CLYDE ESTUARY (INDUSTRIAL PROJECTS) (Hansard, 7 December 1970)

§ Mr. David Lambie (Ayrshire, Central)
I wish to raise the question of future industrial projects on the Clyde Estuary. I asked the Secretary of State for Scotland to reply to the debate: I am sorry that he is not present but has appointed my good friend, the Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office, to take his place. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has not taken this opportunity to announce his decision on the Hunterston inquiry—a decision he has promised us for so long. I suggest that he is afraid to give us information this evening because he is not yet able to do so. The decision is now out of his hands, and in my opinion is now in the hands of other Ministers who know nothing about the Clyde and even less about the Hunterston project.
On 24th June, 1969, the Ayr County Council, the local planning authority for the area, submitted to the Secretary of State a formal amendment of the development plan for the area in order to allow the construction of a deep water terminal for ore carriers, a possible integrated steel works in the vicinity and a deep water terminal for oil tankers and oil refineries. That was nearly 18th months ago.
Since then we have had a very lengthy public inquiry, an equally lengthy time during which the recorder has prepared his report and we are now in another lengthy period in which the Secretary of State has given and is giving consideration to that report. That period still continues. This debate is the end of a long series of Questions and Answers, and a long series of letters from people interested in the result of the public inquiry and in future projects on the Clyde Estuary.
On 8th July I asked the Secretary of State when we could expect the report to be published and he indicated that it would be out soon—as, indeed, it was. He also stated, in reply to a supplementary question, that in view of its importance to Scotland's industrial future he would try to give a quick answer. On 205 4th September the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) and myself sent a letter to the right hon. Gentleman asking that he come to a quick decision. He indicated on 22nd September that a decision was imminent. On 5th November, in reply to a Question from the hon. Member for South Ayrshire, he stated that he expected to reach an early decision. In a further letter, dated 24th November, the Secretary of State wrote to me: I said in the House the other day"— the other day being 5th November: that I expected to announce my decision very soon. It is now 7th December. Reports in the Scottish Press today suggest that the Secretary of State does not know when his decision will be announced.
The economy of Central Scotland, and particularly of west Central Scotland and the Clyde Estuary, has in the past been built on the heavy primary industries such as the mining of coal, the making of iron and steel, and the building of ships. With the working out of iron and coal, the decline in the demand for coal, and the changed conditions in the shipbuilding industry, new conditions have emerged which constitute a definite and serious threat to the present and future prosperity of the area.
At the first meeting of the West Central Scotland Steering Committee, recently established by the Secretary of State, senior officials of the Scottish Development Department referred to the accelerating decline of the economy of the region and said that the decline was in its nature and extent beyond anything being experienced or likely to be experienced in any other region of Great Britain.
It is clear that west Central Scotland and the Clyde Estuary have very considerable economic and industrial problems which can be solved only by the creation of new economic bases to supplement and replace the bases which have been in the past provided by the traditional heavy industries now in decline. These new bases can be established on the fact that we now know that the estuary of the Firth of Clyde is one of the few deep water harbours, not only in Britain, but in the whole of Western Europe. Not only have we this great new natural asset, but we also have in the immediate vicinity flat land ready for development and available to be taken 206 over by the great new industrial bases which we know can be established.
With the recent and continuing spectacular increase in the size of oceangoing bulk ore carriers and oil tankers, it has become clear that the Clyde Estuary and the Portencross-Hunterston peninsula in particular are able to offer terminal facilities for these large ships with the possibility of appropriate industrial development in the vicinity which are unrivalled elsewhere in Britain and probably elsewhere in Europe.
The future of Scotland as an industrial nation depends not only on a decision, but on the correct decision. Ships up to ¼ million tons now come into the Clyde. Our friends the Japanese are building ships of up to million tons. Ships of up to ½ million tons are planned. We now have in Scotland a new asset to replace the old traditional asset of raw materials like coal, iron ore and lime stone. No one in Scotland, apart from a very small selfish group in the West Kilbride area, can deny that the Scottish people have the right to use this great natural asset to give us the new industries and the new basis to build a new industrial prosperity.
I ask the Under-Secretary—I know I shall not get a reply, because he is here tonight so that the Secretary of State will not give a reply—what will be the decisision on the future industrialisation of the Clyde Estuary. The Secretary of State has stated publicly that he thinks that the people in Ayrshire who have been pressing him for a quick decision are being unfair. I am not a very suspicious man normally, but on this occasion I am very suspicious of the Secretary of State's intentions, because of the following list of facts and of evidence that leads me to suggest that the Secretary of State is not coming clean on this issue.
On 1st August, 1970, the Secretary of State spoke at the Bute and North Ayrshire Unionist Association's annual fête. Certainly officially he never mentioned Hunterston, but from that date it is a strange fact that all of the opponents of industrialisation on the Clydeside suddenly became silent. Did the Secretary of State unofficially tell the objectors to industrialisation at Hunterston of his decision at that date? The hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir F. Maclean) is here, and he knows that what I am about to say is correct: up till that time 207 we had nothing but letters in the local newspapers from the opponents of industrialisation attacking people like myself and my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire for trying to industrialise this area of Ayrshire. In fact, at one stage I was writing four letters a week in reply to opponents of industrialisation. But, immediately the Secretary of State finished speaking at the Unionists' annual fete, all these letters ended.

§ Mr. Ian MacArthur (Perth and East Perthshire)
Absolute nonsense.

§ Mr. Lambie
I am not a suspicious man, but I would say that any normal person would be slightly suspicious, especially when he knew the people concerned.

§ Mr. MacArthur
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Mr. Lambie
No, I have only a short time—

§ Mr. MacArthur
The hon. Gentleman should give way when he makes an allegation of that kind.

§ Mr. Lambie
The second point to which I draw attention is that at the end of August I wrote to the Secretary of State asking him why he had not come to a decision, and suggesting that because of the delay the oil company had changed its mind and was going to develop on the Continent. We had received word in Ayrshire that the Chevron Oil Company had shut down its site investigation office in London and had transferred it to Brussels, that the company was going to use the available capital, not to build an oil refinery as part of this industrialisation scheme but to build oil refineries on the Continent of Europe. I also said at that time that by his delay it looked from the evidence available as if we were going to lose this great industrial asset of an oil refinery upon which we were going to base the petro-chemical industry in order to get industrialisation going in the west central area of Scotland.
On 10th November I again wrote to the Secretary of State, following publication of an article in the Glasgow Herald by Mr. Arthur Bell, the Scottish Divisional Officer of the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation. In this article 208 it was suggested that there was no mention of Hunterston in the future plans for the expansion of the British steel industry. I again suggested to the Secretary of State that because of his delay in coming to a decision on the Hunterston inquiry we were allowing the enemies of Scotland in the British Steel Corporation the right to ignore Scotland and to transfer their attention to other areas in the United Kingdom.
In the same letter I suggested that the delay in making a decision was because of pressure from other Ministers in London, that the decision had been taken away from the hands of the Secretary of State and handed over to other Ministers. I did this because we had had in this House statements about the Government's intention on capital investment, especially capital investment in the public sector, and this Government's policy of a cut-back in capital investment, especially in the public sector, had given other Ministers the right to say what should be the decision on Hunterston.
In reply to that charge, I received a letter from the Secretary of State on 24th November denying my charges and stating again that a decision would be given at a very early date. But, on the previous day—that is. 23rd November—articles from political correspondents appeared as if by magic in every Scottish morning and evening newspaper. I know that my friends in the journalists' profession have a habit of seeking out information. That is their job. Sometimes one of them can make a breakthrough and get a "leak". But when every one of them gets a "leak", then I am suspicious, especially when the "leak" comes out on Monday, and when we know that in Scotland most of the licensed premises—which is where most of the information comes from—are shut on the Sunday. That also leads me to be suspicious.

§ Mr. MacArthur
From bad to worse.

§ Mr. Lambie
What was it that came out through that leaked information, which could only have come from the Secretary of State? The Glasgow Herald, 23rd November, 1970: Decision soon on Hunterston project … in about a week's time. Mr. Gordon Campbell, Secretary of State for Scotland, is aiming to announce his findings by the end of this month, and the signs are that it will be within a day or two of that target. 209 The Daily Express: Go-ahead likely for steel plant. Campbell's decision soon … It now appears that Mr. Campbell has made his decision and will announce it by the end of the month. I do not object to any Minister giving advance information to the Press and stating that at a certain date he will make a decision. What I object to is that, although we have been trying in Parliament and in other ways to get a decision from the Secretary of State, we find that he gives his decision in private to journalists, a decision which he refused to give to right hon. and hon. Members. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I see the Under-Secretary of State shaking his head. I am not objecting to the Minister saying that he will announce a decision by the end of the month. I object to his giving the actual decision to the Press.

§ Mr. MacArthur
Prove it.

§ Mr. Lambie
The proof is here. If the hon. Gentleman spent more time in Scotland and read the Scottish papers, he would know more of what is happening.

§ Mr. MacArthur
Will the hon. Gentleman give way at last?

§ Mr. Lambie
I am sorry, no. I have only a certain time. If I finish early, the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson)
Order. Both hon. Members know the custom of the House. If the hon. Member who has the Floor does not give way, the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) must resume his seat.

§ Mr. MacArthur
I shall try again. Will the hon. Gentleman give way now?

§ Mr. Lambie
I am sorry, no. In the report in the Daily Express, it is said: Scottish Secretary of State Mr. Gordon Campbell is expected to give the go-ahead to the multi-million pound steel complex planned for the Clyde coast. He was gradually conditioning the Scottish people to accept that we were to have some industrialisation, and that, as a result of the Hunterston inquiry, we were to have this multi-million pound steel complex. But he also said, according to the Daily Express— 210 Chevron's plan is expected to be turned down on the ground that it will spoil the amenity and tourist potential of the area.

§ Mr. MacArthur
Who said that?

§ Mr. Lambie
Mr. Leslie Anderson, along with every other reporter in Scotland who was given this statement by the Secretary of State or by one of his officials on the Sunday, for publication on the Monday.

§ Mr. MacArthur
Prove it.

§ Mr. Lambie
The only concrete application which the Ayr County Council has for industrialisation is the application from the Chevron Oil Company to build an oil refinery in the area. The Secretary of State, if these reports are correct, is about to turn down Chevron's application, and in so doing he will deny to the unemployed, and those who have just been warned of redundancy, the right to take part in the 2,000 or 3,000 jobs which would come directly from the construction of that oil refinery. The other projects are projects for the future. The steel mill is for the later 1970s and the 1980s. The oil refinery could give us an immediate start with 2,000 or 3,000 jobs.
The Secretary of State leaked the information to the Press in an effort to condition the Scottish people to accept—

§ Mr. MacArthur
Disgraceful.

§ Mr. Lambie
I am not giving way.

§ Mr. MacArthur
Disgraceful.

§ Mr. Lambie
It is not that I am objecting to the fact that the Secretary of State, by leaking this information, has tried to condition the Scottish people to accept that we are going to get this great industrial project right away. What I am objecting to is that on a previous occasion, he stated that his decision would be his own and would not be conditioned by what is happening in London. In my opinion, and from the information I have, the Secretary of State expected to make a decision on Hunterston by the end of November but that decision was sent to London and was modified, and the Secretary of State is studying the modification and will have to change his original decision because of pressures from Ministers in London.
211 In Scotland, unemployment is rising. We have now about 100,000 unemployed. Six per cent. of males are out of work. The latest figures, published this week, show that Scotland's proportion of the United Kingdom unemployed is rising for the first time for a number of years. The Government's statement today on industrial development certificates will mean that Scotland will no longer provide an incentive for small firms to develop there. In my area we are getting nothing but redundancies after redundancies. Even an old established firm like I.C.I. at Ardeer, with a hundred years of history there, is declaring redundancies. It is a disgrace that the Secretary of State has taken so much time to consider this report. I ask the Under-Secretary of State to give an assurance that the report will come out as soon as possible.

§ The Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office (Mr. George Younger)
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie), who was lucky enough to get this debate, has not given me enough time decently to reply to the allegations he made. He might at least have given me time to reply properly.
I do not wish to be unkind or unnecessarily impolite, but I would say to him that in expressing his political differences he has made most disgraceful accusations against my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who is not the sort of person, as the House knows, who would on any occasion on any matter where an inquiry of this sort was involved leak information to the Press or to other people behind the scenes.
It would have done the hon. Member's case a great deal more good if he had confined himself to making political arguments as well and strongly as he can make them without descending to unsupported and unsupportable allegations against my right hon. Friend. I can think of nothing more extraordinary than his suggestion that the decision is out of my right hon. Friend's hands.
As I am sure the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) will agree from his experience at the Scottish Office, the final decision as the result of a planning inquiry is a matter for the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State alone. 212 Any idea that it could be shuffled off by him on to anyone else is fanciful and without regard to the facts. I hope the hon. Member will take this from me in the best possible way.
The hon. Member may possibly not fully appreciate the procedure for public inquiries in planning matters, which is what really lies behind what he has said. We should address ourselves to what that procedure aims to do and I want to refer first to whether my right hon. Friend should be here to answer this debate. The hon. Member has not been long in this House and he may be unaware that it is very rare indeed for a Secretary of State or any other Cabinet Minister to answer an Adjournment debate. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman does not appear to think that I am adequate to do so. But it is normal procedure for the junior Minister concerned to answer these debates, and it is a practice which almost invariably has been followed by Governments of all parties in the past. My presence at this Box is no exception to this procedure. The fact that the hon. Gentleman has had correspondence with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gives him no prescriptive right to expect the convention to be broken in his case.
The hon. Gentleman's speech suggests that he has some misapprehensions about inquiry procedure and about my right hon. Friend's functions. Where objections are made to planning applications on changes in development plans and a public inquiry is necessary, the Secretary of State appoints a reporter. In addition to the conduct of the inquiry, the reporter is responsible for summarising the evidence, presenting his findings in fact and making recommendations. The Secretary of State must base his decision on the evidence presented by the reporter and on the reporter's findings in fact. If he proposes to do otherwise, he must notify the parties to the inquiry.
I emphasise this because it is wrong to suggest that the Secretary of State has an absolute discretion to accept or reject the evidence summarised by the reporter or the conclusions which the reporter has drawn from it, or to substitute any decision that he likes for the reporter's recommendations. If he does, he may be landed with an appeal to the Court of Session to set aside his decision, at great 213 cost in time and money to all concerned. The regrettable history of Tweedbank, where the first move was made almost four years ago, is a warning of the dangers if the procedures are not followed. Accordingly, in a matter of this kind, my right hon. Friend has no alternative but to give close and detailed consideration to every aspect.
Let me refer now to the time factor. An inquiry in this case was inevitable and, after the necessary processes of preparation, including the circulation of more than 400 documents to over 100 parties to the proceedings, the inquiry began on 17th November last year. From then, it ran with the minimum of interruption until 13th February. In all, the reporter sat for 42 working days and, in addition, four days were spent on site inspections. His report is dated 30th July. My right hon. Friend has said that he intends to make an announcement very shortly, and that is still the position today.

§ Dr. J. Dickson Mabon (Greenock)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

§ Mr. Younger
No, I cannot give way. Slightly over four months have elapsed since my right hon. Friend received the report of the inquiry. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire, regards this as indicating unwarrantable delay. He cannot have done much homework. I accept that it is impossible in inquiries to compare like with like. But, though this may not have been a unique inquiry, it was very unusual. It was one of the longest inquiries ever held in Scotland. Perhaps the most relevant comparison is with the Murco case, where the inquiry lasted 31 sitting days, the report ran to 59 pages, and the time between report and decision was 117 days. The Hunterston inquiry lasted 42 days, and the report runs to nearly 200 closely typed pages. It is now 130 days since my right hon. Friend received the report. I should have thought that these figures would have been sufficient to satisfy any hon. Member that there had been no unavoidable delay.
Without becoming involved in the merits of the case, I would argue that the issues involved are, in some respects, of greater economic importance to Scotland than in any other previous inquiry. Whatever my right hon. Friend does, he 214 will undoubtedly be criticised. That is to be expected. But what is not to be expected is that he should leave himself open to criticism for having dealt with this massive issue in a slipshod fashion.
I hope from what I have said that the House will accept that this was no ordinary inquiry and that the issues are no ordinary issues. I cannot say what my right hon. Friend will decide in the light of the report, but, whatever his decision, it will have consequences running through this decade and no doubt for a long time ahead.
Faced with issues on this scale, we know what the hon. Gentleman would do if he were Secretary of State, and it is a sobering thought. In his letter of 10th November to my right hon. Friend, the hon. Gentleman said: … it is inconceivable that you should need to consider a decision on the Hunterston project. After 46 days of intensive inquiry, an enormous report containing detailed facts, analysis and recommendations on issues which will have nationally significant consequences, the hon. Gentleman would have my right hon. Friend ignore it all and treat it as a mere piece of window dressing.
The allegation of delay will not stick, and when my right hon. Friend makes his announcement it will be clear that he has given the matter the exhaustive consideration which it requires and deserves.
I can understand the hon. Gentleman feeling strongly about the need for industrial development at Hunterston. Others feel equally strongly about preserving at all costs the amenity there from industrial incursion. Most of us have publicly expressed views on this, though not all of us have done so in such extreme terms as the hon. Gentleman. I am on record about this, and so is my right hon. Friend, who initiated a debate in this House 17 months ago on planning and development in the Firth of Clyde. But the question before him—