satisfactory jobs for the highly-skilled manpower produced by our new universities and technical schools is to go in for more of the new clean industries—electronics and communications—where advanced technology is required. To ignore these modern industries and to go all out for the old heavy industries seems to me to be looking back to the nineteenth century instead of forward to the twenty-first. This is condemning Scotland to industrial insignificance instead of the industrial leadership which she is so clearly capable of, if we can get a better balance and more diversification into our economy.

If there is any substance in my doubts—as my Christian name is Thomas, it is appropriate, perhaps, for me to voice them—surely we are entitled to hear how much money all this proposed development will cost the Government—or. rather, the taxpayer who has to fork out money for the Government. I have tried several times to discover from the Secretary of State in Questions the likely grant to Murco and Chevron. I would be satisfied with a figure to the nearest £1 million, but all I ever get is a complete refusal.

Yet how can the public take part in planning—the Minister said in our debates on the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Bill that this was essential—when they do not know what it would cost the taxpayer. The Minister keeps frowning. He knows what I am talking about. How much Government grant will there be? My calculations are that it will be £7 million for Murco and about £12 million for Chevron, and the number of new jobs created will be only a few hundred.

Am I right or wrong? That is all I want to know and it is the right hon. Gentleman's duty to tell the House these things. It does not seem very good value for money, if my calculations are correct. If there is to be this Government largesse, people might prefer, instead of steel and oil, with a very few jobs, another car factory where, for half the price, thousands of new jobs would be provided and there would be the distinct possibility of a worthwhile spin-off for ancillary industries.

Or perhaps people would prefer that this Government money which is apparently going for very few jobs should be spent on creating a better infrastructure—roads for example—or on improving the amenities of so many of our Scottish cities, which were blighted by the nineteenth century mania for development at any price, so that these down-at-heel areas—Motherwell is one of them—might be able to provide attractions as good as, say, Godalming or Basingstoke for modern industries.

Mr. Lawson

Motherwell has been mentioned twice. Motherwell was built on the basis of the unplanned and uncoordinated society for which the hon. Gentleman stands. It is now becoming a very different place, because it represents some of the things for which my hon. Friend and right hon. Friends stand.

Mr. Galbraith

Exactly. Motherwell was the product of private profit and industry at any price and I do not want to see that happen again. That is why I am afraid of and that is what I am afraid is happening on the Clyde at this very moment.

But suppose I am wrong and my doubts are without foundation. Suppose that oil' and steel, as proposed. really are better for Scotland than cars and electronics—I doubt this—and suppose our infrastructure and amenity are having as much spent on them as is physically possible, suppose, in a word, that the proposed development should go ahead—my question is, should it go ahead on the site proposed or on other sites? Planning, after all, is not just a matter of getting the industry. Any tycoon can get the industry. Planning is getting the industry into the right places so that it does not damage the conditions in which people live, so that these places are not like Motherwell was in the nineteenth century, so that it does not have to go through the metamorphosis which the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) is so pleased about.

The present proposals hardly do that. Why choose Erskine, the site of a new town, and about the only green country between Greenock and Glasgow? On down the coast, the same is true of all the choicest spots—Inverkip, Wemyss Bay, Hunterston, and Portencross. This is all industrial development. As has been said, it is industrial ribbon development—enough to make any planner seethe—yet the planning committees in two counties give this their blessing.

Why? I will not say what I was tempted to say, which is to quote the Sunday Times about what happened in Ireland, because that might create ill-feeling. But we are told that it would be cheaper to do this on the proposed sites. But cheaper for whom—for the company or for the community? The company does not care two hoots if Glasgow is polluted by Murco; and, despite all their protestations, we know that oil pollution can be serious. At Grangemouth, as was said in the Glasgow Herald, recently the smoke pall extended three or four miles. That is not something which I, as a Member for Glasgow, am prepared to tolerate.

The company does not care if Motherwell becomes a ghost town—the hon. Member for Motherwell does not seem to care either—but that is what would happen if there were new development on green fields at Hunterston. The company does not care if this superb piece of countryside, a lung for the whole of industrial Scotland—many people in this area do not go to Majorca for their holidays but to the country around Largs—is contaminated. The company does not care about these things. The Secretary of State, who just had another yawn, should care about these things—

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross)

indicated assent.

Mr. Galbraith

The right hon. Gentleman nods, but I do not know whether he will like what I will say next. The only trouble with the right hon. Gentleman is that he was represented on the Metra-Weddle Committee and to that extent he cannot be regarded as being as impartial in the interests of Scotland as he should be. He made a mistake in going on to that Committee.

Any planner coming to this problem without commitment would never dream of putting the refinery downwind of Glasgow. That is simply crazy when there is the whole of Scotland to put it in—hundreds of other areas. This, after all, is the largest concentration of population in the country. No planner would dream of despoiling the wonderful playground which lies between the Cloch and Seamill, when, a few miles to the south, lies the Ardrossan-Irvine complex, which is already industrialised and has far more space available for growth than can ever exist in the Hunterston-Portencross peninsula.

How much more would it cost, I wonder, to have a terminal at Ardrossan rather than Hunterston? This is an ancillary point to the one put by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean). He wanted to know how much it would cost to have the refinery inland. I want to know how much it would cost to have the terminal at Ardrossan.

Since Portencross is regarded as a safe site, there can be no navigational reason against Ardrossan, which is no more exposed than is Portencross. If Ardrossan is more costly from a terminal point of view, how much will be saved in respect of roads and houses to say nothing of the immense social saving in leaving unblemished the fine playground north and south of Largs by using Ardrossan? And if a terminal at Ardrossan is not possible, what about a buoy out at sea and pumping? I gather that such a buoy is planned for the Mersey 20 miles from Liverpool. If it can be done there, why not in the Clyde? It is no longer necessary for cargoes to be manhandled over the side. Even iron ore in palletised form can be pumped in slurry, which seems to me to make Glengarnock, where there is already steel, a possible site. I do not know in whose constituency it is, and I must be careful about mentioning place names.

I will draw my remarks to a conclusion rather more hurriedly than I would otherwise have done, because I realise that other hon. Members wish to take part in the debate. I realise that this is a most difficult problem for the Minister, particularly for the Minister of State, who has been very closely involved, as a Renfrewshire Member. Will he tell us, in his reply, of all the goings on about which we have heard?

We all want to have industrial development, but it must be the right, forward-looking kind of development, not that which takes us back to the nineteenth century. Whatever development we have must be in the right place where it does not contaminate the countryside. We want development coupled with an environment in which it is a delight to live. Too often in the past in our desire to have any job at any price we have sold our birthright for a mess of pottage. We did that in the nineteenth century and we are paying for it now. It is not necessary to do it today. I pray that we shall not make the same mistake again.

5.53 p.m.

Mr. John Robertson (Paisley)

I was born in Motherwell and I have lived all my days in the very centre of industrial Scotland, and I quite agree that this proposed development on the Clyde should give all hon. Members and, indeed, all people within the area a great deal of concern. When we see the devastation which was wrought in the beautiful valley of the Clyde we are all apprehensive of any proposal to put large-scale industry in the Clyde estuary. I know the Clyde very well and have spent many happy days there, and I should hate to see that area spoiled for the people of Scotland.

But when we say that we have a right to be concerned, I have a feeling that hon. Members—perhaps I am guilty, too—are expressing their concern about the development of a particular part of the Clyde from a constituency point of view. Perhaps I am doing him an injustice, but I have a feeling that the hon. and gallant Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) was expressing that opinion in connection with the development of an iron ore terminal at Ardmore. When the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) said that he did not want the development downwind of Glasgow, was he not stating that he did not want it downwind of Hillhead? Perhaps he would not have expressed so much concern but for that fact. We are all in danger of expressing constituency points of view.

In fact, in the areas concerned this is not a party matter. The struggle in Renfrewshire is not between political parties but between interests. One of the major protagonists of the development on the Clyde in Renfrewshire is one of the leading Tories in the county. Am I not right in saying that of the convenor of the county? This is not a party matter in the places where the argument is occurring.

I, who have lived in Motherwell all my days, believe that there is a great deal more dust and filth around Motherwell even today than there need be. One of the aspects of planning is that we require some changes in the law which will make it possible for planning authorities and local authorities to insist that industry is not allowed to spew its dirt and filth all over the country. The building of Ravenscraig was bad enough, when a river was put in a pipe. It was the beautiful river Calder, and it was a beautiful valley, too. The devastation which has been wrought since then was not necessary. The red dirt from that sintering plant covers not only all Motherwell but an area miles beyond it, carrying right over the county about 10 miles away where we find the red filth covering the countryside.

When we are considering development of industry on the Clyde, that is the kind of situation which we envisage. If hon. Members want to see the disregard which industry has for amenity, let them go to Motherwell at 2 a.m. any Saturday and see them cleaning out the flues of the furnaces, doing it by the same method as that which they used a hundred years ago, setting it all on fire and burning out the soot and the dirt so that it spreads all over the surrounding community.

I was on the local authority, there, too, and I tried to get some recourse at law to prevent these people from doing such things, but there is no weapon to be used. When the people of West Kilbride, Ardrossan and up to Wemyss Bay are thinking of industry moving to their areas, those are the problems about which they are thinking, and they have every right to object. But need it be so? Must the steelworks spew this dirt all over the place? I do not think so. That is an aspect of the matter about which my right hon. and hon. Friends must think if there is to be an industrial development at Erskine.

I agree with the hon. Member for Hillhead. This project must have caused concern to Glasgow. If what happened at Grangemouth is to happen at Erskine, it will create a big problem for the west end of Glasgow. But need it happen? I do not think so. We have seen pictures of Pittsburgh before and after certain actions were taken—the difference between night and day. The law of the land does nothing to prevent companies from doing that. We have not the common law powers or the legislative powers to prevent industry from despoiling the countryside.

I agree in essence with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson). We do not want to push constituency interests. Paisley is affected in a way, although not directly. Nevertheless Paisley is affected by the proposed development of an oil refinery in Renfrewshire. But if we are to continue to have a steel industry in Scotland—that may not be important, as the hon. Member for Hillhead suggested, but I think it is—and if we are to build up the secondary industries about which he spoke, we have to make sure that we have the right services and infrastructure to enable us to take advantage of all our natural facilities. One of them is deep water. It would be sheer lunacy to allow that to go to waste. But, like other hon. Members, while I want to see a petro-chemical industry, at the same time I want to see the Clyde preserved as a playground for the people of Scotland. I do not want to see industrial devastation spread into the estuary. I think that it can be done. There is no reason why it should not be done.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor (Glasgow, Cathcart)

The hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. John Robertson) concentrated, as did other hon. Members, on some of the problems which will flow from the sort of development we are discussing, but I believe that the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) was right to emphasise the fantastic potential of this development.

The hon. Member for Glasgow, Scotstoun (Mr. Small) spoke of the possibility of the Clyde attracting industrialisation comparable with that of Rotterdam. Hon. Members who have visited Rotterdam and have seen the potential of port industrialisation, in addition to the advantages that flow from port developments, such as oil refineries, will be aware of the importance of the subject before the House today.

Without wishing to be unfair to Rotterdam, it should be made clear that the maximum size of ship which can be berthed there by direct approach is 130,000 tons. I say this not to denigrate Rotterdam, but simply to point out the limit of the port's capacity, which will not be capable of being increased by dredging. One has the simple fact of depth of water of nearby shipping lines such as in the already congested English Channel.

The proposition which faces Clydeside is not comparable with Rotterdam, for we need not be restricted to ships with a maximum tonnage of 130,000. It will be possible for us to cater for ships of 200,000 and, later, even 500,000 tons. It would, in these circumstances, be crazy and indefensible from Scotland's point of view if we ruled out this development, not least because industrialisation of this kind could revolutionise the West of Scotland.

The hon. Member for Motherwell was correct in saying that th s must be a pleasant change for the Secretary of State. In the past, Secretaries of State have had to find ways and means of attracting industry to Scotland, and in some cases industry has had to be dragged there kicking and screaming. In this case, industry is clamouring to get in, and it must, therefore, be pleasant for the Secretary of State to be faced with the problem of deciding what industries should be allowed in and where they should go.

I wish to concentrate on the steel aspect of the issue. The hon. Member for Motherwell said that this was not merely a question of how o expand the steel industry of Scotland, but of safeguarding existing steelworks because the facilities at the general terminus are limited and the problems which will flow from this limitation are b mind to arise sooner than we imagine. I understand that last year the general terminus handled just over 2½ million tons of iron ore. It is an efficient terminal and there is some room for expansion, but I understand that the terminus could not take more than 3½ million tons.

It was estimated, before the change to nationalisation, that by 1975 Colvilles would be taking 4,700,000 tons. This means that even in the present situation. and discounting the possibility of a new steel works in the Clydeside area, we could, long before 1975, need additional facilities for handling steel because of the volume of iron ore coming in. Apart from the sheer volume of iron ore that will come in, there is the question of the size of ships, for the general terminus can take vessels up to only 28,000 to 29,000 tons.

A new generation of vessels is taking to the seas and this change has come about in a remarkably short time. For example, while in 1966 there were only half-a-dozen or so ore-carriers of 60,000 tons and over throughout the world, by 1968 the number had rocketed to almost 100. The reason for this change is simple. The steel industry has been transformed by transportation.

At a recent conference in America the leaders of the Japanese steel industry explained the future of the steel industry from their point of view. Mr. Yamada, the vice-chairman of one of Japan's greatest steel works (the Yawata Steel Co.) said that, from Japan's point of view, steel had become largely a transportation industry. In an interesting speech, he pointed out that when three 50,000 dead-weight ton carriers were built in 1952 many industrialists in Japan and elsewhere doubted whether the Japanese steel industry could use vessels of such a size because of Japan's inadequate deep water facilities. Japan has overcome that problem by large-scale dredging.

We must bear in mind the production of iron ore that is taking place throughout the world. New markets for iron ore have been opening up. For example, in 1965 Australia exported only 230,000 tons of iron ore. Only two years later that country was exporting 9 million tons. With this enormous development, bigger and ever bigger ships are being built. In addition, ore supplies are coming from markets further away, making cheaper shipping by the use of larger ships inevitable. In 1960, the Japanese steel industry made an average journey of 4,000 miles to bring in its iron ore. Seven years later the average journey was 6,000 miles.

We on the Clyde now have a unique national asset because of our deep water. We have many advantages: first, of being able to take big ships; secondly, a market which is near; thirdly, a flat coastal site; fourthly, suitable reserves of labour—overall advantages which cannot be rivalled by any other area in Western Europe. It would be criminal if we did not grasp this opportunity.

Scotland has in the past had a prosperous steel industry. It has also had some natural disadvantages, but these are fast disappearing. One disadvantage which held up development in Scotland and which persuaded some steel leaders not to expand over the Border was the price of coking coal, a subject which we have discussed at length in recent weeks in Committee upstairs. This disadvantage held up the development of Scotland's steel works because we had to pay between 7s. 7d. and 35s. a ton more for coking coal compared with other parts of the United Kingdom.

With the building of new plant and the change-over to oil, what has been a disadvantage could become an advantage. Dearer coking coal hindered us. Our deep water can enable us to bring in oil at perhaps the cheapest price of any comparable steel works complex in the United Kingdom. Instead of fuel acting as a disadvantage, oil through our deep water port could rapidly help us.

At one time the leaders of the steel industry thought that green field development would not be required before 1975. However, the rapid advance of technological change has altered this situation, mainly because of the new techniques of making steel direct from the minerals without using coking ovens, blast furnaces and oxygen convertors. The possibility of direct reduction in new steel works is very real.

It must be emphasised that we need a quick decision on an ore terminal. We are aware of the problems which may arise, both geographical and amenity, but for the steel industry of Scotland this ore terminal is urgently needed. It is urgent if we consider the steel industry as it is, let alone the natural expansion which will occur. This development is crucial if we are to think of expanding and exploiting the potential which larger ships afford, including cheaper transportation, cheaper oil supplies and other technological advances.

My hon. Friends have been right to emphasise that we are discussing something very important, because the whole of the industrial future of Scotland will largely hinge on this development. It may be that, as in Rotterdam, the initial developments will be small in job production, and they may be expensive in themselves, but they will generate enormous wealth and many new industries.

If we are to look at the possibilities of port industrialisation, we could do no better than, as has been suggested visit Rotterdam and see the enormous growth in port industrialisation stemming from the one basic factor of having a good port and exploiting it to the full. Despite its many limitations, Rotterdam has achieved so much. The potential of the Clydeside is unique, and it would be detrimental to the interests of Scotland as a whole if we did not exploit that potential to the full, consistent with preserving what amenity is necessary. Not to allow this potential to be exploited to the full would be almost criminal.

It is right that hon. Members who represent constituencies which will be affected should emphasise forcibly that the amenity of those areas must not be destroyed, that the rights of individuals must be protected, and that there must be an opportunity for objections to be made and heard. Nevertheless, there is a danger that when we talk of industrial expansion we tend to think in terms, and I do not think that I am being unfair, of Motherwell in the 1850s; in terms of dirty, smoky works, of chimney stacks, of slums and tenements.

The fact is that all our legislation on industrial health and safety, and the technological advance that we sometimes discount far too much, will ensure that the industrial pattern of the future need not of itself be the industrial pattern of the past and that we can have industrial expansion consistent with preserving amenity.

I was recently talking to someone about the possibility of development in the Highlands. He said, "What is wrong with the Highlands? I think that they are splendid. It is a lovely area. You have splendid amenity and scenery." That would be quite true if we had no one living in the Highlands, no industry there—not one job there, but it is not the kind of Central Scotland we have at present, and it is not the kind that we must have for the future. We have a unique opportunity and a unique national asset, and for Scotland's sake I hope that they will both be exploited to the full.

6.14 p.m.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith (North Angus and Mearns)

The debate is particularly timely because it has been conducted against a background of public debate already taking place in the areas likely to be affected by these proposals. I hope that the one message that goes out from the House today is that hon. Members in all parts, regardless of political party, support the concept of industrial development in Scotland, of industrial development in the Clyde Estuary, so that we may utilise the potentialities which exist there.

While we all, naturally, have reservations in detail about the kind of development and the type of industry as they will affect the particular parts of the Clyde Estuary we know best, and the interests involved, the whole feeling of all those who have taken part in the debate is that whilst we must respect those reservations, we must not, at the same time, lose the opportunities for the future industrial development of this part of Scotland.

The development that may come to the Clyde Estuary and that part of Scotland must be looked at in the far wider context that the benefits flowing from it will spread to the much wider areas of Scotland. On the other hand, while benefits from this development will stretch to other areas of Scotland, if we make the wrong decisions, and site industry in the wrong places, the bad results of doing so will not just be confined to these areas. Other areas of Scotland will share those, also. We must remember that people from many other areas of Scotland seek to enjoy the amenities and benefits of the Clyde Estuary.

We have to utilise the natural potentialities we have in Scotland. We have done so in the past, and it is on this that the earlier industrial foundations of Scotland were built. We would be failing in our duty to our generation if we did not exploit this potential. The hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. John Robertson) used a most telling phrase when he said that it would be lunacy to let the opportunity pass. We have the opportunities and we must develop them to the best use, not only of our generation but of future generations.

We may question some of the industrial opportunities. I do not intend now to go over many of the arguments about the benefits of the deep water terminal. These were gone into by my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell) and other speakers. I do not intend to go into the detail of the future of iron and steel: other hon. Members have described the importance of developing those two industries.

With respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith), while some may say that we would like Scotland to be like the South-East of England, and other areas of Britain, I am afraid that I must say, "I wonder". Some of the congestion, for instance that I see in the so-called prosperous areas—

Mr. Galbraith

My point is that it is sometimes difficult to get these new, highly-skilled scientific workers to go to Scotland. They are quite willing to stay in places like Godalming and Basingstoke, but they are not willing to go to the Scottish industrial centres because it is so ugly and horrid to live in them. That is what I want to prevent.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith

We want to preserve the best of each. We want to exploit industrial development and, at the same time, provide amenities in terms of pleasant living and environment, and ease of access to recreation. Ease of access to recreation is one thing that we certainly can offer, as compared with any other area in the United Kingdom.

People can move from almost any part of Scotland into the most beautiful countryside, whether in pursuit of sporting interests or just to enjoy the peace and solitude they find there. Very long journeys are not involved there, as they are in parts of England. In the potential of our industrial development and in our heritage of the countryside, of ease of access to recreation we have something that is utterly priceless, and we must not do anything to destroy it.

One of the features of the debate has been the large number of questions which has been raised. I appreciate that many of these questions have been of a local nature and that it will be difficult for the Minister of State to answer them because they may be the subject of public inquiry. We will forgive him if he does not answer all the local questions in detail. At the same time, let us be quite plain in stating that we want answers to the bigger and more general issues and questions. He will appreciate that what has been expressed today is, amongst many other things, uncertainty about what is to happen to particular areas and this will be the subject, eventually, of public inquiry. There is uncertainty also about the bigger issues which we are now discussing.

I hope that the Minister of State understands that where there is uncertainty it can be an obstacle to progress. There is always far greater fear of the unknown than of the known. Unless we are absolutely clear about what is in the mind of the Government and what kind of procedures will be followed immediately, a great deal more objection and obstacles can be raised to the kind of progress which we all want to see.

The debate has given the opportunity for the Secretary of State to learn what hon. Members think about the general issues and the local ones. On many great industrial developments we have had the help of work done by the Clyde Estuary Development Group and the Metra-Weddle Report and the Scottish Council. We should pay tribute to that work. We are able to come to this debate with some of the ground work already done on the problem. We should praise the quality of the work done and the way in which the facts have been presented.

Speed is utterly vital in dealing with questions of planning and industrial inquiries. As has often been said, when an industrial inquiry arises the greater the speed with which it can be dealt the more likely it will be that the interest of the inquirer is maintained and the more likely it will be that in the end the project can be translated into industrial development. If we do not realise the urgency in all these matters we may lose many economic developments; we shall be overtaken by events. Already, some large bulk carriers of oil or ore are under construction and unless we have facilities ready to utilise those carriers we in Scotland may be left behind. That makes it essential for us to do our homework and all the preparation for these changes.

At the same time, however, we have to remember that too much speed can become a danger. We must not make speed an excuse for inadequate preparation. I mention the inquiry about the aluminium smelter at Invergordon. The main burden of the objection there was not against the principle and the concept, but whether it was the right place for the smelter. This point was made at the time by the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie). People wanted to know whether it was the right place for the establishment and, at the same time, there was feeling that if the inquiry was not carried forward quickly the whole development might be lost.

Although that was so then, at this stage we have not quite the same urgency and therefore we should not use urgency as an excuse for inadequate preparation and not making sure that all who object have their objections fully explored. There is no objection to the principle of development, but opposition in certain practical cases. Hon. Members want to know that all the suggestions have been looked at properly.

It is also important to look at the wider nature of the problem. It is not merely a problem for Ayrshire and Renfrewshire, but one for Glasgow and the Forth ports, if we are looking towards Europe, and a problem for the whole United Kingdom when we look at it in the context of the United Kingdom steel industry. It also concerns those people who come to the Clyde for their holidays. For these reasons it is absolutely vital to look at the problem in the wider context and not in the narrow confines of Ayrshire and Renfrewshire.

There is the vital position of Glasgow as the main focus point of industry and economic development within the area. Glasgow is already facing tremendous problems of renewal and economic growth. Neither the services provided nor the problems Glasgow faces can be contained within its boundaries. The problems for Glasgow must come within this whole question of development of the Clyde Estuary whether we are concerned with economic development, industrial development, or the social questions of housing, and so on, which Glasgow finds so difficult to solve through its own resources. We must think wide and think big.

We are confronted with a new situation, an industrial challenge of a development, the greatest we have had to face in modern times. In terms of scale, and the effect that it can have on future generations, this challenge is as great as any we have faced in the last century. A new situation demands a new approach and new methods. This is fundamental if we are to generate new economic growth. We must make sure that our methods of planning and deciding on what form development should take are up to date and capable of dealing with the size of the problem we face.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn said, the challenge we face gives us a test of adaptability. Can we adapt present procedures to meet this challenge and to avoid duplication and delay? These are questions which we put to ourselves and which we put to the Minister of State.

As my hon. Friend also said, one problem which worries us is whether existing planning machinery—not just the procedure of going to planning committees and public inquiries which give an opportunity for local objections to be heard—are capable of handling a concept of this size. We have to make quite certain that we have some body with proper oversight and control so that the parts of a development which cut across existing planning authority boundaries can be brought together to form one whole cohesive development making sense in the context of the wider area concerned.

Is the Minister of State satisfied that the Clyde Valley Planning Advisory Committee is the body which can properly do this job? I am concerned about whether it is not too much an advisory body and whether we should have something with more power, more teeth and executive functions. Dangers can arise from an advisory ad hoc body of this nature. Who is to pay for the plans and the investigations it may commission? We do not want arguments to arise from constituent authorities on problems of that nature. There are also problems over ratification of decisions.

We spoke earlier about the need for speed. If through an ad hoc body members have to go back to their local authority to get decisions ratified, and then have to come back to discuss them again, we must be careful that the whole procedure does not become clogged up. Decisions must be arrived at quickly.

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie (Rutherglen)

The Clyde Valley Advisory Committee is a democratic organisation that is representative of all the local authorities. We should take all the local authorities with us rather than force something on them from the top.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith

I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. We must make sure that the body is representative of all the local authorities. But the body for which I am arguing must be of more than an advisory nature and also must be representative of people in the area.

I ask the Minister of State to look closely at this matter. On the one hand it must be a body that is quick and effective in taking decisions since this is vitally important if development is to go ahead. Secondly, as the hon. Member for Rutherglen rightly said, we must be equally sure that it is democratic and representative of those bodies from which it is formed. These are the critical matters that face us at present. The most crtical of all is the matter of under what auspices planning and co-ordination will take place.

In this whole enterprise we must profit from past mistakes. We must look at 19th century Lanarkshire and learn from what happened there. Equally, we must look at the present mistakes in 20th century Midlands and in the South-East of England and learn also from those, so that in Scotland we do not create those sorts of conditions.

In all parts of planning we must make certain that we are the masters of planning and not its servants. At the same time, we must not allow ourselves to be put into a corner by too urgent a time scale. Wrong decisions cannot be justified merely on the ground of urgency.

Last, but not least, let us remember that we are dealing with people, people in towns, in the villages, on the farms and in the houses. We are dealing with people and the way in which these development proposals will affect them. By all means let us grasp the economic opportunities, but let us create something of which we can be proud and for which we shall not be cursed by future generations because we have done it badly. If we can marry these two aims together economic opportunity, on the one hand, and concern for people, on the other, we shall achieve development of which not only Scotland but Britain can be proud.

6.35 p.m.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Dr. J. Dickson Mahon)

Both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I very much welcome this debate. My right hon. Friend asks the House to excuse him for his not being here at the beginning of the debate, but he was in Scotland on business not unrelated to our discussion. The debate is welcome to the Government because we can put on record a number of things that it is not easy to make clear in the country. A large number of the current embarrassments and doubts are the result of a misunderstanding of the position and the fear that decisions are to be made without due consultation and the due process of law.

The first of the three objectives which we are pursuing at present is to process as quickly as possible the planning applications which are already lodged. The second objective is to encourage the submission of yet more industrial applications to provide yet more jobs; and I will return to this matter later in my remarks. The third is to encourage the process of joint and comprehensive planning so as to provide a framework within which decisions on individual planning applications can be taken quickly and with a balanced regard to all the factors.

Almost every speech today, with one or two notable exceptions, has understandably hedged its bets by calling, on the one hand, for speed and, on the other, for care; on the one hand, for urgency and, on the other, for proper examination. I am tempted to fall back on the old saying that in this case the best is the enemy of the good.

It is not often that I get the chance to congratulate almost without qualification the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) for his fine, red-blooded speech. No bets were hedged, and there was no nonsense in his speech. It was a clarion call for industrial development in Scotland which moved the hearts of many of us on this side of the House.

I cannot say the same for some other speeches which have been made, some of which were more blue-blooded than red-blooded. There may have been one or two misunderstandings today over the nature of planning and who are the planners and who are the planned. There is a constant call on everybody's lips for a comprehensive plan, as if by divine decree we could determine the ultimate industrial pattern of Scotland for the next 100 years and proceed in all wisdom to will exactly what will happen, when and where, during that time. That, of course, is impossible.

There is a cry that we must have a comprehensive plan, an organisation—that is the great word—with "teeth", whatever that means. I do not think that the objectors would like an organisation with teeth that might bite. We are told that what is wanted is an organisation that is capable of making and implementing the plan. But the preparation of any kind of plan is not a single act; it is a continuous process with at least as much of the information and analysis coming up from the grass roots as coming from the Government.

The Government are in a unique position which is denied to bodies and persons situated at a lower tier of government of the country, or, for that matter, to private citizens or heads of industry to understand many of the processes. The plan must grow gradually. It must be prepared with the aims of local people in mind and it must identify and assess the most important local issues.

The Government, with the local planning authorities concerned in this area, have already spent five years analysing in detail the land-use needs likely to be generated locally in various sectors of West Scotland. In Renfrewshire, the land use study up to 1980 took 18 months; in Lanarkshire, the study took two years; and in Ayrshire it is almost finished after 15 months of work. More recently, we have started a comprehensive exercise on the north-east of Glasgow. These are all land-use studies carried out in great detail and evolved in agreement between authorities; they touch on housing and industrial needs, schools and all the rest.

They are an important part of a jigsaw and they have been carried out or are in process of being carried out. They are being carried out in relation to the various land uses and take into consideration individual matters of concern in the areas. In the case of Renfrewshire there is the fourteenth amendment, which is on a par with the Hunterston amendment in relation to Ayr County Council's decision to have industrial development in a certain part of the county. That was settled a number of months ago.

In all these exercises we have tried with the local authorities to make provision for the problems of the great City of Glasgow. The hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) rightly emphasised this point. Glasgow has not only problems connected with housing. The present administration is undergoing a considerable agony of choice over what it should do in the city in terms of building. But it is clear that whatever administration runs the city it will have to house Glaswegians outside the city boundaries. We shall have to find jobs to match the houses and must have regard to the inevitable contraction of older industries which is bound to take place.

The studies have provided a basis of information about prospective land use needs and a range of proposals through which those needs are to be met. In addition, the Government took a leading part along with the Clyde Port Authority and the local planning authorities most directly concerned in promoting the Clyde Estuary Development Study. Incidentally, some of these authorities are members of the Clyde Valley Planning Advisory Committee. I shall come back to that.

This study made a general analysis of the implications for West Central Scotland of the trend towards larger ships and the need for deep water. We had a well documented speech from the hon. Member for Cathcart in relation to steel in this respect. The analysis in the Metra-Weddell Report is interesting and thought-provoking, but I think that many people will agree that it was not unexpected in the sense that it called for sudden and radical changes in the plans which we have been evolving over the last five years. It may be argued, nevertheless, that so far we have had only a series of rather general documents and we lack the organisation to fill out those documents in detail and take action on them thereafter.

I accept that, ideally, we should have reorganised local government, but that will take time to do thoroughly. If hon. Members opposite are taking any comfort from the fact that they put up proposals, albeit not generally agreed, in 1963, I ask them to look at their proposals again and see how irrelevant they are to today's problems. If we had had reform on that scale, according to those 1963 proposals, we should still be bedevilled by the difficulty which we have now of cohesion in planning. To be fair to hon. Gentlemen opposite, they made proposals in 1963 at the same time as they set up the Planning Advisory Group, the group whose recommendations we have almost translated into legislative form. As a new concept of planning, it has been endorsed by the party opposite, I am glad to say, as well as being sponsored by the Government.

It has been said—the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) argued this earlier today—that we might, perhaps, look at the idea of amalgamation of local planning authorities. The trouble with the word "amalgamation" is this: does it mean compulsory amalgamation, voluntary amalgamation, or both? No one mentioned that. No one went into the question of how we achieve amalgamation. However, running through the hon. Gentleman's speech was a clear implication that there should be one planning authority. I am not in a position to comment on that at the moment. Instinctively, I am rather attracted to it, but as a Minister I cannot comment on it at this time, particularly with the Royal Commission on Local Government about to report.

We could under 1947 Act powers go forward to amalgamation. This would be questioned by many local authorities. There are some authorities, for instance, Lanarkshire, as my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) said, which have some enthusiasm for closer liaison with their partners, or perhaps even for fusion—that remains to be seen—but there is virtually no enthusiasm for amalgamation which is in any degree compulsory.

There remains the course that, between now and the reform of local government, we encourage joint co-operation between groups of authorities. Until recently, this encouragement was on a county basis, taking an initial stock of problems in particular sectors of West Central Scotland. There is an existing organisation, to which reference has been made, which could do the job necessary between now and the implementation of Wheatley. I refer to the Clyde Valley Planning Advisory Committee.

In recent years, unfortunately, the Committee has not been very active, and its present terms of reference are, perhaps, rather vague. It did a good job in its own time, but, like many institutions, it has tended not to keep up with the times. Also, to be fair to the Clyde Valley Planning Advisory Committee, it has no staff other than the part-time service of some very devoted officers, one of whom serves Glasgow Corporation, namely, the Depute Town Clerk, Mr. Murdoch. In recent months, the Government have pressed the Committee to revise its terms of reference, to provide itself with a small full-time staff, and to set about the task of bringing together what has been done already.

The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn asked about the way the Committee operates. Discussions are still in progress. I am to meet the Committee again on 10th October. The discussions are on the basis that the Committee will adopt the new terms of reference which I suggested on 14th March and will work towards preparation of a comprehensive advisory plan for West Central Scotland. This will cost money, as the hon. Gentleman implied, but very little in relation to the resources and the number of local authorities involved.

I agree that the Committee is advisory only and by itself it has no powers to impose on individual authorities the plans which it recommends, but the Secretary of State has power in that he may indicate that he will approve—I have said this to the Committee—only development plans which are within the framework devised by the Joint Planning Advisory Committee and approved by the Secretary of State. Also, the Secretary of State has power to direct local authorities to submit such plans. We do not want to do this if we can possibly avoid it. We prefer to proceed by persuasion, and there is a great fund of good will in the Committee. It is considering these matters and will, I hope, give a favourable reply on 10th October.

The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn expressed doubt about the lack of an economic consultative group in West Central Scotland. But West Central Scotland is already half of Scotland, and the Scottish Economic Planning Council takes an active concern in all matters in West Central Scotland. West Central Scotland cannot be compared with the Highlands, with the South-West or even with the larger Tayside area; it is the direct concern of the Secretary of State.

It is fair to add that we have put this to the Clyde Valley Planning Advisory Committee and that it will in the reorganised Committee consult actively a wide range of interests in the course of preparing any future plans, especially interests of an industrial and commercial character. It is our hope that the Committee will arrange for regular advice by a small standing group of men eminent in the economic life of West Central Scotland, some of whom may already be members of the Scottish Economic Planning Council, which will ensure direct liaison with that body.

There is no duplication between the Clyde Valley Planning Advisory Committee and the Clyde Estuary Development Group. We saw the Clyde Estuary Development Group called into being specifically to deal with the short-term pressures—the welcome pressures, I agree with the hon. Member for Cathcart. This is an unusual situation for the Secretary of State to be in, to have an embarrassment of riches instead of having to go out and seek new industries and attract them to Scotland. This is a fine development which we very much welcome. That is why the Clyde Estuary Development Group took on responsibility, and why we accepted some responsibility in finance and in advice for securing that the report was made promptly.

Mr. Gordon Campbell

I am grateful to the Minister of State. We have been most interested in what he has had to say in reply to my questions concerning the Advisory Committee and his discussions with it, but it looks as though the process will be slow. He is not to have a reply until October. It still looks as though the Committee will have very little staff, even though, I agree, its present unpaid staff are extremely conscientious. Something more will be needed.

Dr. Mabon

In that case, something should have been done a long time ago. I cannot bludgeon the authorities. The Secretary of State cannot compel them. I was disappointed in June that they did not agree, and I thought that two or three months was a fair enough time for them to consider the matter. However, they did not agree, and I have asked them specifically to come back mandated on 10th October. None the less, the implications of the organisation for the longer-term are not specifically relevant to the applications which we have before us.

I should like to dwell at some length on the position of the steel industry, but it would be unwise of me to go into many details. A large number of points are already known to the House. In the course of the present exercise in the steel industry, the Scottish and North-West Group of the Corporation put forward proposals to the British Steel Corporation involving substantial investment on the Clyde. They were summarised in the Metra-Weddle Report as follows. First, an ore terminal. Second, there should be iron and steel making facilities. I agree with the hon. Member for Cathcart and my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. John Robertson) that these steel making facilities are not necessarily the satanic mills of long ago or even of Ravenscraig, and I agree, too, that it is not an excuse for turning away industry simply to argue that industry pollutes. We should control industry so that it does not pollute, so that its offensiveness can be reduced to a minimum.

If the objectors and others in the consistuency of the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) were to see the kind of proposals which both the oil company and the B.S.C. may be considering at a later stage, many of them would realise that they are not as offensive as might appear from some lurid reports appearing in certain parts of the Press. The hon. Gentleman cannot take my word for it, of course; he must find these things out for himself. But this is the purpose of the Ayr County Council's amendment to the development plan. It must be the subject of public inquiry, when all the questions asked today will, no doubt, be asked more cogently than they have been today because they will be followed up in cross-examination. Therefore, many of the doubts can be allayed and some issues perhaps clarified. I would not deny that many of the developments involve some sacrifice, but they need not involve the extensive sacrifice—

Mr. Edward M. Taylor

rose—

Dr. Mabon

I shall not give way. I have a great deal to say. I have been very fair. I did not rise at the beginning of the debate, so as to give the maximum time for other Members, but I have so much to reply to that I would be wrong not to seek to comment on the different stages of each application, apart from giving the general background, which I have tried to do so far.

The third point of the proposals of the Scottish and North West Group of the corporation, was that in the longer term the group envisaged the capacity building up to about five million tons per annum with a completely integrated steel making and finishing plant. This is all very important. It is not a question of a net loss of jobs to Lanarkshire, and a positive gain to Ayrshire, with nothing for Scotland. It might mean the permanent loss of jobs to Scotland if we were not willing to move into up-to-date plants and activities.

We cannot look around for what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) delightfully called clean, white-collar jobs. We do this as well, but we are not satisfied to say that we have the finest selection of the electronic industry in the United Kingdom, which we have. We have expanded more in electronics than any other part of the United Kingdom. We are very glad of this, but it is not the end of our efforts. We are not willing to say that we should stick only to labour-intensive industries. It would be wrong to have Scotland entirely labour-intensive. Some of the most modern examples of industry are capital-intensive, and must be of their nature. It is not a fair argument to try to work out every penny of investment and say that it costs so much per job. It depends on the kind of industrial mix one is trying to achieve in Scotland. My right hon. Friend would be shocked to hear it argued that we should turn away any form of capital-intensive industry which would be of advantage to Scotland.

I am sorry that the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire was sent an internal minute with his letter. The letter was sent by a civil servant on behalf of Lord Hughes, by whom it was dictated, in his absence. It was sent in an earnest desire to serve the hon. Gentleman and his constituent, and to give him as prompt a reply as possible. While I liked "Eastern Approaches", I do not think that this cloak-and-dagger attitude should be taken into the Western approaches. The hon. Gentleman did himself a grave disservice today by reading out the minute. If I had been in his place, I would have sent it back. It did not cause any offence. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman was not kind enough to read out the letter. It was much more important to do that than to read out the extract, which was highly selective.

If the hon. Gentleman is trying to argue that we should be worried about the presence of a nuclear power station, he is right, but not to the extent that he implied. I hope that he will make amends by publishing the letter in the Ardrossan and Saltcoats Herald and other local newspapers, so that people do not get the false impression that there is any danger. From his speech one would never believe that Hunterston A is being accompanied by Hunterston B, which is three times larger, and much more modern and sophisticated and important to the economy of Scotland than even Hunterston A. But we shall not for a moment be worried, though in the old Windscale days, when we were worried about nuclear reactors, this would have worried us considerably. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the MetraWeddle Report again he will see that the consultants there deliberately took this into account.

The Murco planning application was already before us before the Clyde Estuary Development Study began. From the company's point of view the application was urgent. It would have been a hardship to the company to delay consideration of it further, and the Clyde Estuary Development Study Report did not suggest that the remaining recommendations would be affected if the Murco application were treated in isolation.

Sir F. Maclean

The Minister suggested that I did not send back to his noble Friend the minutes to which he referred. I did so immediately, and sent his noble Friend a personal letter with them, so he should have been aware that they had come back and that I had read them—and, naturally, that I had taken a copy. What does the Minister expect? If I were to read out the rest of the whole lot of minutes this would cause the Minister greater embarrassment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] What I did, having read the minutes, was to put down a question to the Secretary of State, giving him a chance to make public—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving)

Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a very long intervention.

Dr. Mabon

I am very sorry that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman. That is the first time he has not been fair to me in debate. I am very glad that he returned the minute, but I am ashamed of him for taking a copy and reading it out in the House.

I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman, but I shall leave that matter. I have only five minutes left, and shall not give way again. He could make amends for the benefit of his constituents—not to apologise to my noble Friend, myself or anybody else—by publishing the letter sent to him on 1st May, so that the balance or argument on this important matter can be properly assessed.

It would have been a hardship to Murco to ask it to delay until everything was absolutely pat. We have had an inquiry, and no one can say that it was the shortest on record or that the objections were not fully ventilated. The matter is now being assessed by the Reporter. I am not in a position to say when the report will be submitted to my right hon. Friend, or what the result will be.

An application has been submitted for an oil-fired power station at Inverkip. It has been received from the South of Scotland Electricity Board and advertised, and I hope that it will be practicable and reasonable to arrange an inquiry into the objections to the proposal early in September. It may be argued that the inquiry into the power station project should have been combined with consideration of other issues on the lower Clyde Estuary. But in the interests of adequate electricity supplies it is important to examine as soon as possible the project, which the Electricity Board is convinced represents the best solution to the problem of further electricity supply in the area, supply which is urgent for industry, and not just for residential purposes.

It does not follow that co-ordinated consideration can be given to different issues only if they are all submitted to the same public inquiry. Often the Government find it better to focus attention on issues in a manageable form. If the inquiry into the Inverkip proposal throws up a need to take further evidence into account, from the later inquiry into the Hunterston Development Plan Amendment or from elsewhere, this can be arranged. However, the Government are satisfied that there is nothing to be gained, and perhaps something to be lost, from delaying detailed examination of the Electricity Board's proposal.

This brings us to the Development Plan Amendment for Hunterston recently submitted by Ayr County Council. We have before us an application by the Chevron Oil Company for a jetty and refinery with provision for a petrochemical ancillary at Hunterston. Some way of processing this application soon will have to be found.

We have also to recognise the need for an ore terminal to replace Great Terminus Quay. The Government thought it right and proper that we should see this examination being taken over a larger area than simply each individual application in turn, because some impinge on the others, and it would be right in this area to make this assessment. We are by no means oblivious to the opposition of amenity societies and the fears of many residents.

This is why I was very pleased to meet, on behalf of my right hon. Friend, our good friend Viscount Muirshiel, who is now chairman of the Scottish Civic Trust and head of the recently formed Clyde Estuary Amenity Council. We had a very useful meeting, when we agreed that the Amenity Council could help to process objections and advise objectors, so that it could appear at inquiries and put forward constructive suggestions on these difficulties, rather than have a great deal of widespread objections, some of which cancelled each other out, were basically negative, and involved many ordinary people in costs that they could ill afford.

All the questions of administrative machinery, amenity and natural advantage are to be seen against the background of economic change in the west of Scotland. Most of our unemployed in Scotland are in the west and it is already clear that we are faced with quite substantial losses of jobs yet to come. I give the largest example we know. There will be a fall of nearly 2,900 workers between now and August, 1970, among those employed by Upper Clyde Shipbuilders, even with the group being very successful, as we all wish it to be. We cannot avoid further pit closures sooner or later. There are immediate closures in industry, such as that of Babcock and Wilcox, which will come to an end at Dalmuir at the end of the year. We must not lose the skills which thus become available and we must curb still further the number of migrants who go over the Border and overseas.

To do all this we have to create new jobs and it would be irresponsible today to pretend that this can be done without replacing some green fields by factories and offices. Of course, we must do this efficiently and responsibly. This is the objective of the machinery of consultation, discussion and decision, which I have described.

Mr. Ernest Armstrong (Durham, North-West)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.