HC Deb 05 November 1973 vol 863 cc765-78

10.56 p.m.

Mr. James Sillars (South Ayrshire)

Until tonight I had thought that oil had greater combustible properties than pasta and salt, but now I am not sure about that, at least in politics.

I am very pleased to find myself with time to raise a matter of the first importance for Scotland, a country which has been blessed by nature with vast areas of beautiful landscape, which it is the duty of the present generation to preserve and protect as much as possible. We have an obligation to ensure that our successors inherit the same lovely country as we enjoy today.

Before developing my view about how an Environment Trust Fund can assist in meeting our obligations to the environment, I want to say something about oil development in particular and about industrial development in general. I am anxious that my view on the environment is put in perspective, and that the Minister is not led to believe that I am a romantic—I do not think that he would believe that—so obsessed with the need for a pure environment that I forget about people and their need for jobs, and the need for industrial development which will provide jobs.

I am not one of those people who believe that industrial development should be frozen in its present Scottish locations. Nor do I believe that it is possible to make industrial progress in Scotland without some damage to the environment. I recognise that there are places, such as Hunterston, where the economic potential is so great, of such significance, that we have to accept the environmental price to be paid for industrial development.

Neither am I one of those people who wish oil had never been discovered in the Scottish sector of the North Sea, or now that it has been discovered that it would go away, thus saving them the political and environmental problems which oil development has brought, and will continue to bring.

I welcome the discovery of oil and recognise what an important asset it is, or could be, for greatly improving the structure of the Scottish economy and for promoting higher employment and better incomes for working people. Without the oil industry our already high unemployment would be much higher, and industrial morale in the country would be much lower than it is at the present time.

That is not to say that I am happy with the way the Government are handling oil, nor that I am satisfied that Scotland is getting an appropriate share of the industrial work associated with oil exploration and production. Nor do I believe that our planning machinery is geared to match the demands the oil industry is placing on our physical and manpower resources. Like many others, I feel bitter about the Government's apparent unwillingness to direct the companies engaged in the industry to areas, in the central belt, for example, where the environmental impact would be less and the job provision of greater importance and benefit.

Neither the subject of this debate nor the time available permit me to launch a major critique of Government policy on oil development. I shall probably do that in Govan in the next day or two. It would be wrong, however, if in passing I did not inform the Minister that in the opinion of most Scots, whatever their personal political allegiances, the Government are failing to exert sufficient control over the oil companies, and that the Government have failed to chart a planning strategy for oil and related developments to ensure that the national economic interest comes before those of private companies.

Having said that, I now want to turn to the moment when I was prompted to apply for this debate. It was when the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry made his statement to the House, on Wednesday, 24th October, about oil supplies. He said: We shall continue to do everything possible to speed up the development of our oil and gas resources in the North Sea and we have asked the oil companies concerned to inform us of any delays that occur in developing their projects and any matters that hamper them from proceeding as fast as possible with new schemes."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th October; Vol. 861 c. 1256.] That statement came on top of DTI Ministerial noises the previous weekend heralding a crash effort to draw more fully and quickly on the North Sea reserves of oil, in order understandably to place Britain in a less vulnerable oil supply position in future than we are at present.

The Government's anxiety about oil supply security is well understood. All of us would like to see Britain becoming less dependent on outside sources for our energy needs. But there is worry in Scotland about the implications of a crash programme of extraction. The worry is that Ministers will become so single-minded about the need for oil, and still more oil, that they may be prepared to demolish too many controls, to the ultimate disadvantage of the Scottish environment or the Scottish economy.

In the quotation from the Secretary of State's statement there is a definite note of haste, and I am particularly concerned to have the implications of what he said examined closely, and for the Government to explain themselves more clearly than they have yet done.

The Minister knows that there has been considerable pressure exerted from within Scotland to have more and more of the industrial projects associated with oil actually sited in Scotland. There is a demand that more drilling rigs and production platforms be built in Scotland, because of the known employment this will bring. At the same time there has been public concern that industrialists seem to wish to develop on virgin sites in areas of outstanding landscape value, and there have been planning delays on a number of projects. Indeed some applications for planning permission, at Drumbuie, Ullapool, and Dunnet Bay, have been the cause of major controversies not only in the areas most involved, but among the population of Scotland.

If pressure to direct more of the benefits from oil towards Scotland is maintained, as it will be, there are bound to be further planning and environmental problems. It is evident from a recent Scottish Development Department publication entitled "North Sea Oil and Gas: Interim Coastal Planning Framework: A Discussion Document," that the largest number of applications will be for sites lying to the north of the Highland line.

It may well be that the new emphasis in Government policy, to get the oil out quicker than originally planned, means that the Government intend to resist Scottish pressure for more jobs, unless we in turn stop resisting the full swing of industry into our areas of great landscape value. Are we to be told: "Hard luck friends, we cannot pussyfoot around with you any longer. We need the oil, and to get it we need the rigs and platforms quicker than your doubts and hesitations about the likes of Drumbuie can give it to us. Therefore, you will get less of a share than previously of the associated industrial projects"?

There is a growing fear in Scotland that the Government are after oil at any price, and that environmental considerations and the bearing they have on economic matters are now to be given a much lower priority rating than previously.

I am worried that the Government will say: "Either get your job-creating developments and forgo your concern with the environment, or keep your precious environment and forgo your developments." I do not believe such a point should be posed, but I think notions like that might linger in the minds of Ministers and advisers when they come up against bodies like the National Trust for Scotland, which has a special interest at Drumbuie, or with local communities who, without being utterly opposed to development, are sensibly cautious in their approach, as is the position at Stornoway. I think an early full Government statement on what the Secretary of State really meant last Wednesday is now called for.

In any event, whatever the future policy holds in terms of development, there is already an oil industry established in Scotland, and that industry is already doing damage to the environment. That is merely an objective observation, not a condemnatory remark. I welcome the industrial growth related to oil, and the jobs created, but I am not blind to the impact development is having on the environment, and will continue to have on the environment.

The published document from the Scottish Development Department gives us a list of 70 developments either approved or for which application has been made. These developments are listed in Appendix 2 of the report and show that about two-thirds of these lie to the north of the Highland line. The area to the north of the Highland line of course embraces much of the beauty of Scotland, so there are sound grounds for concern about the environment, and equally sound grounds for seeking a special fund to take care of environmental damage.

The extent of the visual and physical effect on the environment can be gauged by extracting and considering some of the facts from Appendix 2. It is shown that in the Moray and Cromarty Firths area alone there have been six individual developments approved for platform fabrications, with a further development under consideration, all on the foreshore. In the West Coast area, one platform fabrication development has been approved, and three others are under consideration.

From this it can be seen that already, even if the Government tried to change the direction of future development away from Scotland, which I would warn them against, there are grounds for concern about where the means are to come from to clear up the dereliction when oil-related developments cease to operate at some future date, to become the headache of some future generation.

I sought this debate because I want to persuade the Government that we should start to plan now for the future problems which current oil developments are creating; and that we should start now financially to equip those in the years ahead who will have to repair environmental damage. Such prudent foresight was not exercised by those in charge of our affairs during the years when industry was creating the pollution and dereliction—the coalfield areas are an example—which central Government and local ratepayers are having to tackle now, on a scale which is a strain on their finances.

We know the problems that industrialisation can and will produce, and we should be particularly aware of the damage that such development associated with oil can do to the Scottish environment. We should be determined that the oil industry should pay a bond, as part of its price for getting our oil, so that it does not leave a permanent scar upon the land. The oil industry is a rich one and is engaged in exploiting a very rich oilfield in the North Sea. Indeed, that oil is growing in value as each day passes, and as each meeting of OPEC countries comes and goes. Some of the cash flow from oil should be diverted into a fund for the environment.

Tonight I am more concerned to press the principle on the Government rather than to suggest the actual size of the fund, but in my view it should be built up at a rate of not less than £20 million a year. This sum, or possibly a higher one, could be obtained by increasing the royalties for this purpose with a certain percentage of the royalties being earmarked for the fund.

A properly managed fund would, after a short period, have considerable resources at its disposal. As I see it, it need not wait until the oil industry contracts before starting its work. It could do a lot to lessen the impact of industry on the environment while industry was working, and it could be planning ahead for the period of contraction and possible dereliction. Also, I see no reason why such a fund should be restricted solely to the problems arising out of oil developments: there are special areas in Scotland, still suffering from the first industrial revolution, to which the fund could direct some of its resources to improve the living environment of people in cities, towns and villages.

However, I would not wish the idea of establishing such a fund to fall because people in government might find reasons to disagree with the method of funding, or the working remit, as I have explained them, which are as I see them. I want the Government to address themselves to the principle, to recognise that we in Scotland have a deep concern to preserve our heritage, and to recognise that there is a need for a fund which will strengthen our ability to handle the problems the economy poses for the environment. I hope that the Minister will respond constructively to the idea that I have put forward of a special environmental trust fund to protect our environment.

11.9 p.m.

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

I welcome the initiative of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) in bringing forward this debate. It is a subject which is well worth discussing. It is a matter which has occupied a considerable amount of attention in recent months in Scotland. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

I hope to be able to make some comments upon the ideas which the hon. Gentleman raised, but the debate, as the hon. Gentleman carried it out, has gone slightly wider than I expected from the title. I shall not spend much time in dealing with the wider matters which the hon. Gentleman first mentioned. However, they are important, and I must say briefly something about each of the hon. Gentleman's main points.

To get the record straight, I must refer to the hon. Gentleman's comment that Scotland was not getting an appropriate share of the economic benefits of the exploitation of oil. I must say bluntly that I disagree with him totally. Scotland is getting a large share. Indeed, it is getting by far the greater proportion of the employment, the business and the turnover. There are hundreds of Scottish companies which are run by Scottish people, which employ Scottish workers at good wages and which are doing well out of the oil boom. We shall do no one any good by pretending that that is not so.

The hon. Gentleman said that a planning strategy was needed for dealing with North Sea oil. I am not certain what he meant by that. It is not possible in the short time which we have available to go into the matter in great detail. I must emphasise that the Scottish Office has produced a great deal of forward-looking publications and proposals which give a general idea of the strategy involved in various aspects of oil development. I suggest that in a fast-moving situation those publications and proposals are a useful aid to those who have to make planning decisions on the spot. They go as far as it is possible to go in a realistic manner, as everything is changing so quickly in the oil scene.

The hon. Gentleman expressed a concern which is expressed by many people—namely, that there is a danger that we shall all become too enthusiastic about the oil situation and that we shall be led to ignore the legitimate concern and worry of many people and bodies about the effect that oil may have on the environment. The Scottish Office and local planning authorities have full and absolute control over all the developments which take place. There is control over where development takes place, and the conditions in which it takes place. We have no intention of allowing development to happen in a manner or in a form which we consider is likely to be needlessly damaging to the environment. We have said that on many occasions, and I hope that this is an appropriate occasion for me to repeat it.

I share the hon. Gentleman's twin aims, which, as he said, are slightly contradictory. He, and I with him, would like to see the maximum benefit to Scotland of oil development, but we do not wish to see the environment needlessly suffer in the process. I share with him those two aims. They are the aims of the Government. They are, to some extent, contradictory, but the Government wish to get the right balance between the two aims. We shall continue to try to do so.

There are two aspects of the matters which the hon. Gentleman mentioned which can be simply stated. There is, first, the control over development and whether that control is adequate. We must consider what forms that control can take and whether we can use our planning controls as they stand to ensure that the way of life of the Scottish people is protected. We must consider whether it shall be the local representatives or the national representatives who shall decide what goes where.

Having made those controls, have we the powers to ensure that they are carried out effectively? That is where the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that we should have an environmental trust fund perhaps comes in.

As I have said, we have control under the planning Acts over what goes where. Perhaps I can illustrate the degree of sophistication of the control by giving one or two brief examples. I refer first to the Dunnet Bay situation, where there was a long inquiry. An Article 8 direction was granted on 15th October for the development to take place there. The conditions attached to that direction relating to the physical aspects of the project included the following matters for which the prior approval of the planning authority was to be required. It is quite a list of conditions, including proposals to ensure public access to the beach and the minimum interference with the public enjoyment thereof; the location and design of fences, walls and screen-mounds; the design and construction materials of all buildings, fixed plant and structures to be erected on the site; the layout and design of the drainage system for the disposal of foul and surface water and industrial waste; and the staging of site works to keep them to the minimum area required for the number of contracts obtained. There was also a requirement that a landscaping scheme should be submitted, to provide for the proper maintenance of grass, shrubs and the like and of embankments, walls and fences.

Those are very detailed points. I do not think that anyone reading those conditions imposed when this planning permission was given could say that this was given lightly or inadvisedly or without proper safeguards.

The question of site restoration was safeguarded in the Dunnet Bay direction in two main ways. First, a requirement was included that site works could not commence without the specific approval of the local planning authority until the applicants had received a firm order for a production platform. This was intended to ensure that abortive site preparation and development did not occur and perhaps result in a derelict site being left behind. Secondly, a comprehensive set of conditions covering the reinstatement of the site was included. These conditions placed a limit of 10 years on the use of the site, and stated that at the end of that time the applicants should carry out such rehabilitation and reinstatement work on the site as was then required by the local planning authority, including, if required, the removal of the groynes, the restoration of the beach at the launching channel, the removal of all buildings, structures, foundations, plant, equipment, debris and fencing, clearing the surface, removing hardcore and road, and landscaping the area with the sand on the site, and stabilising it by planting.

Here again, no one could say that this was a casual list carelessly drawn up. This is a careful and comprehensive list which is part of the condition of the planning direction.

Mr. Patrick Wolrige-Gordon (Aberdeenshire, East)

What happens, though, if during those 10 years these applicants have unfortunately failed financially?

Mr. Younger

My hon. Friend has anticipated my remarks slightly. I am coming to that as the second part of my argument. I shall do my best to cover that in the time available.

The conditions imposed in the Dunnet Bay direction were, of course, those devised by the Secretary of State, on the basis of the Reporter's recommendations, and it is hoped that this may be a helpful indication to local planning authorities of the sort of thing which is required. But there have already been a number of applications dealt with by local planning authorities without reference to the Secretary of State, where wide ranging conditions have been imposed. Local planning authorities have the power to make such conditions themselves. I hope very much that they will do so.

I shall not go on to give further examples because there are other points that I wish to cover. But I could go on to give a similar catalogue of conditions attached to the oil terminal and tanker berth in the Firth of Forth at Hound Point, where very similar and detailed provisions have been laid out. I hope that I have said enough on this part of the argument to give at least food for thought to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire and to others who must be interested in this important matter that we are able to and, indeed, as a rule do, through either local authorities or central Government, lay down conditions for the granting of planning permission which cover the maximum amount of environmental safeguard that we can devise. The planning Acts say that local authorities may grant planning permission subject to such conditions as they think fit. I hope, therefore, that following this brief catalogue that I have been able to give tonight, anyone concerned with planning in Scotland will feel encouragement from central Government to use their powers to the full in the difficult and developing situation with which we are faced by North Sea oil.

May I now come to the equally important point of how we can enforce such conditions in the sort of circumstances outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire. East (Mr. WolrigeGordon). It could be the case that at the end of the 10 years for which a site is used the firm concerned goes out of business or for some other reason is unable, or makes out that it is unable, to carry out these conditions.

I recognise that these fears are genuinely held and have been expressed in many quarters. They are something which we have to take seriously, but we have to bear in mind that in most cases we are dealing with highly-respected and well-established construction and steel fabrication firms. Often, they are firms of high international standing. Indeed, many of these firms operate all over the world. Nevertheless, these fears have to be taken seriously and we ought to be able to do something about them.

That is one of the aspects of site restoration which are under consideration by the Committee on the Environment of the Oil Development Council for Scotland. This council was set up a few months ago, and at its first meeting it set up some sub-committees, one of which was on the environment. One subject which that sub-committee is studying is the possibility of laying down safeguards to ensure that the conditions laid down under the terms of the planning permission can be carried out at whatever time in the future they fall to be fulfilled. We are awaiting the opinions of the sub-committee. When we get them, we shall take careful note of its views. We hope that it will produce some positive recommendations and that they will be such that we can accept them. But we shall have to wait to see what they are.

Mr. David Lambie (Central Ayrshire)

Is the Minister saying that the thousandth committee has now been set up to deal with the exploitation of oil? The Scottish people are fed up with all these committees. They want action. Unless the Minister can tonight spell out some details of action to be taken, his statement will hold no sway.

Mr. Younger

That is an easy thing to say, but it is no good rushing around blind, without an analysis of the facts, and taking action in all directions without thinking about what one has to do. I welcome the existence of the committee. Developing North Sea oil is a highly complex business, and it is essential to have proper advice and to give careful thought to the matter before embarking on action which might otherwise be ill considered. I hope that on reflection the hon. Gentleman will accept that the council is doing a good job and will have his support, as it will mine, in producing some useful recommendations.

Mr. Lambie

It will do nothing.

Mr. Younger

We should await its report before taking further action, but there are one or two points which are worth making now.

First, there is no reason why, in the face of this situation, developers should not themselves be required to pay to clear up any mess they make, and there is an argument against measures such as a Government-backed fund to relieve them of that obligation. I can see the point of having a safeguarding fall-back fund to help those firms which, perhaps for unavoidable reasons, cannot carry out the work, but there is no good argument for saying that there should be a Government-backed fund which would relieve viable firms of the responsibility of paying for clearing up any dereliction which they cause. In other words, we should extend the dictum which we use in other spheres and say that the polluter should pay. That is the principle which we should adopt.

Mr. Sillars

The total of £20 million to which I referred would not come from the Government. It would come from the industry itself, and therefore the polluter would pay towards the fund. It need not necessarily exclude individual polluters from paying in different areas.

Mr. Younger

I agree that there is a balance to be struck, but I come to the next point, which is the financing of such a fund from oil royalties.

I draw attention to what has been done to ease the strain of North Sea oil development. The Government have already accepted the need to make provision out of general revenue for the impact of oil developments in a whole range of infrastructure projects—roads, housing, and so on. Roads in support of North Sea oil developments will not be affected by the recent public expenditure measures. If we had waited until royalties came in before undertaking any of this investment, nothing would have started at this stage. Nor would it or could it have started for some time, because the oil is not being brought ashore in commercial quantities.

Equally, if dereliction appears to be a problem, and if financial arrangements involving a Government contribution to overcome it are considered necessary, I see no obvious reason why such a contribution could not be made out of the Government's general revenue rather than out of royalties. I should have thought that that was an obligation which the Government in general ought to accept and not feel tied to any particular revenue.

However, having said that, may I make it clear that I am in no way prejudging any suggestion which may be made on this matter. The hon. Gentleman has made a useful suggestion, and I look forward to seeing concrete, viable and sensible suggestions from the committee looking into the matter.

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-six minutes past Eleven o'clock.