HC Deb 26 July 1972 vol 841 cc1925-52
Mr. Dick Douglas (Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire)

I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, leave out line 8.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu)

With this Amendment we are also discussing Amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 8, after 'persons', insert: 'whilst himself retaining a majority of the equity holding in any concern constituted so to do', and Amendment No. 6, in page 2, line 11, at end insert: '(6) Any public company whom the Secretary of State authorises under subsection (1) of this section shall be a United Kingdom registered company and a condition of the contract so negotiated will be that preference be given to United Kingdom suppliers in the supply of equipment required'.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Douglas

The prime intention of these Amendments is to ensure as far as possible that the development of facilities in the harbours of refuge at present owned by the Secretary of State is kept within the ownership and control of the Secretary of State himself.

The purpose of Amendment No. 1 is to delete the reference to other authorised persons to develop, maintain and manage. Its effect would be to leave this development in the hands of the Secretary of State. I can see good reason for the Secretary of State not wishing in person to develop these harbour facilities himself. I readily acknowledge that that is a possibility, although the right hon. Gentleman owns and controls them at present.

What I imagine to be envisaged in the Bill is a large expansion of activities in this harbour area. What I imagine will be undertaken is a situation at Peterhead where we might be trying to out-Stavanger Stavanger; in other words, the facilities that are built up should be comparable with those of that Norwegian harbour.

If the Secretary of State does not want to keep the development in his exclusive control, it is to be hoped that the right hon. Gentleman will ensure that any organisation with which he wishes to be associated for development purposes will be controlled by him. That is why it is suggested in Amendment No. 2 that the Secretary of State should retain a majority of the equity holding in any concern constituted so to do. This may not be correct legal terminology, but when the Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture replies I hope he will be able to give reasons why, if the Secretary of State is to divest himself of the ownership of property and development in this area, he should not himself participate in the equity of any concern that is set up to develop the harbour of refuge at Peterhead.

Amendment No. 6 takes up some of the arguments used by the Secretary of State in his speech at the weekend when he indicated that in the development of North Sea oil Scottish companies and United Kingdom companies were now moving in to get a much higher share than hitherto of the production and the general facilities necessary for the companies which are engaging in exploration and production on the Continental Shelf. The Amendment specifies that any public company authorised by the Secretary of State under subsection (1) shall be a United Kingdom registered company.

This is quite important. If the Secretary of State is to use public money to build up the infrastructure in the harbour, the Secretary of State has a responsibility to ensure that any profits flowing from that investment of public money are kept within the orbit of the United Kingdom in the form of the distribution of dividends and, secondly, in terms of taxation.

A further provision may make it quite difficult for the Secretary of State, but it is in line with what ought to be the right hon. Gentleman's own thinking. It is that any company getting the benefit of the facilities in the harbour of refuge should give preference to United Kingdom suppliers of equipment. The Secretary of State does not have an instrument directly under his control. However, I tabled another Amendment, which unfortunately has not been selected, to empower the Secretary of State to make use of an instrument that he has at one stage removed, namely, the Scottish Industrial Estates Corporation. In a foreword to the report "Opportunity 1972", the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry indicates: In its work of providing attractive and highly competitive premises, the Scottish Industrial Estates Corporation has served Scotland and industry well. That is a very good statement. In its 35 years' existence I should think that would be a truism. Therefore, if the Secretary of State requires an instrument, will he look, in terms of the development of facilities, directly to the Scottish Industrial Estates Corporation as, so to speak, his first port of call?

The Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas) for the way he moved the Amendment. What he said underlined much of the genuine concern on the part of hon. Members on both sides of the House that the development at Peterhead should be seen to take place in the best possible way not only for Peterhead but for the economy of Scotland as a whole. We debated these matters at considerable length in Committee, and I am glad that we should return to them on the Floor of the House tonight.

Amendment No. 1 would have the effect of restricting to the Secretary of State, as harbour authority, the power to carry out any developments and would not allow him to employ agents to carry them out on his behalf.

I make no apology for repeating the arguments I used in Committee. I have considered this matter closely in the light of views expressed in Committee. Because of the situation at Peterhead where changes and new developments are rapidly taking place and new situations are arising and will continue to arise which it is difficult with any certainty to foresee or to legislate for at this stage, it is essential that the Secretary of State should maintain as great a flexibility as possible in his powers concerning development there.

Special situations could arise where there would be advantages in the Secre- tary of State being able to authorise a user of the harbour, for example, to undertake certain developments. There could be various reasons, and I will instance two: either because of the availability of special expertise on the part of one of these bodies who might be using the harbour, or because in particular circumstances there might be economic advantages in a certain user of the harbour undertaking the developments. It is therefore correct, sensible, and realistic to maintain this flexibility so that the Secretary of State may authorise a user or another to act as agent on his behalf.

I turn now to Amendment No. 2 which relates to the Secretary of State retaining a majority of the equity in any concern that might operate and develop the facilities in the harbour on his behalf. The hon. Gentleman appreciated and said that in certain ways technically the Amendment might not be correct. It seems to be founded on the assumption either that any person who might be authorised to undertake the development, maintenance or management of the harbour would be constituted as a company with an equity shareholding, or that such a company would be set up jointly with the Secretary of State and that he would retain a majority shareholding. As drafted, the Amendment would be defective if that was its purpose. I will not dwell on that point. I must advise the House that it is a further restriction on the Secretary of State if he had this particular power. For the reasons I have already given, we wish to keep maximum flexibility for the Secretary of State without putting special conditions and obligations on him.

Perhaps I might elaborate further by referring to developments that take place elsewhere in analogous situations. I am sure the House would agree that a harbour authority, such as Aberdeen, should not necessarily be required to have a majority equity shareholding in any company which built a warehouse in the harbour. If we are asking the Secretary of State to obtain a majority equity shareholding in a company in this instance, it is fair to look elsewhere to see whether this kind of restriction is put on a harbour authority where that authority is not the secretary of state. Whilst appreciating the motives behind these two Amendments, I feel that they put an unnecessary restriction on the Secretary of State.

Whilst I am not happy with the detail of the two Amendments and cannot therefore recommend them to the House, at the same time I understand the concern behind them—namely, that adequate control should be exercised by the Secretary of State over developments which he might delegate to be undertaken by authorised persons. I repeat the assurance given in Committee, that if the Secretary of State, as harbour authority, should authorise any developments such as might be envisaged, it is his intention to retain control over the design and construction of those developments and over the harbour and its operation.

I believe that assurance meets the spirit behind the Amendments without writing in the legal restrictions which they would place on the freedom of action of the Secretary of State over the operation of the harbour so long as he is the harbour authority. For those reasons I could not recommend the Amendment to the House.

My right hon. Friend and I have considerable sympathy with the aim of Amendment No. 6 which seeks to ensure that British industry is given every opportunity to provide the industrial equipment required by the oil companies, but I do not feel that a Bill of this nature is a proper vehicle for this purpose. There would be no objection to the suggestion that any company authorised by the Secretary of State should be registered in the United Kingdom, but the House must remember that for North Sea oil exploration some types of foreign specialist equipment may be required because there is no British equivalent. One has to bear that kind of technical but practical point in mind. Even if the equipment could be supplied by British manufacturers, it would have to be demonstrated to the oil company that the British goods could be delivered on time.

8.30 p.m.

Oil companies generally are aware of the need to give British firms a fair chance to provide the equipment they need, and the Government are watching the situation very carefully to ensure that British firms get that chance but, as a trading nation—and let us not forget that is what we are—it is not proper for us to lay down as a condition of any authorisation special preference for British goods. In this as in other spheres, it is up to British industry to prove, as I hope it will—and many firms in Scotland and the United Kingdom generally are doing just this—that it is capable of meeting the challenge of the specialist needs of oil companies. As recently as last weekend my right hon. Friend spoke about the opportunities for British manufacturers resulting from oil exploration on the Continental Shelf, and the Government are watching the situation very carefully to see that the oil companies give British firms an opportunity to provide the goods they need.

Analogous to what I said about the provision of equipment, it is the Government's intention, in considering which commercial user should be authorised to undertake the developments or to lease harbour facilities, to take account of the contribution which that company has made or is planning to make to the economy of the country by strengthening our balance of payments and by providing for the growth of industry and employment.

In the way I have described, and in what I have said about the Government's approach in deciding who should be authorised to develop or lease facilities at Peterhead harbour, I think I have shown that we are meeting the spirit of the Amendments. I therefore believe that it is unnecessary to put them into legislative form in the way suggested by the hon. Gentleman. For those reasons I ask the House not to accept the Amendments.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (West Lothian)

In principle, I do not believe that those who have taken no part in the Committee proceedings upstairs should take up the time of the House when the measure in question comes on to the Floor of the Chamber. I make as my excuse for intervening the fact that I should like to have been on the Committee but unfortunately it coincided with the Finance Bill in which I had a continuous and sustained interest. I therefore excuse myself on that ground.

I should like to declare a constituency interest. I cannot talk with any knowledge of Peterhead, but there is a situation developing in the Queens ferry area which is not entirely dissimilar. I refer to the giant plans of BP for a tanker farm in the area of Dalmeny which will be discussed in detail in Edinburgh this weekend. The plans will be known to the Department.

The Under-Secretary says that the Secretary of State will authorise the user of the harbour to undertake development. I shouldlike to be a bit clearer about that authorisation as it could affect the south bank of the Forth. The hon. Gentleman gave as his criteria that, first, perhaps expertise would be forthcoming and, secondly, it might be more profitable. Both those considerations are important. However, we must reflect carefully on how a Government Department looks at the environmental aspects of this kind of development.

I put forward the constructive suggestion to the Department that it is about time we considered seriously the American legislation, which requires in such circumstances an environmental impact assessment before any planning permissions are given and before any Government money is given. It may be difficult to write it into the Bill, but will the hon. Gentleman comment on whether the Government are prepared at least to consider the justification for an environtal impact assessment of all the authorisations which they are prepared to give? It is an important matter and it is seen as important by the oil industry, with which my hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Ewing) have had fairly detailed discussions.

Secondly, I am interested in precisely how the equity will be obtained and how the approach will be made to the capital market. In particular, I should like to know a little more about the plans for a joint company. There has been a good deal of discussion but I am far from clear about the capital structure of the joint company. Precisely what is the capital structure of the joint company to look like?

Thirdly, the Under-Secretary talked about retaining control over the design, and I imagine that he meant the design of harbour facilities. I want to be clear about how such control is to be retained and who is to do the retaining. I am prepared to believe that it is necessary to do it, but is the Scottish Office certain that it has the facilities to retain control over what is a difficult technical operation? I went to some trouble earlier in the week to find out from those who know about these problems, who work for the New Scientist, exactly what is involved. My informants told me that it is a specialised operation. What facilities has the Department to retain such control? It is easy to make sweeping statements in the House about the retention of control, but when it comes down to doing it physically in a difficult situation I am entitled to ask precisely how it will be done and what, in the Minister's view, it entails.

Finally, I read, as we all do, the homilies which the Secretary of State tends to make to Scottish industry in particular and British industry in general. Before the Government start giving such homilies to British industry, they had better start putting their own house in order. Before the Secretary of State made his speech last weekend, he should have remembered that British industry was looking for a series of governmental decisions. Subcontractors, both in the oil industry and in the alternative forms of power, particularly nuclear power, want some decisions. If the Government are wondering how they can help British industry, the answer is that they must make up their mind on the Vinter Committee. Are we to have a statement? Will the decision be for oil-firing or nuclear power at Boggan? The subcontractors have been kept waiting for months longer than necessary.

I know that these matters are complex; I am not suggesting that they are easy. However, it is for Government Departments to make up their minds and to talk to the subcontractors who really want to know. Decisions must be made and, before we have any more sermons to British industry, let us have some decisions from the Government so that British industry knows where it is going.

Mr. Patrick Wolrige-Gordon (Aberdenshire, East)

I can resolve the last part of the sermon of the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) at once in that obviously a decision on Stakeness will obviously affect a decision on the power station at Boddam. Therefore, the interests of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electricity Board and the possibility of tankers delivering oil to the power station are a consideration which the Government have very much in mind with a view to the projected development of Peterhead Harbour under the Bill.

The speech of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State was largely taken up with the part-authorisation to undertake special work. It could be that the users would do the development. Clause 1 gives the Secretary of State power to authorise other persons …to develop, maintain and manage… My hon. Friend said that he had given a pledge in Committee on retaining control of the general conduct of a harbour. I am not clear as to where in Committee that pledge was given. My hon. Friend told the Committee: There will be no question of the Secretary of State abrogating his responsibility for the developments within this harbour if he authorises others to carry them out on his behalf. He will be able to exercise control."—[Official Report, Second Scottish Standing Committee, 12th July, 1972; c. 74.] Does that mean that the Secretary of State has decided to retain management in his own hands for the foreseeable future? Is that the pledge to which my hon. Friend referred today, a definite pledge about retaining management for the foreseeable future?

Mr. Peter Doig (Dundee, West)

I did not serve on the Standing Committee which considered the Bill, but, as one who believes that the Report stage is mainly for the benefit of those hon. Members who did not serve in Committee on a Bill, I want to ask the Under-Secretary of State some questions. It appears at first glance that this Measure will only cover new harbours which the Secretary of State decides to create or finance.

Let us suppose that, as has been reported as happening, a major oil strike takes place just east of Dundee. Dundee already has a harbour with ample storage accommodation and all the major facilities likely to be required. But there may be one or two small things not there which may need money for construction. Does the Bill cover a situation of that kind? If not, are the Government not being very shortsighted in not making provision for such development? I am not speaking from imagination. Oil strikes have already been reported by the oil companies and there may be more. If the Government have not made the necessary provision in the Bill to cover such a situation, why have they not done so, since developments of this kind may take place in the very near future?

8.45 p.m.

Mr. William Ross (Kilmarnock)

I apologise or not being here to move my Amendment. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas) for doing it so capably for me. I was prevented because the House ordered me to withdraw in connection with the earlier Bill. I am sure that there are many times when the Minister would like to see me ordered to withdraw. He had better be careful; I am on my feet, and the night is young.

Once again the Minister resisted any Amendment concerned with the question of development, maintenance and management by authorised persons. One of the things from which we have suffered in this connection—and it has been brought further home to me through letters that I have received—is the fact that the Government have not given as much information as they could about the activities that they see flowing from the Bill.

No one wishes to hold up necessary legislation. I have never known legislation go through as quickly as this has. It is barely a month since we first heard about it. We debated it very quickly, late one night. Today's proceedings have been about the earliest that we have had on the Bill in the House. We dealt with it very speedily in Committee, in about one-and-a-bit sessions.

I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) and my hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas) were not both on the Committee; I could have done with them. At any rate, they are wise to take the opportunity that the Report stage affords for those who were not on the Committee to ask questions and for those who were to pursue points about which they were not satisfied, provided that they are in order.

It must be appreciated that when I suggest the deletion of the words "or authorise other persons so to develop, maintain and manage I am not talking about Peterhead; I am talking about harbours. Peterhead is the only one that has been mentioned. That is why we must be careful. We are giving the Secretary of State wide and sweeping powers. We have been told that Peterhead is one of the harbours that is vested in him, and that there is another pier at Uig, in Skye, but during our discussions in Committee the Secretary of State said that this provision might apply to Invergordon. If it might apply to Invergordon it might also apply to Rosyth or Faslane.

We were originally dealing with the harbour of refuge, vested in the Lord High Admiral, then in the Admiralty, and then, from fairly recent times, the Secretary of State. I do not want to wake up one day to discover that there is an additional harbour that Parliament has given the Secretary of State sweeping powers to develop, maintain and manage.

The Minister has said that we do not want to restrict the Secretary of State. By heavens, we are not restricting the Secretary of State with this Bill. It provides that the Secretary of State shall, for any purpose, have power to develop, maintain and manage in such manner as he thinks fit…harbours made or maintained by him and so on, and then, to make it doubly clear that there is no restriction on him, and to do all such things as may be necessary or expedient for that purpose". After the Bill leaves here, that is the last we hear about it and the Secretary of State is left to carry on—with this addition, that he can not only do this himself but can: authorise other persons so to develop, maintain and manage, harbours". We must talk about Peterhead, because it has been mentioned. Those who have been there remember it as a lovely burgh, a seaside resort with the unique feature of a harbour of refuge. It was not the Secretary of State that built it. If the law was carried out, it was built by Scotch male prisoners, under the same Act as authorised the building of the prison. We can understand the concern of many people that what will happen there will change the character of the place. There must be assurances on that.

The fishing industry also wants assurances. The original Act establishing the harbour of refuge took away some rights from the industry. Some people think that the industry will be there long after the oil industry has exploited the resources and gone. But there must be a balance. That is why we require far more information than we have had on the oil industry.

One thing that is very clear about what is happening in the North-East is that there is getting to be virtually a land hunger up there. A considerable escalation of land prices is taking place. We have sought to find out how the development would be done. We have had an indication from the speeches today. The Government are prepared to lease out certain parts of land. That may include water, because the definition of land in Scottish law includes water.

Many people feel that if something must be done the Secretary of State should undertake it himself, so that environmental questions can be covered, as he is answerable to Parliament. As to the new Clause, there is already an annual report, by the Department of Agriculture, part of which appertains to the harbour of refuge, and I presume that it would continue to appertain to Peterhead or anywhere else.

We are concerned about how the development, maintenance and management will take place. It is a pity that we have no one learned in the law to help us. Does the Clause mean that one lot of people could develop, another lot of people could maintain, and another lot could manage, or that the Secretary of State could authorise someone to develop and that he himself could maintain and manage?

I hope that the harbour will be a valuable and continuing asset, but I want it to be to the benefit of the people of Peterhead and Scotland. They should get the best out of it and, in doing so, they too should have some control over the nature of the development so that it does not spoil the character of the place and the pace of its prosperity.

I have not been satisfied yet by the Under-Secretary's answers. He took far too flippant and impertinent a view.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith

No.

Mr. Ross

I shall not tell the hon. Gentleman to wash his ears.

Mr. Iain Sproat (Aberdeen, South)

That got home, did it not?

Mr. Ross

It did not get home, but this is the kind of thing we got instead of serious argument. The Secretary of State was concerned that we even talked about the Bill. These things are worth talking about. It is worth talking of the kind of power the right hon. Gentleman is taking, as it may later be discovered to go far beyond Peterhead. Parliament does not give this kind of power to a Secretary of State just on the nod, as the right hon. Gentleman expected. He asked whether I could possibly ensure that that would be so.

Can the Under-Secretary give any more information about the nature of the developments and the developers to whom the Government are thinking of granting authorisation, and the terms on which they are prepared to grant authorisation? We have been told that if the Secretary of State does this himself, it will cost between £3 million and £4 million but that if he did not do it the increased cost in respect of management and so on would be about £50,000. I am speaking from memory. I should like to have any up-to-date information that the Secretary of State or his hon. Friend has in respect of the financial obligations.

My hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire was right to draw attention once again to the fact that if there are to be developments in the Scottish valleys and on the coast, we should try as far as possible to ensure that they are undertaken by local or at least Scottish developers. My hon. Friend emphasised this. He did not ask for everything but that preference be given to United Kingdom suppliers in the supply of equipment required. We are not unreasonable in our suggestions there. It is fair enough that if the Secretary of State is going ahead with this kind of operation, he should do so with his eyes open to the opportunities of participation in this very considerable development, if it is to cost between £3 million and £4 million—and that is probably just the start.

As I remember the maps, I fancy that we may have more than one developer before we are finished here, depending on how things build up. That is why it is important. Is it in the Scottish Office's mind that there shall be more than one developer on these particular separated sites? If the authorisation for development, maintenance and management is given to someone else, will the Secretary of State still exercise the power of compulsory purchase? That is his power or the local authorities' power. It is not that of an individual. This developer will be singularly fortunate in that he has behind him someone who is prepared compulsorily to purchase land for him and for this development.

9.0 p.m.

I hope that the Under-Secretary appreciates the difficulties and dangers. This is why I said that this is a bad Bill. Right from the start it has been loosely drafted. Under Subsection (1) it is the Secretary of State who is taking the power to develop or to authorise other persons to develop. In the course of development those other persons may acquire more land, but it is the Secretary of State who is empowered to acquire land by agreement or compulsorily for the purposes of developing…such harbours… If the Secretary of State authorises somebody else to develop, what will be the position of the person he authorises in respect of any further land that is needed? Will the Secretary of State act as that person's agent in compulsorily acquiring land, because the chances are that the land that is held by the Secretary of State will not fit neatly into the packet of land that is required by the developer?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith

I welcome the contribution made by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) to the debate and thoroughly understand the reason why he was not a member of the Standing Committee. In view of his knowledge of many of the technological developments which have occurred in Scotland, I welcome the experience and knowledge with which the hon. Gentleman speaks in an industrial debate. He need not feel in the least reticent about taking part in these debates because he did not serve on the Standing Committee.

We are considering harbours that are vested in the Secretary of State. That is what limits the application of the Bill. It is more than harbours simply vested in the Secretary of State. It is harbours that are vested in him by any Act or order". It is this precise definition which restricts the application of the Bill to Peterhead, Uig and Invergordon.

I wish to correct something that the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) said. There is no question of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State letting slip in Committee that the Bill applies to Invergordon. My right hon. Friend made clear in Committee what the point was.

Mr. Ross

I still remember what the Secretary of State said. He said "Invergordon possibly".

Mr. Buchanan-Smith

The whole point is that the Bill applies to Invergordon as it stands, but the development of Invergordon will be covered by the Cromarty Firth Order which is under consideration.

Rosyth Docks are operated under the Dockyard Ports Regulation Act, 1865, and under the authority of the Queen's Harbourmaster. There can be no question legally of the Bill applying to Rosyth.

Mr. Dalyell

All that is probably true, but it may nevertheless be a model for other developments. Rosyth is likely to remain under the control of the Ministry of Defence. Port Edgar, on the south bank of the Forth, is not, and there is a real issue as to whether this kind of Bill will be a model for any Measure which may be brought in in two or three years for, say, Port Edgar and the big tanker developments to which I referred.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith

Yes, I accept the hon. Gentleman's point on that. Obviously, one is careful in what one does at any time, having regard to future repercussions. In relation to Peterhead, we shall learn as we go along, and I hope that at the same time the kind of management which we can provide at Peterhead and the way we go about it will be a model for others. That is certainly my right hon. Friend's hope and mine, and I am sure that the House would regard it as one which it would hope to realise.

The question of ownership is important. Occasionally, because of the big issues behind it, one tends to lose sight of the limited nature of the Bill. But of course the limited nature of the Bill does not mean that one can afford to be careless in its drafting and in the powers which we take.

My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Wolrige- Gordon) asked for a further assurance on the question of the management of the harbour, and he wanted to know whether the Secretary of State would retain the management in his own hand in the foreseeable future. This is certainly our intention. However, as we made clear at earlier stages, it is possible at some time in the future, if it be thought desirable, for the Secretary of State to set up a new public authority as the harbour authority for Peterhead.

It will be possible to do that. It could have been possible at this stage but, as the House knows—the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock knows it very well—if we had taken such a course at this stage it would have involved a hybrid Bill, creating certain legislative difficulties and problems of time at a point when there was urgent need to get this development under way. That is why we proceeded as we have for this particular purpose. However, as I say, if it be thought appropriate or desirable in the future, it will not prevent the Secretary of State from deciding to vest the harbour in a new public authority. That could be on the cards.

The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock asked what developments had taken place over the last week or so since the Committee stage. I have nothing to add to the fairly full account which I gave at the final sitting of the Committee, when I referred to what was being done in the Aberdeen planning committee and the consideration which it was giving to the matter.

The hon. Member for West Lothian asked, in effect, what competence we had in the Scottish Office to deal with these exciting big developments. We are having to take advice. We have already appointed a consultant, Mr. Sutton—I think he will be known to the hon. Gentleman—from the Firth of Forth Harbour Board who is advising us on many of the management aspects. Also, we have appointed a firm of consulting engineers to advise us on the overall planning of possible developments at Peterhead. When we have their report, we shall study it carefully and take their advice. We are in close touch with the National Ports Council and with the Department of the Environment. We are taking their advice at every stage of the development. I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that we do not regard ourselves as perfect within ourselves. It is our intention to take the best advice available, particularly on highly technical matters.

I have little more to add to what I have said in reply to the request of the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock for more up-to-date information. The same firms are still interested. A number of other commercial inquiries are under way which have not yet reached the stage of public application to the planning authority. Therefore, the situation is still fairly fluid, similar to the situation which we were in a number of weeks ago.

The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock also asked who would develop, maintain and manage the harbour and whether different people would do so. There is no mystery about this; we are not trying to hide anything. I repeat that we want flexibility. We have the power and, if it is appropriate, we intend to use it. The Secretary of State will be in a position to authorise people to develop, maintain and manage parts of the harbour whilst retaining overall control. He is the statutory harbour authority and therefore he will retain control. However, I am not in a position to give details about the developments or the developers because their plans are still being drawn up and negotiations are going on with the various interests involved. There could be more than one developer and more than one user of these facilities.

I should perhaps have clarified earlier a point raised by the hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas). He asked whether peopleauthorised to undertake developments would do so on their own behalf or on behalf of the Secretary of State. Only if a developer wanted to undertake on his own behalf and at his own expense would authorisation be necessary. Any work done by a developer as agent of the Secretary of State and on behalf of the Secretary of State would, in legal terms, be development by the Secretary of State.

Mr. Dalyell

I asked about the capital structure. I should like to know how the company equity holding is to be formed. Will the hon. Gentleman deal with that?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith

I proposed to deal with that in a moment but I will deal with it now. The idea of joint ownership is introduced by the Amendment. We have no plans for such a structure. We would, in co-operation and conjunction with our consultants, take advice on the structure of companies wishing to develop the harbour. We have no plans to enter into that type of structure with companies wishing to operate or develop the harbour.

9.15 p.m.

Now I move on to two other points which the hon. Gentleman raised, one of substance and one of them on general policy. He talked about the kind of lead which the Government should give in these matters. What the Government are doing here is showing an example and takingthe lead. There is no question of the Government, as the hon. Gentleman said, preaching sermons to industry, because we are proving by our action what we think should be done and we are doing it.

The one point left in what the hon. Gentleman said was in relation to the environment. I accept entirely what he says about the importance of environmental factors and that we should take these into account. This was a matter raised on several occasions in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East not so much in relation to general policy as in relation in particular to Peterhead. I would certainly give him the assurance that the Secretary of State intends in the development at Peterhead to take into account very fully the environmental aspects.

It may be helpful to my hon. Friend and to the hon. Member for West Lothian to say, in relation to the discussions at the weekend on the edge of the latter's constituency, that the project which the hon. Gentleman spoke about is, as he knows, in front of West Lothian County Council in connection with the application from BP. In that case the county council has asked for an environmental assessment of the oil terminal in the Forth as a condition of planning permission. I hope that this will reassure the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend that environmental considerations are taken into account in developments of this kind. Certainly, in what is happening at Peterhead and West Lothian the planning authorities have shown their awareness of these considerations, and my right hon. Friend as well, in connection with his planning functions, certainly intends to keep a close eye on this environmental matter.

Mr. Dalyell

Having total confidence in West Lothian County Council in other respects, of course I accept that, but the fix which any local authority is in is in connection with what future developments could be, and this is where we need help from the Scottish Office. It may be BP this year, and it could be Esso or Murco or a host of others another year. These applications would, of course, be considered in connection with the job opportunities which they could bring, and they would need to be discussed, but we do not want needlessly to have the sort of situation which has arisen on the banks of some European rivers.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith

I take the hon. Gentleman's point. In all these matters the Secretary of State has certain planning functions. I am glad to say that asssistance which has been given by the Scottish Office in relation to these developments and their environmental aspects has been welcomed already by several local authorities in Scotland, and they have already expressed appreciation of what we are doing. We are available to any others to approach us. We are in close touch with Aberdeenshire County Council and also with Orkney and Shetland, and we are available to any local authority or planning authority which wishes to come to us to discuss these matters.

Of course, it is of tremendous importance for everyone in Scotland and for the future quality of life in Scotland that these matters are taken into account in the developments which take place, to see that they are planned sensibly with an eye on the future and not just the immediate value of the exploitation of oil. As the hon. Gentleman knows only too well in his own constituency and from the oil industry previously in Scotland, the scars which can be made can take a very long time to erase. Obviously we must take these factors very fully into account in our planning.

Mr. Ross

The difficulty about this as I see it is that a decision will be taken even after an inquiry. I had a letter today from someone in the Glen of Drumtochty in Kincardineshire, where the reporter made a certain finding which was supported in principle, I believe, by the Secretary of State, and yet the Secretary of State has given power to the hydro board to set it aside and to do something—according to the letter—which, I have no doubt, the hydro board pleaded it was impossible to do in any other way. Thatis where there are pressures of urgency and where jobs are at stake. If we do not act quickly they will disappear to the south of France or Norway. We have to strike a balance. I hope that the Secretary of State will take note of the point about Drumtochty, on which I shall probably be writing to him.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith

I assure the right hon. Gentleman that, as Drumtochty Glen is within one mile of where I live, I know exactly the instance he has raised. In mentioning this point the right hon. Gentleman has simply underlined the Secretary of State's function as the final appeal—

Mr. Ross

And his weakness.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith

The right hon. Gentleman is obviously speaking from personal experience there. At the end of the day the Secretary of State has to take the decision on these vital planning matters. We have to balance the economic urgency of a proposal with the longer-term environmental factors, with which the hon. Member for West Lothian is so rightly concerned. At the end of the day it is a matter of balanced judgment and the Secretary of State has to come to his decision. All I am saying in response to the proper questioning of the hon. Member for West Lothian is that we shall bear environment factors strongly in mind. Local authorities in Scotland are becoming conscious of the importance of these factors and are taking them into account in their planning decisions.

We have covered again ground we covered earlier but I think it is useful to do so on the Floor of the House. Some of the Amendments I reject outright. I accept the spirit of others, but I hope that with the assurances I have given about how we intend to proceed with Peterhead the hon. Gentleman will agree to withdraw his Amendment.

Mr. Douglas

I have listened with interest to all the speeches, particularly to the reply by the Under-Secretary of State. I wish I could say that I was heartened by the assurances he has given but I get the impression, without going into the genesis of the Bill, that the Scottish Office is being largely overtaken by events. As an example of this, when my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) asked about capital structure, in a moment of frankness the Undersecretary of State indicated that he had no ideas at all.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith

I did not say that I had no ideas at all. I said that this situation did not arise at the moment.

Mr. Douglas

I do not want to bandy words across the Floor of the House. We can check the records to see what the hon. Gentleman said. My impression is that on the question of the capital structure, in terms of public ownership and public control, the Scottish Office is extremely vague. I grasp a little bit of light. We are pushing the Scottish Office in the right direction and I shall watch the operation of the Bill with great interest. We have had to push the Scottish Office on the whole potential of the area in relation to North Sea oil. I shall have other opportunities to pursue the matter. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith

I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 2, line 3, after 'order', insert 'made by statutory instrument'. I understand that it will be convenient to take with this Amendment, Amendment No. 5, in page 2, line 7, at end insert: '(5) Any order made under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament'. Reference was made in Committee to several precedents in legislation in which no provision is made for parliamentary procedure on orders such as an enactment of the Bill may be made under subsection (4) of the Clause. The reasons for following those precedents were fully explained and dealt with in Committee by my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate, and they were fully discussed in Committee. No doubt the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) will wish to refer to them when he speaks on his Amendment No. 5.

Since the Committee stage my right hon. Friends and I have been looking at the question of whether provision should not be made in the Bill, as was done in the Water (Scotland) Act, 1967, for publication of an order made under this subsection. We feel that it would be proper to make such provision, and accordingly I ask the House to accept the Amendment.

The effect of providing that an order should be made by Statutory Instrument is to attract the arrangements for the printing and selling of Statutory Instruments by the Queen's Printers and for the numbering and publication in the edition of Statutory Instruments for the year provided for in the Statutory Instruments Act, 1946. Consultations with all interests concerned will have taken place as appropriate in making an order, and copies will be available in accordance with normal procedures for the publication and sale of Statutory Instruments. We feel that the Amendment helps to clarify the situation and moves matters a little further forward—though probably not as far forward as the right hon. Gentleman would like.

Mr. Ross

I suppose we must settle for the best we can get, but it is sad that the Government have not gone just a little further on this matter. There are certain public processes which can be carried through by Statutory Instrument, but there must be very few Members of Parliament who have taken note of all the Statutory Instruments which have been laid this week, or even yesterday. On the other hand, if we had made this procedure subject to annulment in pursuance of a Resolution of either House of Parliament these matters would be brought to our notice.

A sheaf of these orders is placed on my desk every week and I am asked to advise as to whether we should pray against them. This is something of a nonsense in the present state of parliamentary business, because there is no hope of finding time even to raise the matter by a Prayer, though many of these orders are very important. I hope that sooner or later the House of Commons will get down to solving this continuing problem.

9.30 p.m.

However, it would have given us at least an opportunity of discussing for a short time what could be a very important matter. As matters stand, the Government have the right to set aside any local statutory provision, to repeal it, to amend it or to adapt it. The Secretary of State is empowered to …adapt that provision to such an extent, or in such manner, as he considers appropriate… Once again, there is no limit. …any order under this subsection may include such transitional, incidental, supplementary and consequential provisions as the Secretary of State may consider necessary… It is a disgraceful wide power to ask Parliament to set aside private legislation about which we know nothing. I hope that the Secretary of State appreciates it.

The Under-Secretary of State thought it unfair of me to say that the Secretary of State slipped it into his speech, but Invergordon was not mentioned in the first instance either in the letters that I received from the Secretary of State or on Second Reading. It was well into Report that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned it. No one had thought of it.

This is one of the difficulties. We are legislating in the dark. We may discover later that it applies to many other harbours of which we know nothing at present.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gordon Campbell)

I made it clear at the beginning when I was first in touch with the right hon. Gentleman that the harbours where the Secretary of State for Scotland was harbour authority were two. I made it clear in the House. When thequestion was raised about whether there were any other Secretaries of State who might be covered by the terms of the Bill, the answer was yes, Invergordon. But in fact Invergordon is to be dealt with separately in another way, as the right hon. Gentlemanknows.

Mr. Ross

Yes, but it could come under this and be subject to it until it was dealt with in another way. We seldom see the words "Secretary of State for Scotland" in any legislation. We see "Secretary of State," and that covers all Secretaries of State. Notionally there is only one. I raised this point on Second Reading. It may have been later that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned the Invergordon example.

However, I do not want to deal with it at any length now. But I think that we should retain a certain measure of parliamentary control, if only from the point of view of future Members who may be concerned about some activity.

The Secretary of State seeks power to set aside private legislation which was considered to be so important that it was brought here at great expense and after a tremendous amount of work. I do not believe that it should be so readily set aside, repealed, amended or adapted without Parliament knowing about it. That would have been the position, and I am glad that the Lord Advocate decided to put in "by Statutory Instrument". However, anyone who has any experience of Statutory Instruments will know that this is only a slight advance and gives Parliament little or no control over it. If it had been subject to annulment we should have had a certain measure of control.

There is another unknown factor. I refer to the rather stupid definition of "harbour" which is still there: 'harbour' means any harbour, whether natural or artificial". How can the Secretary of State make a natural harbour? There may come a time when he could vest in himself, by order or by Act of Parliament, a useful natural harbour. Then all this will flow from it. I am sure that the island of Rockall will one day become very important. We shall discover it is a natural harbour, realising what some people suggest about creating artificial harbours in the middle of the North Sea for the exploitation of oil.

We are legislating not for what will happen tomorrow but for a long time. That is why this is such a slipshod Bill. It is therefore important that we should talk about the powers in the Bill as we have done today. I am prepared to settle for what the hon. Gentleman has offered us. I will not therefore move the Amendment standing in my name.

Mr. Dalyell

It would be extremely dangerous to attempt to patronise my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), but I think he will accept from me that he made an excellent speech.

As on many other occasions, my right hon. Friend revealed what many of us do not see at first sight—[Interruption.] It was an extremly important speech and I will tell the Under-Secretary why. One reason occurs to me and I will present my credentials for saying so. I was a member of the committee which studied the ports under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) together with my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore), Mr. Jack Jones and Mr. Michael Montagu. If the Under-Secretary doubts what my right hon. Friend said, there is this question to be answered: how is it that in the last 50 years the ports of this country have got into the terrible industrial mess they have? The more power that Parliament has to look into what happens in the ports, the better.

If the State is to be involved and if—I repeat "if"—we are to have equity shareholdings in the ports, I should like to see a close scrutiny not only of the way the facilities develop but of the way that human and industrial relationships develop.

Scotland has been very lucky. Grange-mouth is almost a model port. In 1966 and 1967 I visited 20 ports in this country with the Mikardo Committee. Anybody who did that, looking at the matter objectively, must be shocked by what has grown up. There is no other way of putting it. That is not an understatement. Our harbours and ports setup is a disgrace to a modern nation. Therefore it behoves us, when creating what will no doubt be another major port, if I may use a colloquialism, to keep on eye on it. My right hon. Friend was absolutely right in what he said about parliamentary scrutiny.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith

I am grateful to the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) for the way he responded to the Amendment and I appreciate the matters he raised. I can do no more than reiterate what my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate said in Com- mittee, that it is a fine balance of judgment whether on these matters one regards the parliamentary procedure as appropriate or inappropriate. We have deemed that in this case the balance comes down in favour of the procedure that we have suggested, and in this we have unashamedly modelled ourselves on the Water (Scotland) Act, 1967, which deals with local enactments. That Measure was introduced by the Government of which the right hon. member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) was a member. I do not deny that there are precedents the other way but, following respectable precedents, we believe that because of the limited nature of the application of the Bill the procedure which we have chosen is appropriate.

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock for the way he has accepted at least the half loaf that we have provided. We are anxious to be sensible and practical, and I hope I can demonstrate that this is a practical solution to the problms

The hon. Member for West Lothian put the matter in rather idealist terms. One of the things we want to see is the modernisation of the docks, but is not this one of the painful processes through which we are going? It is encouraging that in Scotland, not only in the bigger ports such as Grangemouth but in some of the smaller East Coast ports, if I may express a local interest, the docks are well in every respect.

Coming to the other side of the hon. Gentleman's rather idealistic coin of how important it is to keep Parliament's finger on the pulse of docks development, let us remember that in addition to dealing with one or two bigger issues such as the sweeping aside of previous enactments, as the right hon. Gentleman said, there will be orders of a very much more mundane nature, and I honestly believe, with the best will in the world and trying to be practical, that it would not be proper for Parliament to be bothered about such matters.

We are dealing with the power to make harbour byelaws and with such things as the duty of the harbour master. I do not think that such matters are appropriate for the suggested parliamentary procedure. Let me quote from the most recent Statutory Instrument issued under the previous legislation. It is entitled: The Peterhead Harbour of Refuge (Port—Hand Rule) Byelaws 1960—Statutory Instrument 1960/831. I am not a yachtsman, but the Lord Advocate is and I am sure he could explain this much better than I can. The Explanatory Note says that within the limits of the Peterhead Harbour of Refuge power-driven vessels are to pass each other starboard to starboard and are to keep to the port side of the narrow channels within the harbour". That is the kind of order that is made under the existing legislation. I accept the point made by the hon. Member for West Lothian that there are matters of principle and policy which it is important for the House to consider but, on the other side of the coin, there are local, practical matters which I do not think are appropriate for submission to the House.

I have tried to put the matter in perspective, and I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock for agreeing to withdraw his Amendment.

Mr. Ross

I cannot withdraw what I have not moved.

Mr. Dalyell

We do not necessarily want to consider orders about how ships should pass each other, but is there any harm in presenting such orders to the House? Would it cost more, or would it take up more Civil Service time? Is there any disadvantage in so doing?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith

I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he reads the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend in Committee on 12th July. As I am sure the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock will agree, on that occasion the Lord Advocate went into the matter in great detail and with a great understanding of the issues involved. If the hon. Gentleman reads that speech, he will find the arguments clearly set out.

Mr. Ross

I do not want it accepted that I agree with everything the Lord Advocate said on that occasion. It was a matter of balance and I do not suggest the balance has come down the right way. I wanted to intervene briefly to say that I can understand why the Scottish Office prefers Statutory Instruments. There would be no difficulty through getting mixed up and forgetting to put something before the House which should go before the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Back to