HC Deb 22 November 1972 vol 846 cc1480-92

12.56 a.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (West Lothian)

It should be put on record that the Secretary of State was asked to consider whether he should be present for this debate, as his discretion is one of the issues involved.

My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) and I raise the question of the chairmanship of Livingston Development Corporation as a matter of more than parochial significance to Scotland. We are concerned about future appointments at places like Glenrothes. In ascending order of importance I shall raise four issues which emerge from our protracted correspondence with the Secretary of State.

First, there is the manner and style of Mr. Taylor's removal. If the Minister were the vice-chairman of a company, what would his human reaction be if, when he were browsing through his morning newspaper, he saw the appointment of a new chairman, whose name was unknown to him? That is precisely what Scottish Ministers did to Mr. William Geddes. It was precisely what they did to the county conveners of Midlothian and West Lothian and to the other members of the board, with the exception of one. Are they sensitive to setting the example of the Philistine in the treatment of human beings?

It is no good saying that that is the way it is always done. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) took a great deal of informal trouble over people and consultations. Under the Labour Government the very least that happened was that all those concerned in Scotland—and in England—were contacted by senior civil servants. Yet on this occasion not so much as a scribble arrived on the desk of any of those who were concerned with the board—either from a Minister or from a senior civil servant—on the morning of the Press announcement, or after. It is offensive to board members not to trust them to be told at least 48 hours before. This boorishness is vulgar, and a cause of shame. We hope to hear plans for the improvement in the style of Scottish Ministers.

Secondly, it would not be an unfair summary of the Secretary of State's explanation for not renewing William Taylor's appointment to say that it was "time for a change". That means one of three things; either it is frivolous to a degree to get rid of a chairman who is a widely acclaimed success at the moment of the appointment of a general manager new to new towns and new to local government; or the explanation is untrue; or it is an incomplete explanation. Which is it? Were there other reasons for the non-renewal of the appointment? If so, what were they? On account of the circumstances which are well known to the Minister, Mr. Taylor did much more than might otherwise have been the case.

Thirdly, I must raise one question about Mr. Taylor's successor. In most jobs those who go to the top of important trees have some apprenticeship or training. Whereas the appointee might have been very welcome as a member of the board, is it right that without new town experience and without local government experience he should be spatchcocked in as chairman? New Members of Parliament do not normally become Secretaries of State overnight. Because of the absence of the democratic element, the relationships between a new town board and the local people are by nature difficult, and intrinsically difficult once the population of a new town reaches a critical size of between 15,000 to 25,000.

The new appointee is a newcomer to the rough and tumble of democracy. Would it be unfair to assert that before an uninitiated man can play a useful rôle as chairman of a new town he would have to be in the job for 18 months to two years? This is a fairly widespread opinion. My interest is to have a strong, independent chairman, not over-dependent on his excellent staff and not at too much of a disadvantage to Scottish Office civil servants, for whom change in a major appointment is an ally.

Fourth, I want to express my considered view on the politics of this distasteful affair. What I think is true is that there was a feeling that the Labour Party had been responsible for getting rid of Sir David Lowe, the previous chairman, because he was a Tory and, tit for tat, the Labour Party would be taught a lesson. There are two answers to this. First, his Conservative politics were not the reason for Sir David Lowe leaving Livingston. Whatever anyone says about my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock, no one can deny that he was scrupulously fair over appointments.

Second, probably through little fault of his, Sir David was chairman when the contracts position of the new town got into a muck-up. A little before he died I asked the late Brigadier Arthur Purches why on earth, in the early 1960s, Livingston had gone to a small firm North of the Tay to carry out the main prestige contract in Central Scotland.

He said—and I believe him—that the design was good. I do not deny this. He said, secondly, that against his better judgment the Scottish Development Department pressed him to go for Pert's. It was predictable, and was predicted by me at the time, that it would go bankrupt. This did not entail any great foresight; it was simply a matter of looking at the capital structure of the company. It did go bankrupt, Livingston was damaged, and William Taylor was the man who sorted out the mess. I care far too much for the good of Livingston to sit on the sidelines while Scottish Conservative Ministers create the conditions for a second muck-up. "Once bitten, twice shy."

I always take the strongest arguments of those who disagree with me. In his letter of 26th September to my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian and I the Prime Minister said: I have for several years been convinced that one of the greatest needs of Scotland was to draw new and able people of varied experience into the different walks of public life. In the context of Livingston in 1972 I simply say that the issue is not whether we want fresh faces. I might have agreed that the new chairman would have been a valuable member of the board. The issue is whether we substitute, in the chair, for a man of proven experience, who has cleared up a mess, one who is four years older and yet to be proven in the rough and tumble of a public post?

1.5 a.m.

Mr. Alex Eadie (Midlothian)

I endorse what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). It would have been politic if the Secretary of State for Scotland had been on the Government Front Bench this morning.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on getting this Adjournment debate. It was a joint exercise. Both of us applied, but convention debarred an application by two hon. Members on the same subject. I understand that my wording was deemed to be more appropriate, and we agreed that I should withdraw and that my wording should stand in my hon. Friend's name. I think that that is generally described as a happy compromise. To apply for such an Adjournment debate gives neither of us a great deal of pleasure, for it is an episode which will have distinct rumbles of discontent and suspicion for a very long time.

I wish to state at the outset that the Secretary of State has extended great personal courtesy to me. I recall clearly that when a problem arose concerning Livingston new town, despite the tremendous burdens that his office holds he met me almost immediately and—this must be recorded—acted with an expedition that did credit to both himself and his office.

In the long struggle that I had to gain full development status for the new town—battling at times in what I was beginning to think was a lone fight—I was always assured that the facts of the case and nothing else would be considered. The right hon. Gentleman knows that I recorded this in an article to the Press, for I sent him a copy. This makes the decision of the chairmanship of Livingston new town all the more inexplicable, for it did not fit the form of the right hon. Gentleman.

Conclusions have been reached—my hon. Friend referred to this matter—that some outside agency had a hand in this decision. It has been suggested, for example, that the Scottish Conservative Central Office had a voice in it.

The appointed chairman, Mr. Misselbrook, is frankly an unknown. Does he owe his appointment to the fact that he subscribes to the general philosophy of the Tory Party? On qualification and age he is not impressive. Company directors have no special edge over anyone else for such a job, neither should they be debarred; but 59 is rather late in the day to be pitchforked to the head without even serving an apprenticeship on the town board. To be on such a board is not like being a director of a company. One is dealing with people in relation to matters that sometimes involved their full wellbeing. Incidentally, people are not impressed that he will do the job without salary, according to Press reports, and I am not impressed.

If nothing else emerges from this debate I hope that the Minister will give adequate and satisfactory answers to these conclusions, suggestions and assertions, and that they will be clearly refuted.

The appointment was a gross insult to members already serving on the board. Not one was thought fit to be promoted to the chairmanship. I am surprised that there has not been a mass resignation, for the only inkling they had of the appointment was when they read about it in the morning newspaper.

I must tell the House that it is already beginning to appear that there is a lack of direction at Livingston new town. The local paper, Livingston Post, on 19th November, describing a "veil of secrecy" surrounding activities in the town, reported: A 'veil of secrecy' surrounded the arrival last week of the first Ugandan Asian families into Livingston New Town. Unlike most other housing authorities throughout the country, the community at large has been given no opportunity to welcome the Asians who had been thrown out of their own country. Secondly, it stated: Councillors in Livingston this week protested that they had been treated with 'contempt' by Livingston Development Corporation over the arrival of the first Ugandan Asian families into the New Town. and, thirdly, it stated: It was not until Thursday before they found out and even then they were unable to secure information from the Corporation as to their whereabouts. On Thursday evening, during heavy rain, the two councillors searched the area in an endeavour to find them. Eventually they tracked down the two families. One of the councillors remarked: They made us most welcome. We did not stay very long, but we felt it was our duty as their elected representatives to make an effort to find them and talk to them. Probably the most fatuous remark was made by the planner of the corporation, who said: It is not the normal practice to inform local elected councillors of those who are coming to live in the town and there is no reason to depart from this procedure. He later said: The arrival of the two Asian families in Livingston is not being treated with secrecy, but with the normal confidentiality that is given to all persons who come to reside in the town. It is not the practice of the Corporation to divulge any person's private affairs. I suggest that it is time some political direction, or direction of some kind, was given in the new town. If the chairman is to remain very long he must take a grip of the situation and realise that corporation boards must subscribe to elementary democratic concepts. The elected representatives of the people must not be treated as lepers.

What about the retired chairman? I have been critical of the board in the past. Since my election as a Member of Parliament I have become closely involved in the new town. Despite having an electorate of 85,500—which is twice the electorate of the Under-Secretary of State, and probably three times the electorate of the Secretary of State for Scotland—proportionately I have probably devoted more time to the new town. I have led several deputations to the corporation board. They were frank, can. did and critical meetings.

I have been no slavish admirer of the board, or its chairman. But the people of Livingston are generous and considerate people. They acknowledge that they had a good chairman to carry out a very difficult job with a skill born of ability and experience. Representatives of the church testify to that effect. They were shocked and horrified at the decision to replace Mr. Taylor.

The Secretary of State has paid public tribute to Mr. Taylor, and so he should. He was a man who, without question, could have been Lord Provost of Glasgow, but he resigned from Glasgow Town Council to devote himself to the work of the new town. He undoubtedly neglected his legal practice. I understand that a suggestion has been made that he could have left with greater dignity. That is a gross slander. He never uttered a word of protest, although he felt keenly about it. Indeed, the only man that emerges from the whole saga with dignity is Mr. Taylor. He deserves better.

In a new town people come with little to invest, in a financial sense, but they come with a greater stake; they come prepared to invest their whole life. I have great doubts whether the appointee of the Secretary of State will ever have time to learn this great truth.

1.14 a.m.

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

I congratulate the hon. Members for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) and Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) on raising this subject, and I am glad to have the opportunity of putting some of the facts straight. I recognise that both hon. Gentlemen feel strongly about this matter; they have made that clear, and they are entitled and right to do so. They will not mind if I put as plainly as I can the other side of the picture and try to explain why this change was made and to answer the points which the hon. Gentlemen have made in their correspondence and tonight.

I want to make it clear that Parliament decided that the Secretary of State should make these appointments and, although it is absolutely right that other people—particularly Members of Parliament—should be free and welcome to express their views, it is the Secretary of State who has that responsibility. He must—whoever he is, and whatever his party—be free to make these appointments in the way which sems to him best in all the circumstances. My right hon. Friend has done that. He feels that what he did was right, and I thoroughly agree with him.

The hon. Member for West Lothian mentioned that my right hon. Friend is not present to answer this debate. I appreciate his point, and I am grateful to him for putting it so straightforwardly. But I am sure that he, having been a Member longer than I, will realise that it is a very rare event for a Secretary of State to answer an Adjournment debate, and that my right hon. Friend has in no way departed from tradition by asking me to reply in his place. I am glad to do so. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that as a reasonable explanation, even if he wishes that my right hon. Friend had been there. I have tried to find a precedent for a Secretary of State's answering an Adjournment debate. There have been some, but they are very rare, and it is difficult to find them.

Mr. Dalyell

Willie Whitelaw, as Lord President.

Mr. Younger

These appointments are not of people who should represent particular interests or particular bodies; they are personal appointments. People are appointed for their personal qualities. That has always been so, under all Administrations, and it was so in this case. The development of a new town is complex. A wide range of experience and background knowledge must be brought to bear on many problems. People are appointed not only because of their personal qualities but because of the contribution which the Secretary of State thinks they can make to the work of the corporation. The Secretary of State must have freedom to make these appointments in the way that he thinks best.

It is a perfectly respectable argument to say that it is not right that one should have a change every now and again in the chairmanship of a new town. The hon. Member for West Lothian is entitled to say that he thinks that a change should not have been made in this case. My right hon. Friend and I feel that it was an appropriate time to make a change. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I will explain. My right hon. Friend and I thought that it was an appropriate time to make a change in this case so that a new range of experience and qualities could be brought to the job of running the corporation.

No one—and I know that Mr. Taylor entirely accepts this—would expect to be appointed to one of these positions and remain in it for ever. No one expects to he appointed to position of this sort for life.

Mr. Dalyell

That is not the argument. The Minister knows it full well.

Mr. Younger

Everyone accepts—and Mr. Taylor has publicly accepted—that his appointment was up for review, and everyone appointed to positions in the new towns or any other body knows that the Secretary of State can make a change at any time. The hon. Member for West Lothian referred to the case of Sir David Lowe. I do not propose to refer to it; it is very much history.

But whoever was in my position at the time made no representations, because the previous Secretary of State made a change then.

Mr. Dalyell

He would have been unwise not to.

Mr. Younger

This is a matter of personal appointment, which is how it must remain.

The hon. Member for West Lothian has said that he is strongly opposed to some matters, but I must make one point clear because, inadvertently, the controversy which this matter has caused may have led some people to feel that genuine criticism could be made of Mr. Taylor's performance. I make it absolutely clear, as my right hon. Friend has made clear in correspondence, that my right hon. Friend and I have nothing but appreciation of the valuable work done by Mr. Taylor.

Mr. Dalyell

Then you must be out of your mind.

Mr. Younger

If the hon. Gentleman will listen courteously to my side, it will be a great help.

We thoroughly appreciate Mr. Taylor's work, and I would not like anything said now to suggest that he did anything but a good job. His association with the city of Glasgow, his knowledge of planning, his local authority background and, above all, his understanding of people, led him to do a very excellent job, and I want it to be firmly on record that that is not only my view but the view of my right hon. Friend.

Why, then, the hon. Gentleman will quite understandably ask, make a change? It was the feeling of my right hon. Friend, of myself and of others that Mr. Taylor having done this job for seven years and having been on the corporation for 10 years—and the corporation's work having reached a stage when the planning of the town centre had been more or less completed and was moving to the stage of implementation it would be of general benefit to the corporation to have a person with a new background and a new range of experience and of skills at its head. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman and others are quite entitled to disagree with that view, but I must emphasise that just as their opinion is perfectly respectable so is it perfectly respectable for my right hon. Friend to have an opinion on the matter. But the hon. Gentleman must be prepared to listen to the other side of the argument.

The hon. Gentleman has said in his correspondence, and again tonight, that the manner and style of removal was to be regretted. I will look very carefully at what he has said about that, but precisely the same procedure was followed in this case as in every other case where there has been a change of chairman either under this or the previous Administration.

Mr. Dalyell

Not true!

Mr. Younger

That is my information. But I attach importance to courtesy in these matters, and I will look very carefully at what he has said.

Mr. Dalyell

I am grateful!

Mr. Younger

The hon. Gentleman stated that to say it was time for a change was purely frivolous. I do not accept that view, and I am afraid that here we will get no nearer to proving whether he or my right hon. Friend is right. It is a matter of judgment for the Secretary of State of the day. His is the decision, and he has the money provided out of public funds. I cannot accept that the hon. Gentleman is necessarily right and that my right hon. Friend is necessarily wrong.

Thirdly, the hon. Gentleman said that an apprenticeship was needed. It is not necessarily the case that only a person with long experience of the running of new towns—

Mr. Dalyell

"Some" experience.

Mr. Younger

—and the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) himself appointed a very excellent person, Mr. George Wallace, as chairman of East Kilbride. Mr. Wallace is doing an excellent job, but I understand that he has had no previous local authority experience and no previous experience of being on a new town corporation.

Mr. William Ross (Kilmarnock)

I am here because this is not the first time that I have been quite unnecessarily brought into the argument. I would rather the Secretary of State had been here to answer the debate himself, and in respect of appointments to stand on his own feet. Mr. George Wallace was appointed after I had known of some of his public work. I had appointed him to the South of Scotland Electricity Board, and the reports I had from there were such that at the stage of impending changes at East Kilbride I was convinced that it was right to appoint him to East Kilbride.

Mr. Younger

The right hon. Gentleman has made my point for me. He thought that Mr. George Wallace was a good person, and he was quite right to make the appointment. The hon. Gentleman maintains that the appointment was wrong partly because Mr. Misselbrook had not had previous experience of local government, and I do not agree. I believe that the hon. Gentleman is wrong there.

Fourthly, the hon. Gentleman referred to Sir David Lowe. I shall not go into that question now, because it is very much past history. I end by saying that any suggestion of political motivation here is quite groundless. No such consideration is or has been brought in under this or the previous Administration on this matter. Thre is no such consideration in this.

I do not know what Mr. Misselbrook's politics are, nor do I think that Mr. Taylor ever brought his politics into the new town. In any case, he was originally appointed by a Conservative Administration and not a Labour one, so I absolutely reject the idea that there was any political motivation. I should thoroughly abhor it if there had been, and there never should be in these appointments. I wish to make that clear.

I sum up by saying that I respect the sincerity of hon. Members in this matter but do not agree that it was self-evident that Mr. Misselbrook needed previous local government or new town experience. He has business experience, and many fine qualities. I hope that all of us will now regard this as a chapter which is past and will do all we can to help him to do an excellent job and to follow the splendid work of Mr. Taylor for nearly 10 years in the Livingston new town area.

I am sure that the net result of this—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Wednesday evening, 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-six minutes past One o'clock.