HC Deb 01 April 1971 vol 814 cc1813-24

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

10.7 p.m.

Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland)

When the previous Labour Government as their first legislative step in Scotland set up the Highlands and Islands Development Board there were high hopes that at last the Highlands land problem would be tackled radically, and that it would be a first priority of the new Board to invoke its wide powers to carry out studies in depth of integrated, comprehensive land use in selected areas. It was hoped that these studies, with the approval of the Secretary of State for Scotland, would form the basis of action by the Board to provide more land-based employment for the Highlanders; would ensure more economic use of the land resources of the Highlands; would rectify the ecological imbalance due to at least a century of misuse, so well described by Fraser Darling in his West Highlands Survey, and would open up to more productive and socially useful enterprises the exclusive preserves of the private sporting estates.

Perhaps due to the uproar following its proposals for the afforestation of the Island of Mull, the Highland Development Board embarked somewhat tremulously upon a study of the Strath of Kildonan in Sutherland, an area which the Highland Panel had considered worthy of a study and which the Secretary of State recommended should be given consideration by the new Board. If the expectations aroused in the Highlands by the establishment of the Board have not been fully realised it is, in my view, chiefly because the Board has failed adequately to grapple with the land use problem. Unfortunately, the Board's report on the Strath of Kildonan can do little to reestablish confidence that the Board is possessed of the radical drive needed for such a task.

To be fair to the Board, it must be acknowledged that there were those, some of them living in the Highlands, who, early in the Board's life, sought to destroy its very existence; whose unscrupulousness and wrath would doubtless have known no bounds had the Board embarked on a programme of land reform which directly touched their vested interests. Perhaps it is this very caution of the Board which has ensured its survival, at least temporarily, under this Government.

Perhaps a second reason for the Board's reluctance to tackle the land question was its perfectly fair assessment that, even with the best possible land use in the Highlands, a rapid reversal of the depopulation trend would be effected only by a concentration upon building up manufacturing industry in certain selected natural growth areas. None the less, if the full potentialities of the Highlands are to be realised and their distinctive contribution to our country's life and economy expanded, it is through the development of areas like the Strath of Kildonan that the population will be anchored and the creeping growth of an awesome wilderness quite bereft of people and culture checked.

I wish to ask the Minister some questions. I should like to express my gratitude to him for being present to answer this debate. The Board's report on the Strath of Kildonan carries the date 2nd April, 1970. Why was it published only two weeks ago? It might be thought that after five years of gestation the report could have come to light more rapidly. Secondly, can the Minister say how much the whole exercise cost? If one is to evaluate the worth of such a study, it is important to know the answer to that. Thirdly, has the Secretary of State, beyond indicating acceptance of the Board's findings and recommendations, made any suggestions as to how those recommendations should be followed up and implemented? Fourthly, is it the Government's view that studies of this kind are valuable and that some of the resources of the Board should be employed on similar exercises in future?

For my part, I wish to make it plain that despite the reserve with which I must greet some of the Board's recommendations and with which I view the criteria which it has employed in considering possible alternative uses of land, I believe that the Board should be not merely encouraged but directed by the Secretary of State to prepare further reports on a comprehensive scale of other Highland areas. In my constituency, Strath Halladale, Strath Naver, Strathmore and Strathbeg would all merit such in-depth study.

I turn briefly to consider the criteria which the Board has employed in recommending the changes of land use proposed. The Board is not always explicit in stating the case for its recommendations, particularly when arguing for the continuation of sporting facilities at much the same level as at present. For example, in paragraph 17 sport is described as an existing asset which does bring in an annual income and provides moderate employment opportunities". The report is stronger on evaluating the cash return to the landed proprietors from sport than it is in comparing the employment potential of the alternative uses of land. By its own evaluation the estate of Achentoul is the least under-used of the six estates in the Strath, and, although it is primarily a sporting estate, I under- stand that those employed in agriculture and forestry outnumber those employed upon sport by a ratio of approximately four to one. Furthermore, the benefit from the income which the sporting use of the land gives appears not to be enjoyed by those who live in the area, no more than the sporting facilities themselves which the report makes clear are, for the most part, the preserve of the guests of the estates.

The Board seeks to justify even its own limited proposals for afforestation, and they are limited. Indeed, the proposals are half what the Board originally considered—namely, half of the 30,000 acres of plantable land. These proposals and the improvement of existing agriculture are based on the need to maintain a difficult balance between the conflicting land use interests. In my view, the balance has been struck rather oddly. It appears to have been accepted without question that the present number of stags and hinds is about right. Everything else appears to revolve around this fact. This necessarily limits the use of grazings by livestock, particularly cattle, and serves to perpetuate the ecological imbalance in the Strath.

The Board seems to derive satisfaction from the fact that its proposals for afforestation will not impinge on grouse and deer habitat for 10 years. In view of the small employment factor involved in the care of game, I cannot share the Board's satisfaction. I take issue with the Board in having admittedly treated the employment factor as secondary to what it calls the more intensive use of land through capital investment. In fact, it is somewhat unclear what precisely has been the basis of the comparative evaluation.

The Board concludes that it is not primarily concerned with employment. Yet if we turn to paragraph 4 of the report, the following contradictory statement is made: The programme is designed to increase the employment opportunities, to raise the productivity of the land through public or private investment and, where possible, and where it is economically justified to allow sporting use of the land to continue, though not necessarily at the same level or in the same form as at present It is my view that these multiple objectives are mutually inconsistent and incompatible, and that it is the Board's failure to follow priorities and to make rational economic comparisons between different possible land uses and the benefit in terms of employment provided by these alternatives that mars the exercise and makes the report that much less worthy than might have been hoped after a prolonged period of study.

Having made clear my basic disagreement with the Board's approach, I turn briefly to its particular proposals and would ask the Under-Secretary what action the Government will take and recommend the Board to take to follow up the proposals that are made. The first specific recommendation is that the Board should assist any small-scale manufacturing of processing which is suggested for the village of Helmsdale. Thus the Board has identified a need for manufacturing industry, but its proposal appears to go no further than to recommend that it should use its normal grant and loan powers to help somebody who happens to come forward with a good idea for development. In my view this is too limited a conception of the executive role which the Board can and must play in the establishment of manufacturing industry. It is, indeed, no different from the role it plays throughout the Highlands at present. This limited conception of its rô is little different from that of a merchant banker, albeit that the source of the funds which the Board can make available is public money and that the terms may be somewhat easier than are available elsewhere.

What is missing from the report is the recognition and admission that the Board's present techniques of assisting others to establish manufacturing industry in the Highlands have had relatively modest, though not negligible, results in an area like Kildonan; and it is in areas like Kildonan that the true problems of the Highland areas will be solved.

Under the 1965 and 1967 Acts the Board is empowered to do much more than it has done in establishing manufacturing industries. If the Board is satisfied that there is scope for a particular project, why does it not follow the Scandinavian example—and I am thinking particularly of Sweden—and itself initiate a project utilising its own con- siderable resources? It has the money. It has in "Operation Counterdrift" a list of men and women with managerial and technical skills who want to work in the area, and it has on its staff project officers with commercial and accounting experience and expertise who should be at least as well equipped to propose suitable projects as to dispose of other people's projects.

The other specific proposals of the Board also call for comment. At this time when there is so much uncertainty about grants for fishing vessels, I should be interested to know from the Under-Secretary of State what is happening to the proposal of the Board that one new fishing vessel should come to Helmsdale. Is it dependent upon local fishermen putting up their own capital and, if so, what share of the capital? As capital grants have not been forthcoming since the Government's announcement on 28th October of a cut of 25 per cent., there is some doubt whether this can be got off the ground.

Village planning in Helmsdale is well under way, thanks to the authorisation of the previous Government of the £500,000 project for the bridging of the river and the realignment of the road. This will enormously improve the amenity of the village of Helmsdale and help to attract night-stopping tourists to the area.

Most of the other recommendations on the development of tourism in the area are common sense and I have no doubt they will be followed up by the local authority and the local tourist association. What the Board sadly neglected was any consideration of the possible use by tourists of the local sporting facilities. True, it mentions in passing sea angling, but no attention is given to the possible improvement of trout fishings, admittedly not very close to Helmsdale, but there are lochs in the area which could have been developed. Local initiative has established an angling association which provides for fishing on the tidal stretches of the River Helms-dale. Although there is divided opinion in Helmsdale, I imagine it will offer some scope for passing tourists. These provisions of the report are pretty small beer, and the report will stand to be judged by its proposals on land use.

Will the Under-Secretary of State consider whether the technical evaluation and the comparisons contained in the report are the best that could scientifically be done because, in my view, they are not. Finally, will the proposals be followed up, and shall we see future reports on land development in the Highlands?

10.24 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office (Mr. George Younger)

I should like to start by thanking the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) for his remarks at the beginning of his speech this evening and congratulating him on his good fortune in getting this Adjournment debate on a subject on which I know he feels strongly and which he and his constituents have been talking about for a very long time.

I, too, consider this a very important matter for the development of the far north of Scotland, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving us the opportunity to discuss this subject tonight.

I think that we are all grateful to the Highlands and Islands Development Board for producing the interesting and useful report which we are discussing. As the hon. Gentleman made clear, the report had its origin in a recommendation by the previous body to the Highlands and Islands Development Board. I am glad that the Board has been able to conclude the report. This has involved a lot of work by the staff of the Board as well as by members of the Board, some of whom have spent considerable time helping with this matter.

In answer to one of the hon. Gentleman's questions, the Board estimates that the total cost of the production of this report was about £9,500. This includes on-costs and the travelling expenses of those taking part in the study. In addition, the designing and printing of the report, the whole of which was done in Inverness, cost a further £620. The report retails at 80p, and the Board is no doubt waiting to see what receipts it will get from its sales. I do not think that this cost is excessive in relation to the large amount of information provided and also the chance that it gives to provide a per- spective into a real problem which has been with the Highlands for a very long time, an area whose past and future has for long been the subject of controversy.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about the timing of the publication. This report was first submitted to my right hon. Friend's predecessor in April, 1970, as a formal proposal under Section 3(1)(b) of the Highlands and Islands Development Act. Before that, in accordance with the Act, it had been seen in draft in confidence and discussed with all those directly concerned, and the final version takes full account of the views expressed in those consultations.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who came into office in June, also then received and considered the report. He expressed the hope that it would be possible to pursue a good many of the recommendations put into the report by the Board. I repeat that hope tonight.

There was then the question of the reappointment of the Board. The new Board finally came into office in November, 1970. That new Board, too, took on the report and had to give its own consideration and attention to the recommendations in it. It has done so and is still doing so.

There is, therefore, no significance or special reason for it having taken so long for the report to be published since its original production in April, 1970. It has been due to the coincidence of a change of Secretary of State and a substantial change of Board membership covering that period. I am glad that it has now been published. I hope that it will be read with great care by many people, particularly by those who live in the area.

The hon. Gentleman knows that the Board has a comprehensive report in train on the potential development in the Island of Mull. It has also got under consideration the undertaking of further studies thereafter.

I noted with interest—I am sure that the Board will also note with interest —the views of the hon. Gentleman about the value of such reports and his hope that further reports can be made in future.

I consider this report and the idea of having such reports most valuable and a proper function for the Highlands and Islands Development Board. I hope that it will in due course, whenever it thinks it appropriate to do so, undertake studies of other such problem areas in the Highlands and that it will do its best to act upon as many as possible of the recommendations of such reports for the future.

The main conclusion of the report was that the present feasibility of resources in the Kildonan area is limited, with little of a strictly commercial nature which can be done obviously and quickly. But within these limits the report concentrates on what is feasible and possible—rightly, I believe. It sets out a collection of policy proposals which add up to a development programme. The Board has no overriding power to do this or to take into its own hands every action recommended in the report. Not only are the Board and others in the area involved, but also the local county council planning committee. But the Board will use its good offices and financial powers to achieve as many of these recommendations as possible.

The hon. Member asked about following up the report. I have said that these reports are valuable, but it is not up to us to suggest to the Board what other studies it should do. Such things are valuable and I am sure that the Board will do more if and when they are thought appropriate.

The hon. Member asked about the recommendation on the need for a further fishing vessel at Helmsdale. The Board accepts this specific recommendation and will use its power to help it to be carried out. The fishermen concerned, who have been told of this, are looking for suitable second-hand boats with which to play their part. The Board would be prepared to give loans, as it is empowered to do, and it is waiting to consider any proposal.

Mr. Maclennan

There is one important matter which I did not raise and on which I should be glad of help. The Minister knows, from correspondence which we have had, that the harbour at Helmsdale is almost silted up. He helped by sending a dredger. There is a fear that long-range changes are taking place in the ecological structure of that area. Can he help to have these matters studied quickly, and if possible have the harbour put in full working order again?

Mr. Younger

I am anxious to give any help I can, and I will investigate that and write to the hon. Gentleman about it.

The hon. Member also said that he was not entirely satisfied that the technical evaluations behind the report were right. This must always be a matter of opinion and it is not for me to go into the technical background and declare it unsuitable. This must be left to those technically involved in preparing the report, although I am certain that they will note carefully what he said.

From my reading of the report, it is obvious that a serious and genuine effort has been made to work out answers to the difficult question whether—and, if so, how—an expansion of the agricultural activities of the area merit serious consideration from the commercial point of view.

As the hon. Gentleman knows from his reading of the report, the conclusion is reached that there is only a limited potential for increased agricultural activity, though I am bound to say that things should be that little bit easier than they were at the time when the report was written, in view of the extra help that has been given to hill sheep farmers generally. It is a marginal difference, but a movement which is certainly not in the wrong direction.

The report was also concerned with the possibilities for the development of forestry and the hon. Gentleman mentioned that he was somewhat disappointed that the potential was not as great as he had hoped. The Forestry Commission regards the target of 15,000 acres to be achieved over 20 years as realistic for the area, but stresses that its fulfilment should not necessarily be regarded as the concern of the Commission alone. It hopes that private landowners will contribute to the programme by undertaking planting themselves, for which, of course, grant-aid would normally be available.

The Commission has an important reservation about the financial return quoted on page 26. The rate of 3-6 per cent. given in the report depends on the assumption that wood-using industries would be established within reasonable reach of the plantations. It would not be valid if the timber had to be transported to markets as distant as, say, the pulp mill at Fort William. Further, inclusion of the cost of the land and overheads in full would substantially reduce the return which could be expected, and as the yield class must depend on the actual parcels of land offered for forestry and an average yield class of 100, the figure used for calculations in the report, may prove to be optimistic.

There is also the problem of remoteness. It is not absolutely clear to the Commission that the whole of this acreage could be developed with full potential because of the difficulties of access to large parts of the acreage. Thus in addition—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-three minutes to Eleven o'clock.