On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to an error which unfortunately appears in HANSARD of 26th May, in c. 413? It is one of those unfortunate incidents that do sometimes occur, but it is not the fault of those in this House who take down what we say and transmit it to the printers. Regrettably, the report omits a rather crucial "not" in the course of my speech. The Minister of Posts and Telecommunications interrupted me and asked me—and it was a pertinent question—what was the Opposition's attitude towards the continuation of commercial television. The right hon. Gentleman is reported as asking whether the Opposition were entering into a commitment to abolish commercial television. Unfortunately, I am reported as replying:

"The right hon. Gentleman can read that into what I have said."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th May, 1971; Vol. 818, c. 413.]

The House will appreciate that the word I used was "cannot". I am obliged to you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to make this correction.

I am obliged to the hon. and learned Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) for giving me notice that he wished to raise the matter. These mistakes sometimes do happen. This is an important correction, and I will ask for it to be made in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for providing me with the opportunity to draw the attention of the Government to the anxieties of many thousands of people who will be affected by the decision to site the third London Airport at Foulness, to press for assurances in regard to the minimum safeguards that we consider necessary, and to ask for information about the method of consultation which they propose to use during the planning stage.

It should not be necessary for me to remind the Government that, since they rejected the Roskill Commission's recommendation of an inland and, incidentally, far less expensive site on environmental grounds, they have a clear duty to ensure that the people already living in South-East Essex and in North-East Kent, who will undoubtedly be affected adversely by aircraft noise, by the new access routes and by increased urbanisation, are disturbed to the minimum and that where such disturbance is unavoidable compensation is provided that is fair and seen to be so.

Indeed, when I recall the intensity of feeling expressed by many hon. Members as well as almost the whole of the national Press, about the impact of Roskill's recommendation on the people of Cublington and the villages in the Vale of Aylesbury, I feel entitled to ask the House to support me in ensuring that the Government translate this widespread concern for the environment into positive action as fair as my constituents are concerned. For they, too, are entitled to the protection of their environment and the quality of their lives. Moreover, decisions must not be long delayed if serious planning blight and all the hardship that that can cause to individuals is to be avoided.

In this I already have the valuable support of my hon. Friends the Members for Southend, East (Sir S. McAdden), Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) and Maldon (Mr. Brian Harrison). I am glad to see my hon. Friends the Members for Southend, East and Canterbury here in their places. My hon. Friend the Member for Maldon would be here too but for the fact that Her Majesty is visiting his constituency today. He has asked me to say that he agrees wholly with the remarks that I am about to make.

Since the Foulness decision was taken I have been in close touch with the local authorities in South-East Essex, and we are, I am glad to say, in broad agreement about the safeguards that we require.

First, the airport site on the Maplin Sands which was considered and rejected by the Roskill Commission is not the one favoured by most of the local authorities which would prefer it to be further to the north-east. This is perfectly feasible and would have the effect of sharply reducing the impact of aircraft noise on hospitals, schools, and homes on both sides of the Thames Estuary. In any event, I must ask for an assurance that in no circumstances will any part of the runways be sited on Foulness Island itself.

Second, the main access routes to Foulness suggested to the Roskill Commission by the consultants to the Ministry of Transport and British Rail would slash through what will eventually be the heart of the new airport city. No doubt this was motivated by considerations of economy and speed of movement but it totally disregards the need to protect the environment and violates every principle of good planning. It would sterilise what ought to be the parks and amenity areas of a city which may have a population approaching a million by the end of the century. It would involve numerous crossing access routes if that population is not to be cut wholly in two. Above all, it would mean day and night noise and discomfort to all who have the misfortune to live along its flanks. I must make it plain that this is wholly unacceptable and will be strongly resisted.

Fortunately that point was well taken by Professor Buchanan in his Note of Dissent attached to the Roskill Report. In paragraph 48 he said that he saw:

"no good reason in principle why the airport roads should not pass north of whatever area is found to be needed for urbanisation in South Essex and in so doing mark the northern limit of development."

Since there is already widespread apprehension on the part of property owners that this wise advice may not be heeded I ask my hon. Friend to make it plain that the access route will be to the north of the proposed urbanisation. In any event, it is essential that a statement on this is made as soon as possible to avoid any danger of planning blight.

The third safeguard concerns the kind of growth which may be foisted upon us. There are already over 300,000 people living in the relatively narrow South-East Essex peninsula, bounded by the Thames on the south and the Crouch on the north. Roskill estimated that when the third London airport reached full capacity it would employ 65,000 workers and the total additional population which could be expected would be in the region of 280,000. In short, our numbers will almost double with the development of the airport alone.

Here I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fundamental difference of view which has already appeared between the Essex County Council, as the planning authority, and the consortia which are eager to develop Foulness. While both the consortia and the County Council are agreed that a seaport should be built in addition to the airport, the former go much further and argue that heavy industry should be introduced, such as an ore treatment plant, a steelworks, oil refineries and the like, all at the eastern end of an narrow peninsula.

Clearly, if the developers were to have their way this would require still more population to be crammed into South-East Essex since a major communications problem would arise if the new workers were forced to live too far from their jobs. But overcrowding of this kind would inevitably worsen the amenities of the existing population, practically all of whom came to South-East Essex to escape from the noise, confusion and congestion of the big cities. Moreover, and this is an important consideration, such development would mean attracting additional workers from the heavy industrial areas of the Midlands and the North—a complete reversal of the sensible policies of regional development pursued under successive Governments.

Here again, Professor Buchanan saw the danger clearly. In paragraph 37 of his Note of Dissent he rejected development of this kind. In his view it was:

"an advantage of the Foulness site that its physical limitations would prevent an enormous growth that could prejudice the objectives which have been pursued for many years under the distribution of industry policy."

I would put it more bluntly. The Government are under a duty to prevent overcrowding of a kind which could turn South-East Essex into an industrial slum by the end of the century. Today I ask for an explicit assurance from my hon. Friend that strict planning controls will be used from the outset to prevent this happening and that there will be a full public inquiry into whatever population densities are proposed.

Fourthly, so far too little attention has been paid, in my view, to the effect of any large-scale dredging of sands in the estuary, or alteration in the configuration of the coastline, upon tidal and surge behaviour in the Thames and the Crouch. It is easy for laymen to treat a matter of this kind lightly but in the terrible East Coast flood disaster of 1953 South-East Essex was the most severely affected area of all. Both Foulness and Canvey Islands were completely inundated. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East and I and my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury, who was not in the House at that time, remember vividly what that meant to our constituents at that time. We lost many lives. We in South-East Essex are, therefore, very sensitive on the question of protection from flooding.

It has even been suggested to me that once development on the Maplin Sands is under way the tidal flow in the Thames Estuary could be much more intense than that experienced in similar reclamation areas in Holland. We must insist that this question is fully investigated. In addition, the whole problem will have to be viewed in the light of any changes in tidal and surge behaviour which can be expected following the installation of the Thames Barrier. I must ask my hon. Friend for an assurance that before anyone is allowed to move a single ton of sand the Government—not those whose interests are to make money out of the development—will carry out a detailed study of the likely effects and the degree of protection against flooding that will be required, not only along the river banks but inland too, and then make their findings public.

Fifth, I come now to the most serious problem of all: the human problem. Once the airport starts to become operational in 1981, then living on Foulness Island will become impossible and a whole community will have to move. In practical terms, however, it will have to move well beforehand. This is bound to cause some distress and could cause serious hardship, the reason being that the islanders do not own their homes and farms; the Ministry of Defence is their landlord. Unless, therefore, special arrangements are made, compensation is likely to be inadequate and resettlement elsewhere difficult in the extreme.

This would certainly be the case with tenant farmers. The present basis for compensation is laid down in the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1948, and the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1968, and is an allowance of five years' rent at the current rate, of which four years, under the 1968 Act, is free of tax and is intended as an allowance for re-establishment elsewhere. Owing to the scarcity of farms to let, it is unlikely that any tenant farmer from Foulness could re-establish himself elsewhere unless he bought a farm, and that would, clearly, be out of the question on the basis of the compensation that the law at present provides. One way out of the difficulty would be to ensure that in the quite exceptional circumstances I have outlined the total compensation should be raised to 10 years' rent based on the existing rental value. I ask that this should be considered.

Then again, although small businessmen may claim in respect of the extinction of their businesses it is probable that on Foulness Island they have no long-term leases and their compensation would be limited even though they might lose their livelihood altogether. In the case of those engaged in cockle fishing and collecting whiteweed, their livelihood will be totally extinguished and there is no hope whatever of re-establishment elsewhere. Thought must be given to the best way of helping these people, and I hope to hear from my hon. Friend on that score.

As for other tenants, such as farm workers and pensioners, the local authority will undoubtedly provide alternative accommodation, and claims for the cost of removal would no doubt be met. But unless these people have had formal consent to the making of improvements to their homes, there is, I am advised, no legal basis for claims on that account.

I must emphasise that all these folk not only will be turned out of their homes and have their simple, rural way of life completely changed but will have to leave a place where their ancestors have lived for generations. Moreover, on present form there is no way of compensating them either for their increased rents they may have to pay for any accommodation offered to them or for any additional living expenses they may incur as a result of being uprooted from their island homes. For these people there must be an allowance—for the cost of re-establishment elsewhere in the case of businesses, and in the case of dwellings, for the value of any improvements they may have made.

For owner-occupiers on the mainland, westward from Foulness, there should be no difficulty when farms are acquired in their entirety for residential or industrial development. Here compensation would be paid at market rate and it should be possible for a farmer to compete on the open market for the purchase of another farm. On the other hand, an owner-occupier from whom a substantial amount of land is acquired for the purpose of road or rail construction is in a much less satisfactory situation.

There is no open commercial market for land taken for these purposes, and the compensation would normally be based on the agricultural value of the land acquired, plus a compensatory payment for the depreciation of the remainder of the land by reason of injurious affection or severance. Thus, compared with neighbours whose land is taken for urban development, a much lower scale of compensation, based only on the existing agricultural value, would be received by owners whose land is required only for road or rail construction. One can see at once the inequity of this situation in the peculiar circumstances that I have described and against a background of a development said to be in the national interest.

This is not the time or place to go into the need for amendment of the law on compensation. I would not be allowed to raise that matter in detail now. But I ask the Government to consider setting up an inquiry to ascertain in advance the best way of dealing with what will undoubtedly prove to be a difficult and unprecedented situation.

I turn now to the method which the Government will use to ensure that local interests are consulted from the outset, and also to the timetable they envisage. I suppose that it is almost certain that after 1st January, 1974, the whole of the area will come under the control of a single planning authority—the enlarged County of Essex—and that by that date the number of county district councils directly affected will have been sharply reduced. This is something I welcome since it should greatly facilitate development of the right kind.

But, unless I am very much mistaken, the broad strategic decisions about the location of the runways, the line of the access routes, and the places where new urban development will take place will have been made and the impact upon individual residents will have been assessed well before that date. Thus, in the crucial planning period immediately ahead the Government will have to deal with the existing local authorities. I should like to know exactly how my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State envisages the consultations will be conducted through the planning authorities and, I hope, the district councils, too.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry told the House on 26th April that the Foulness project:

"will present over the next decade a great opportunity for imaginative integrated development."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th April, 1971; Vol. 816, c. 36.]

I agree. But whether that opportunity is developed to the best advantage will depend upon taking fully into account the considerations I have mentioned, in consulting at every stage not only the planning authorities but the county district councils as well, and in making sure that local amenity associations and public-spirited bodies such as the Action Committee against Foulness Airport are kept in the picture.

I would also expect to be consulted myself, which I am sure goes for my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East whose home is situated in the shadow of the proposed development, and my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury, both of whom have been vigorous champions of the interests of their constituents. I hope that everyone—Ministers and civil servants alike—will understand from the outset that a development of this kind is not an exercise on paper or a joy-ride for planners and developers but is concerned with, and should be designed for, human beings. I hope that I have made my point and that it will be taken.

Whether my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State can give all the detail which we require this morning remains to be seen, but I expect from him the fullest possible answer to my points at the earliest date. Since the Government have willed that the third London airport should, in the national interest, be established at Foulness, they must in all conscience ensure that those who are affected by that decision are treated with the utmost consideration and generosity.

My hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine), within whose constituency Foulness is situated, naturally shows a fatherly interest in what is going on there. I show a grandfatherly interest in it because Foulness was in my constituency before it was in his. I am therefore as concerned as he is about this matter. I am grateful to him for deploying the case at some length because it saves me the necessity of troubling the House for too long. I support every word that he has said, and I am sure that he represents the view held by the great majority of people in the area. I sincerely hope that the most serious consideration will be given to his words.

I am particularly concerned because, as my hon. Friend pointed out, I live in the area over which the aeroplanes from the proposed airport will be flying. While the local people have apprehensions, they have no real idea of what is coming to them. In order to give them some idea, I wrote to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade and suggested that perhaps a few Royal Air Force Phantoms could carry out simulated take-offs and landings over the proposed runway. With that engaging frankness for which my right hon. Friend is noted, he replied:

"Without dismissing the suggestion as impracticable, I do think that it would be dangerously misleading to those affected… I believe people would gain a better idea of an actual airport environment by visiting Heathrow or Gatwick. They could spend some time there perhaps in a spot located in relation to the airport similarly to their own homes in relation to Foulness".

I believe that the people of Southend who take the trouble to visit Heathrow and Gatwick imagining that it will be quiet, peaceful and restful will have their illusions promptly and rapidly shattered.

For that reason, I support the plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East for the siting of the runways as far to the north-east, on the Maplin Sands, as can be arranged. We do not want to hear excuses to the effect that this would cost a bit more. Expense has proved to be no obstacle in this exercise. The Roskill Commission took a long time going into the question of cost analysis and so on. All this splendid mathematical work has now been thrown out of the window. It has been decided that to put the runways near the coast will cost less trouble, never mind excuses about other costs.

Another question is that of the pollution which will occur. I do not know whether attention has been drawn to a recent statement by the Port of London Authority advising people not to bathe in the Thames in the area for which the authority is responsible. The area for which it is responsible runs from Teddington Lock to Foulness. I am quite sure that the P.L.A. did not mean anything of the kind. I think that what it really meant to say was that people should not bathe in certain stretches of the Thames between Teddington and Foulness. To put out a blanket statement like that is likely to give a false impression. I mention this only to ask the Minister whether consideration is being given to the possible further pollution of the Thames and the further pollution of other rivers in the area as a result of the building of the airport on this site and the bringing into the area of industrial enterprises and the possible construction of docks.

Has thought been given to the pollution which all that might conceivably cause, and to the destruction of the environment of the coastal resorts on both sides of the Thames, resorts which have proved such an admirable lung for the people of London, particularly in the East End of London, who have found these places useful for enjoying themselves without too much expense? I hope very much that consideration has been given to the environmental consequences in what is a comparatively narrow area, to the pollution that could possibly be caused by bringing into the area industrial undertakings which might further complicate the problem.

Finally, I say to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that I hope he will maintain the promise, which I am sure was given in all good faith by the Secretary of State, that it is his intention to maintain the closest possible consultation with those who are apprehensive as to what is to go on in the area. I am sure he realises that with the great, the vast undertaking which is envisaged in this creation of a third London airport, it is of the essence that he must take the resident population with him all the way along the line, having with them the maximum amount of consultation about what is proposed. So long as this is done it may be possible to play down some of the very real fears which undoubtedly exist, and which will continue and will grow if it is felt that local opinion is being ridden over roughshod, just as the Roskill Commission findings were thrown out of the window. We do not want the genuine fears and apprehensions of our constituents to be completely ignored in the formulation of the plans and the schemes. This may be a planners' delight, but it will seriously affect the lives and habits of the people in that part of the country.

Hon. Members have probably heard that I expressed myself as appalled when we learned of the decision to site the third London airport at Foulness. I should like to explain why I then said that I was appalled. I was appalled because the Roskill Commission had come out so strongly against the choice of this site; the British Airports Authority had come out so strongly against it; B.O.A.C. and B.E.A., the two nationalised airlines, equally said they were strongly against the siting of the airport at Foulness. They were against it on grounds of economic viability and on environmental grounds.

The people of Essex, represented so ably and strongly by my hon. Friend the Member for Essex South-East (Mr. Braine) and other hon. Members from Essex, also Kent County Council, and Members of Parliament for Kent, including my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate), and the Sheppey Group, of which I am joint chairman—all these in Kent and Essex expressed grave concern at the pollution and the effect on the people living in the area, the effect on their everyday lives, the effect on their homes and on their work whether in factories or on farms.

Never at any time since I have been studying the whole problem of the third airport—and I have been looking at the problem for some four years now—have I in practice felt out and out opposition to the Foulness site should it be chosen, and I have repeatedly stated this, not only in the House but in public statements outside the House, and in broadcasts in which I have taken part on the radio and television. All I have sought to do in respect of the decision has been to protect the interests of my constituents and those other people living in North-East Kent, who number some 100,000, who will be adversely affected by aircraft flying from Foulness.

That is still my intention, and that is still the policy of the Sheppey Group, and it is the wish of all those people to whom I have been able to speak in my constiiuency and in Kent since the Government's decision was made known. They, too, expressed exactly the same concern as I did. They could not understand how this decision had been made because they felt that their point of view had not been heard and that they had been disregarded. I cannot stress too strongly just how deep this feeling is amongst the people living on the North-East Kent coast. They feel that because they are not in the main in the higher income brackets they have been regarded as having a slightly lower priority than the people living in the Vale of Aylesbury and around Cublington who were able to exercise a very strong campaign against an inland site there.

I merely make the point that they are very concerned, and they certainly hope that the Government will now look in their direction and take note of what the decision will mean to them if the airport is built at Foulness. There has been a growing strength of the membership and of the finance of the Sheppey Group since the Government's decision, albeit perhaps too late, but such is public opinion that it sometimes takes a long time to be aroused and to seek to fight from the last ditch. I want the views of these 100,000 people in North-East Kent to be taken into account by the Minister, and I want a real understanding by the Government of the effects which this airport will have on Kent.

I know that the Government cannot afford to overlook the problems they create as they build motorways and a new railway system as well as the airport itself. Of course, they have a great planning problem to consider; but they must not overlook the effect on the homes of the people there and all the disturbance to be caused by the building of roads and railways subsequently to be developed, and by the noise shadow from the great airport to be developed there.

Three weeks ago I travelled over Foulness. I stood on the sands, and on a clear day—and it was a clear day—the houses in North-East Kent could be distinctly seen. I was looking from the Maplin Sands across a distance of water of some 11 or 12 miles. It is significant that we are talking of an airport which will be the biggest in Britain, if not in Europe, and that the people now living11 or 12 miles away on the other side of the estuary in peace and pleasantness by the sea will be affected by that airport. They do not realise what life will be like in 10 years' time. We have to think about people being able to enjoy peace and quiet, and being able to work, whether at home, in the office, in the factory or in the field. We must also think of the children and the teachers in schools.

In a series of correspondence in The Times the Town Clerk of Windsor and many other residents of Windsor, which lies 12 miles from the runways at Heathrow, protested against the impossible situation during the day time when the flight paths from Heathrow were over Windsor. Children in schools could not hear their teachers, and it was impossible to enjoy life because of the noise of the thundering jets overhead.

We have here a great chance to show that we can combine economic progress with environmental progress. We have a chance to make a break-through in protecting our environment as we proceed with engineering, scientific and economic development. We have not thought about this sufficiently in the past, but here is our chance. I and the people whom I represent want to help the Government in this, and that is why the word which my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East used—"consultation"—is so important. If I and my two hon. Friends who have spoken this morning have done nothing else, I hope we have impressed on the Minister the need for consultation. I hope he will remember that his Department was created to protect our environment and it can only do so if it takes into account the personal problems of people.

This means full consultation with the Kent County Council, the Sheppey Group, local district councils and the Members of Parliament in the area of North-East Kent most concerned. I strongly support the suggestion made by my two colleagues this morning that the siting of the runways should be as far to the north-east as possible, so as to alleviate noise pollution in Kent.

I ask the Minister to draw to the attention of the Secretary of State for the Department of Trade and Industry that we should think also of the flight paths and the stacking areas. Can we be told as soon as possible about the planning of the stacking areas? I hope that the flight paths will be over the estuary and the sea, taking into account all the safety factors and the other air routes, including the defence air system. I have made a study of the stacking areas around Kennedy Airport in New York. They stretch many miles away from the airport, sometimes as far as 100 miles away. Some people in the South-East do not realise what may be their future lot with planes coming down to 5,000 feet and circling above—maybe 100 miles from Foulness. If stacking areas could be over the sea we should be much happier.

There should be a generous plan for compensation, grants towards double glazing, and further consideration of other help to mitigate against noise pollution. We in Kent will get no compensation by way of extra jobs. We get no economic fall-out from this great development. There are no contracts, no tourists, no extra spending. I and my hon. Friends representing Kent constituencies have written to the Secretary of State for the Environment suggesting an underwater tunnel between Kent and Essex. I will not now suggest where that tunnel should be, but it is probably much further down the estuary than Dartford Tunnel—perhaps from the Isle of Grain or the Gravesend area. Such a link would enable the people of North-East Kent to enjoy some of the benefits of this big development. It would enable workers to travel from North-East Kent, where there are about 10,000 to 11,000 out of work. It would be a compensation to feel that we were benefiting in some way from this development. A tunnel would also help to reduce the pressure of the massive development planning in this crowded area of South-East Essex, and also serve the docks.

I recently toured the city of Rotterdam and the dock area and talked afterwards with the Director of the Institute of Social Studies, who said that there was a great problem in Rotterdam. A great seaport complex had been developed, involving the reclamation of land from the sea, and a great petrochemical complex. The environmental problem was so great that people would not come to live in this modern city. A link under the estuary would also provide essential access to the new airport for people from the South-East, the South and West of England and enable them to bypass the great complex of London.

I recently suggested in a letter to The Times a method by which Britain could give a lead to the world in environmental protection. I hope my hon. Friend will pass on this suggestion to his colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry. My suggestion is that much more consideration should be given to the development of quieter aircraft engines and to the development of reduced take-off and landing aircraft. In this way the environmental disaster which might arise from the airport at Foulness could be further mitigated. Let sufficient monetary resources and scientific studies be allocated to this. I believe that it can be done. Here again we could make a breakthrough in showing that airports need not be such a disaster as they are at present.

I have one final hobby-horse with which some hon. Member may know I am associated. I believe that we should not think of air travel only in terms of heavier-than-air aircraft. I believe that even before Foulness is built we should develop an airship again in this country to carry freight from the North of England and the Midlands, by-passing this great complex in the South-East, to the new growing industrial areas of Northern Europe. That is not a fantasy. There is a great future for such a project to make a contribution in combating the build-up of noise in the South-East.

I am glad from this side of the House to contribute to the pleas made by hon. Gentlemen opposite. In the recent debate on the location of the airport and the Roskill Commission Report, I spent some time advocating that the airport should go to Foulness. Indeed, I advocated that it should be called Maplin, which is a pleasanter sound and geographically more appropriate. It is therefore with great pleasure that I strongly support the views put to the Minister by hon. Gentlemen opposite. They are right to put them forward since they seek not only to protect the interests of their constituents but to advocate good planning. Whatever Government is in power we all want to see good planning. The new Secretary of State for the unique Department of the Environment has stressed this point strongly, both at home and abroad. In this respect he is absolutely right.

I would slightly disagree with one point made by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch), who suggested that there was, perhaps, an upper-class movement in the Vale of Aylesbury which was able to bring great pressure to bear on the Government, and that this would not have been possible for the poor people in Kent and South-East Essex. I suggest that had the Roskill Commission, by some mischance, decided that the third London airport could best be located in the northern vale of Kent, between Maidstone and the area to the east, there would have been at least as strong an outcry from that area as there was from the residents in the Vale of Aylesbury. As one of a number of Members who were pro Foulness, I think I know a little bit about what was going on.

This debate is entitled "Safeguards for the People", and this strikes at the heart of what this House is all about. I suggest that the most important safeguards in this respect are not necessarily, physical in the first instance, They are at the heart of the planning process and the basis on which planning decisions are taken, particularly those made early on.

In my speech during the previous debate I tried to suggest to the Government certain ways in which, if Foulness was chosen, the bad environmental effects could be limited. I wish to reiterate those matters to some extent because they have not yet been taken up.

First, it was assumed in the Roskill Report that there would be a new city of x thousand people. I question this assumption most strongly. First, the number of people employed in the airport will depend on the nature of the traffic, which is controllable. Secondly, it will depend on the facilities which the airport companies or airlines place there, and this again will depend on how much repair work and extra facilities are involved. That factor again is controllable. Thirdly, it will depend on the amount of industry in the area directly concerned with aircraft, and finally with the indirect industries coming into the area. All these matters are controllable. As to whether there is a port, which may not employ many people, that again is a matter of planning control. Then there is the final bugbear, or threat, of a steelworks; and there are other regional considerations which are most important. It will probably be said that these things should be there because they are economically viable or will make the best use of capital. This is what I call trend planning, and I do not regard it as the right sort of planning, and will refer to this later.

I turn to communications. It has been said that a great deal of environmental pollution will occur through the new roads and railways. I question whether we need a vast motorway between London and Maplin Sands, if only—and I speak from experience as a member of the Greater London Council Environmental Committee—because it is questionable that we can cope with the traffic at this end, even if there are ring ways—and that is in doubt. Secondly, roads tend to produce an urban sprawl. I would have thought that with a smaller population than that envisaged at Roskill, we could have a relatively dense population in this area, with good public transport facilities to and from work places, planned from the outset.

We have the opportunity to think of public transport in a new way. There is a railway line not far away from the area concerned, and we should envisage that it should be extended very soon. There might be a possibility of an urban railway loop, providing highspeed transport from places of living to places of work. Most of the area is already not much over half an hour by rail from most parts of North-East London and the East End itself. A journey of half-an-hour for people in London is not so great. Furthermore, if we could incorporate in the railway facilities a unique method of payment of, say, 10s. a month which would enable people to travel as often as they like, we might be able to provide viable public transport which might even pay its way.

On the matter of communications, there is the question of London itself. London might think of its protection and its own safeguards. Large numbers of tourists already come to London, and with the new airport there will be even more. It has been assumed that there will be one single terminal in London. I question that assumption. I believe that it would be better to have a through-line with a number of terminals, bringing the benefits of increased tourist traffic to different parts of London, and possibly extending it to Heathrow, so providing a quick rail link between two major airports in the London area.

I should like finally to make a central point about the environment itself. We have heard many eloquent pleas from hon. Gentlement opposite who are faced with this particular problem, and I appreciate that it is considerable. This problem highlights something that we have not yet possibly grasped in this country. There are two sides to planning. Sometimes planning is regarded as a dirty word by people who have been subjected to increased blight or noise as a result of planners plonking down a road, or following through whatever is decided in county halls all over the country.

There is another side to planning. It can be said that economic forces demand a steelworks in the Thames Estuary, or that we shall provide for a large number of people coming to work in London—or an even larger number of people, as has been recently suggested, or that we shall have this, that or the other because the forces of capital demand this sort of development. To my mind, that is the wrong sort of planning. That is trend planning. It says that because economic forces demand something, we should plan in response to it; but the pay-off is unquantifiable in terms of pollution of the environment in the fullest sense.

There is another approach that should be considered. It can be said that the community requires certain facilities in respect of work, leisure and play and a reasonable environment that is pleasant to live and work in, and to achieve such a situation certain facilities are needed in certain places. We then build up a macro-structure. Having achieved that and based it on sound criteria, we ask ourselves how best public and private capital can in-fill the structure which we have already created. Unless we undertake such studies, I believe that the Department of the Environment, for all the brave words which have been said about it, will not be a success. I suggest to the Minister that unless we work in this way in respect of Foulness the planning opportunity will be lost. I hope we may be assured that the Government are thinking in this direction. If not, all the brave words of the Department of the Environment will turn out to be

"as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal".

I am pleased of this opportunity to reply to this important and in many ways exciting debate. I wish at the outset to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) for initiating it and for the care he took to warn me of some of the points that he intended to raise, so enabling me to give more detailed consideration to them than might otherwise have been possible.

The hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing) described this as a debate dealing with the provision of safeguards for those living in the area which will be affected by our proposals. As he said, it brings home the important responsibility which falls on the Government in this matter. I shall be dealing with many of the safeguards which already exist.

However, when we come to look back on the developments of the next decade, we may see in retrospect that the greatest safeguard was the determination of those in the Government with responsibility for this matter to ensure that there is real heart behind the assurances that we have continually been giving about our interest in those who live in these areas.

I have been deeply impressed by the sympathetic way in which my hon. Friends have put forward their case on behalf of their constituents. Their comments enable me to reinforce what my right hon. Friend has said on this issue. The broad picture that has been painted this morning about the concern that exists will be very much taken into account at the centre of our consideration of this whole matter.

My hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East spoke of the siting of the airport itself. Roskill concentrated on three alternatives, but they are not the only alternatives—it is by no means accepted by the Government that we must choose one of those three—and we are looking to see which of the sites is the best available. In view of this, I must refuse to give my hon. Friend the specific assurance for which he asked. In other words, I cannot say that there will not be a site on Foulness Island. On the other hand, that is not to suggest that there will be.

I am merely saying that we have not yet made up our mind. We are still in the process of taking all the factors involved, many of them conflicting factors, into account. Some of these factors have been mentioned today. It is, therefore, impossible for me to give my hon. Friend the assurance he requested.

I am, however, able to assure my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) that we are well aware of the noise problem to which he referred. He dealt with the Kent aspect, and I assure him that his remarks will be taken fully into account. The possible development of quieter aero-engines is a wider point, though a matter of crucial importance in this context. It is, of course, a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, whose attention will, I assure my hon. Friend, be drawn to his remarks.

Hon. Members spent a considerable time discussing the specific routes. My hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East asked for an assurance about the northern route, while the hon. Member for Acton dealt with the sort of alternatives that could be blended together in terms of road-rail links.

The representations which were made by the British Rail consultants and by officials of the Ministry of Transport to the Roskill Commission were in the nature of feasibility studies. They were designed to indicate what the result would be of choosing certain lines that were reasonable to choose if decisions about other matters were taken. These studies were designed to reveal the sort of costs that would be incurred. They were, as it were, indicators of the possibilities, and the Government have made it clear that they have not necessarily accepted those recommendations.

We have not even accepted that they are the total package of recommendations. There are other alternatives, and these must form part of our consideration. Until we have considered the totality of ideas, we cannot give the sort of assurance for which I have been asked, though I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East will sympathise with the position in which we find ourselves. In other words, we must have all the options open to us in considering the picture as a whole before finally taking a decision.

The next area to receive attention from hon. Members was the actual nature of the development. We have received, through the evidence of the Roskill Commission, the representations of the Thames Estuary Development Company and the Thames Airport Group. One must, of course, consider this on a much larger scale than would be necessary in simply considering the development of a third London airport. The Government have said—I need not delay the House by adding to what has been said in this context—that all these matters will be considered and will be the subject of the decision when it is finally reached.

I must make it absolutely clear that having accepted the recommendation that a third London airport will be necessary in about 10 years' time, we must make progress forward. It would not be wise, therefore, to wait for new councils to be elected in 1974 and then start having consultations with them. It is necessary to make earlier progress. We must, therefore, have consultations with the existing councils. I will return to this point when dealing with the consultative processes. We are determined to have meaningful consultations and not simply to rest on the minimum consultations that are required statutorily.

My hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East again spoke of the dangers of flooding. He will appreciate that many of the difficulties to which he referred have already been considered. However, on this issue I can give him a more specific assurance than I have been able to give to his earlier remarks. He will appreciate that the Roskill Commission was completely satisfied, on the basis of the information provided to it, that there was no need to believe that there would be an adverse effect from the development of Foulness. The Commission had professional advice and the benefit of extensive model studies.

I assure my hon. Friend that the Government will ensure that this matter is fully investigated by those responsible before any construction work starts. I hope this provides the assurance for which my hon. Friend asked. He knows that there will be considerable consultation with the statutory authorities in this matter and that they will have the fullest possible opportunity to make their views known.

The next broad area with which hon. Members dealt was that of compensation. The House will be aware that, in another context, we are reviewing the whole question of compensation. The review concerns not only major developments such as airports but other aspects of planning, with particular application to the road programme. All these matters are under review by the Government.

It does not seem necessary at this stage to set up an independent inquiry, for that would simply add to the compensation review which is now under way. The specific points that my hon. Friend raised will be taken into account in our general inquiry, and because that is under way there seems little point in generating another inquiry of the sort my hon. Friend suggested.

While I would not quarrel with my hon. Friend's analysis of the compensation position as it stands, I hope that he will be satisfied with these remarks, and especially with my assurance that his points will be taken into account. I hope that he will accept that the framework within which we are reviewing compensation is sufficient without adding a further procedure.

Hon. Members made the understandable request that there should be the fullest possible consultation with the people involved. The procedures we are likely to have to adopt, whether they be just planning applications or whether there be a need for private legislation, all carry with them statutorily very detailed opportunities by way of public inquiries and consultation with local authorities, the sort of processes which gave the public a very real opportunity to be fully involved. But, of course, it is always possible, and in many cases desirable, to ask that this sort of rather rigid structure should be augmented sometimes at an earlier stage by consultations on a wider basis. Certainly we fully accept the statutory situation, but we shall, in fact, have consultations with bodies such as the district councils, which were specifically mentioned, and with other bodies on an ad hoc basis where is seems that they might have a view specifically relevant to the subject.

Without trying to pin myself down to a precise form of words—in the context of the debate, that is difficult—I assure hon. Members that we shall continue the dialogue with Members of Parliament who have a specific interest in the matter, to be sure that they are apprised of what is happening and that their views are taken into account. It is difficult to lay down the form of precise consultation with Members of Parliament, because that is not the nature of the way in which we work. But I hope that they will feel that at this stage of the proceedings they have had the fullest opportunity to have discussions and that this will be continued by the Government Departments responsible.

The next point is the general question of flight paths mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury. Here I am able to give him information which is slightly reassuring from his point of view. For a considerable time after the airport opens in 1980, only one stacking area will be necessary, and this will be over the sea. So the proximity to continental air space is not likely to prevent this. A second stacking area is not likely to be needed until the first two runways are approaching maximum use, which might be towards or during the 1990s. Beyond that general factual resume of the situation, I assure my hon. Friends, that as the Secretary of State has said, we are very conscious that this is an environmental factor that will have to be taken in to account in the decision that we make on the final siting of the airport.

I hope that I have covered, briefly, within the time we have available, the points raised in the debate.

I should be grateful if my hon. Friend could give some information as to the length of time before a firm plan emerges. Would this be one year, or two years?

I should very much like to be able to give a specific time because I am aware of the planning and blight problems that arise. But the complexities are such that it would be irresponsible to pin oneself down to a specific time on this occasion. There are so many differences of a major nature between the many people who want their views expressed and with whom we shall want to consult. I would hope that my hon. Friend will accept an assurance that, compatible with full consultation, we can make maximum possible speed to alleviate uncertainty and the difficulties which follow that.

We are aware that we are involved in a exercise of a much wider issue than simply building an airport. It is a major environmental development. It is a very exciting opportunity. The fact of the matter is that there are human beings involved and one can never lose sight of the short-term hardships which one is creating simply because of long-term aims. We want to balance matters carefully and with the utmost compassion.

I do not ask my hon. Friend necessarily to reply now, but I ask him not to ignore the very strong plea I made for him to consider the suggestion of an under-water link between Essex and Kent.

I give my hon. Friend the assurance that this matter will be taken into account.

Can the Minister say when the Government will produce a White or Green Paper on this issue setting out preliminary thoughts?

Regarding the precise way in which the Government will let their views and conclusions be known on this matter, which will require public ventilation and discussion, the Government will choose appropriate methods to ensure that that happens.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity of presenting the case of Colin Temple. Colin Temple, a boy aged 17, was convicted at Glasgow Sheriff Court of the crime of assault with intent to ravish. The crime took place in Kelvingrove Park, Glasgow, on 22nd April, 1970. The victim was a young married woman who was pushing a pram up an incline when set upon by her assailant. As there was undoubtedly some evidence against the boy Colin Temple which would entitle a jury to convict him—as this jury did, on a majority—the House may wonder what all the fuss has been about, and why, last week, in the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, the belief was declared that the decision was not in accordance with the facts and Temple's innocence was proclaimed.

Hon. Members who saw the B.B.C. television programme "Nationwide" on Wednesday night may realise what all the fuss has been about. As a politician, in the past I have objected, violently sometimes, to trial by television. However, on this occasion I congratulate the "Nationwide" team on the high standard of their investigation, and I take this opportunity of putting on record my thanks to them for showing the facts be- hind this shocking case. They gave the general public some idea of the events that led to an innocent boy being caught up in a net and sentenced for a crime he did not commit.

There would have been no necessity for this debate if the boy's defence had been as adequately presented to the jury at his trial as it was presented on Wednesday night by "Nationwide". During the period of approximately five months——

Order. This is a rather difficult debate for the hon. Member because he is not in order in challenging a decision of a court. He has to steer rather carefully.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I am not challenging the decision of the court. Actually I am giving my opinion of the broadcast by the B.B.C. on Wednesday night.

If I may again try to help the hon. Member, I think that having commented on it in that way, without challenging it, he must come somehow to Ministerial responsibility. That is a matter which he can raise.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. During the period of five months when Colin Temple was in gaol awaiting trial he was never once visited by his lawyers, the people appointed through the legal aid scheme to defend him.

The boy Temple, who is of low intelligence, rather facile, and sometimes not very coherent—nor, indeed, it must be said, very truthful—was at the time of the crime an inmate of an approved school run by the Church of Scotland at Beith in Ayrshire, in my constituency. This school is approximately 22 miles distant from the scene of the crime in Kelvin-grove Park, Glasgow.

Evidence is before the Secretary of State and is now on public record that the boy was in the school for the whole of the day in question and, in particular, on the afternoon during which the crime was committed at about 2.15 p.m. It was said that the assailant had been in the park at least 10 minutes before that; say, about 2 o'clock. Colin Temple was seen at the school during the mid-day dinner break, and after that. The 1.30 p.m. parade of the boys was correct and checked by the headmaster himself. The parade was in two parts and the part to which Temple belonged consisted of only about 18 boys.

Colin Temple was working with a building squad all that afternoon, carrying pails of mortar, under the sight and supervision of an instructor, and was seen and spoken to by many boys. He was at the parade at 4.50 p.m. at the end of the afternoon work spell.

Hon. Members may well wonder how the boy was ever convicted if all this evidence was true and was available. In fact, only a small amount of it was brought out at the sheriff court trial last August. If the full facts as later proved had been brought out, the verdict could surely only have been one of acquittal. Quite apart from the overwhelming evidence that the accused boy was 22 miles away at the time, there were many weaknesses in the prosecution case not before the jury.

I give just one example of a point not made. The victim, whose honesty is not criticised, attended an identification parade, after which she said that Temple was her assailant. She identified him in court three months later at the trial. What was not mentioned was that she had told the police at the time of the identification parade that she thought that her attacker was taller than Temple—Temple is a very small boy. This was recorded by the police at the time upon the identification parade report but was not put forward at the trial.

At the trial neither prosecution nor defence called the evidence of boys who could have said, and who later did say, that Temple was working in the school at the time of the crime. Nor was there the evidence of his headmaster that there were no absentees from the 1.30 p.m. parade who were not properly accounted for. The solicitor, Mr. Bainbrigge, who had been supposed to prepare the defence, handed over without explanation to another solicitor—Mr. Noel McPartlin—who at the last moment briefed counsel to defend the boy. Counsel never saw the statements which had been made by the boys who had been with Temple on the afternoon of the crime in the school. No doubt he did his best, but he just did not have the material for the effective rebuttal of the prosecution case.

The conviction shocked all those who new that the boy was completely innocent simply because he had not been there. Hon. Members can imagine the effect upon approved school boys who particularly need to have respect for the law and a belief in the justice of our institutions built up in them rather than to be shattered by hearing of a fellow inmate convicted of a grave crime they knew he had not committed.

Appeal was made to the High Court to allow further evidence to be produced. The court refused to hear the evidence and said in effect that even if heard it would not have affected the verdict. A petition was presented to the Secretary of State to recommend the exercise of the Royal Prerogative, and he took the course, which he stressed at the time was unusual, of asking the court to hear certain evidence which was the very same evidence which the boy's advisers had wanted the court to hear. The court heard the evidence in March—two days of it—and then reported to the Secretary of State that it would not have affected the verdict.

We do not know the exact details of the report to the Secretary of State because that is private between the court and the Secretary of State. However, it will not do for the Secretary of State or the Lord Advocate today to shelter behind the opinion of the High Court of Justiciary. The boy's petition was to him as guardian of the Royal Prerogative. He should look at the new evidence for himself and see where it leads him. I appeal to the House and to the Secretary of State to look at this, not as a legal problem of whether there was sufficient evidence to justify such and such a course, but as a matter of right and wrong; did this boy commit this crime or did he not?

It cannot be said that a proper verdict has been given on the evidence, because the jury's verdict was on only half the evidence. Two entire days of further evidence in March have not been before any jury. The arbiter upon that is the Secretary of State, who is responsible to the House. The new evidence when added to the old shows only one thing—that the boy did not and could not have committed the crime.

Let me try to summarise the facts. Temple was involved in this thing only because he was seen in the same public park six days after the crime and answered the very vague description of the assailant. He had at that date overstayed a weekend leave from the school and had been duly reported to the Ayrshire police the previous day as an absentee. After about five hours in police custody he admitted that he had committed the crime the previous Wednesday and is supposed to have given some details. At an identification parade the victim and one other lady picked him out as the assailant. On this evidence, despite his denials and testimony from some members of the school staff, a majority of the jury convicted him. There were suggestions that perhaps the 1.30 p.m. parade was cooked and that the staff were just trying to be loyal to the school and covering up for deficiencies of supervision.

What were the weaknesses of the prosecution case? First, any detailed examination of the supposed confession by the boy, bearing in mind his calibre, shows its worthlessness. All that was written in the police is a bare, "I did it", or, "Sorry now I did it". There is a contradiction in the police evidence whether the supposed filling in of details by the boy, which he strongly denies, was recorded in writing. It now emerges that the details said to have been given were either common knowledge—the crime had attracted considerable publicity in the local Glasgow Press—or else were manifestly inaccurate. I could elaborate on this, but time forbids.

I must make three other short points about the boy's confession, because I think that they are the points that pressed heavily on the jury. First, on the day of his arrest Temple had no opportunity before being cautioned and charged to speak to his foster parents, his headmaster or any teacher, or any solicitor. On the night of his arrest—at about 11 p.m.—the police, very unwillingly, allowed his headmaster and a social worker to see him. I stress that Temple was arrested at about 10 a.m. and had been charged at about 4.30 in the afternoon. No wonder when his headmaster finally interviewed him at a 11 p.m. and asked him why he had confessed to a crime that he had not committed the boy's only answer was, "I was feart".

Second, the confession was retracted the night of the day it was made. The jury did not know this because of an objection taken by the defence. It was in the context of a totally false explanation of how the boy had got out of the school on the day of the crime—he said he was on a dental pass to Paisley in Renfrewshire. He had no dental treatment or appointment that day. No boy from the school received any dental treatment at Paisley. Third, it is ironic that in the background report submitted to the court after conviction it is said that Temple is unsuitable for psychiatric treatment as long as he continues to deny that he committed the crime.

I turn now to the evidence of the two ladies. As I have said, the victim thought that her assailant was taller than Temple, although she identified him. The other lady—again there is no criticism of her honesty—made a curious statement about the colour or shade of Temple's hair being darker in August than in April. So of the two confident identifiers, one thought that the attacker was of a different height and the other thought that his hair had changed colour.

What is to be put on the other side of the picture in favour of Colin Temple? Just about everything one can think of. Temple was in an establishment in which repeated and regular checks were made of the inmates. He was seen at dinner time, checked at 1.30, and seen all during the course of the afternoon. The right hon. and learned Gentleman must face these facts. There are other factors of which he knows which fix the date, so it cannot possibly be said that an honest mistake was made by the staff. Either this evidence is true or the headmaster, the staff and the boys entered into a conspiracy to commit perjury and create a false alibi for Colin Temple.

I have two further points, both of great significance, which I wish the Lord Advocate to answer. The House is entitled to have his answers, and I shall put the matter in the form of questions to him. If this boy were in Kelvingrove Park on that Wednesday afternoon, how did he happen to know that two particular boys, whom he named, had been sent for by the deputy headmaster at the school at about 3 p.m.? Both the Secretary of State and the Lord Advocate know the background to this point, and how all the possibilities concerning how Temple could have known this have been thoroughly examined by his advisers. Unless Temple is endowed with the subtlety of a serpent, the boy knew of that matter only because he had been present when they were sent for, as he himself says he was.

Second, if Colin Temple were the assailant, how does it come about that in the new evidence given in March, Mrs. Connelly, an eye-witness of the crime, is positive that the assailant was a person with long hair to his shoulders at the back and to his eyebrows at the front? It is indisputable that Temple has very short cropped hair; it could not have flopped about as the assailant's was seen to do.

Mrs. Connelly was described by Lord Avonside as an intelligent young woman. On Wednesday night, in the television broadcast on "Nationwide", Mrs. Connelly was interviewed and she again stated that Colin Temple was not the boy. When asked why she had not stated this in court, she replied that she had told a policeman, who had then told her to sit down. The lawyer for Colin Temple never asked her that question.

The B.B.C. has kindly given me a transcript of the questioning of Mrs. Connelly in that interview, and I shall read her words now to the Lord Advocate, putting the relevant passage in the form of question and answer as the interview ran. Mr. Philip Tibenham, the reporter, asked Mrs. Connelly:

"How close a look did you get at the man who attacked this women? (Answer): A good look.

"What did he look like? (Answer): About 5ft. 7in., and he had long hair.

"Are you sure his hair was long? (Answer): Yes.

"When was the first time you laid eyes on Colin Temple? (Answer): In the sheriff court.

"That would be at his first trial? (Answer): That is right.

"What was your impression then? (Answer): It was not him.

"Well, if you were that sure, why did you not say so? (Answer): I did. I said it to a policeman.

"When did you say that? (Answer): When he led me from the witness-box to my seat.

"After you had given your evidence? (Answer): That is right.

"And when you said that the man in the dock was not the guilty man, what did the policeman say? (Answer): He told me to sit down."

That is a correct transcript of what was said by Mrs. Connelly at the interview, Mrs. Connelly having been one of the witnesses at the trial at which Colin Temple was identified.

Does the Secretary of State say that that evidence was untrue? If not, does it mean that, on the way to commit the crime, Colin Temple not only grew in stature but grew his hair six inches longer? Mrs. Connelly was absolutely positive that Temple was not the assailant, and she was an eye-witness to the crime.

Before making my final appeal to the Lord Advocate, I wish to direct his attention to another unusual and disturbing happening in this case. In the report at the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland on the Colin Temple case, the Rev. Harry Ricketts, convener of the Social Services Committee, stated that a letter had been received from Lord Avon-side, and that, as the letter came while the case was sub judice, the contents of it had been revealed to no one since it contained statements regarding one of the witnesses in the Colin Temple case.

The letter was an eight-paragraph letter, and contained one paragraph expressing concern over the case of Colin Temple. The letter named Mr. Kyle, a residential social worker, as one of the witnesses and implied that Lord Avonside felt that Mr. Kyle's attitude rendered him unsuitable or unfit to hold a post of responsibility in Geilsland School, and, I believe, recommended his dismissal. The letter did not imply dishonesty by Mr. Kyle. It simply criticised his attitude, although I believe that the recommendation for dismissal was firm.

What guarantee can the Lord Advocate, on behalf of the Secretary of State, give that Lord Avonside did not write any other letters discrediting witness Kyle? The Church of Scotland has already intimated that it intends to take no action upon the letter, which would appear to imply that the criticisms offered by Lord Avonside are disputed by the Church, since it has publicly announced that intention to take no action. Can the Secretary of State guarantee that he was not similarly influenced by Lord Avonside possibly discrediting Kyle to him?

Had the Church of Scotland not acted in the way it did, and had it taken any action, however improper, it would, surely, have jeopardised the case of Colin Temple when the Secretary of State heard that one of the witnesses was publicly discredited. Fortunately, the Church did not accept, and does not intend to accept, the inference of discredit against Mr. Kyle.

The timing of the letter, regardless of content, cannot be overlooked. Does the Secretary of State approve of one of his judges writing to the employer of one of the witnesses in a case of this importance and implying discredit on a witness who had gone to court to tell the truth? Is the Secretary of State happy that it can be publicly stated, as it was at the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland on Thursday, 20lh May, 1971, that a letter had been sent to the Church while a case was sub judice, and the Church intended taking no action on the letter?

Is the Secretary of State happy at the thought that, had full knowledge of this letter been made public, members of the public might well be deterred from offering to go to a court of law and agreeing to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in the interests of justice, if they were aware that behind their backs the judge might write to their employers recommending their dismissal on the ground that he thought that their attitude rendered them unfit to hold the posts which they held at the time of giving testimony?

Those are all specific and serious questions to which the Lord Advocate should give direct answers. I urge the Secretary of State to reconsider his decision to take no further action in this case. Here is a boy whose past record shows no violence whatever and who is convicted of a very serious crime on evidence, identification evidence, which is of a type that is unreliable, however honest the belief of the witness giving it. On the other hand, there is a mass of testimony, which I have outlined, that the boy was where he ought to have been on the Wednesday after- noon—working in the approved school. The Secretary of State need not fear that he is doing other than justice if he will now reconsider the matter and recommend a free pardon for this very unfortunate boy.

I fully recognise the concern which the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) feels about this matter, and I fully accept the sincerity of the views he has expressed. I would like to say on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, that at no time has he questioned the sincerity of those who have consistently maintained their belief in the innocence of Colin Temple.

It is important to remind the House of the constitutional position of the Secretary of State in a matter of this kind, where a person has been duly convicted and sentenced by a court of law. The primary responsibility of the Secretary of State, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will accept, is to ensure that the sentence is carried out, because of the constitutional necessity that decisions of the courts—subject, of course, to appeal—are final determinations. To interfere with the verdict of a jury is a step which cannot at any time lightly be undertaken, and I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will accept that.

However, to meet exceptional circumstances, the Secretary of State has two sets of extraordinary powers. First, he has the right to recommend the exercise of the Royal prerogative of mercy. Secondly, he has statutory powers under Section 16 of the Criminal Appeal (Scotland) Act, 1926 to refer the case to the High Court of Justiciary. He can do that in either of two ways. He can remit the whole case to be heard and determined as if it were an appeal, or—as in this instance—seek the opinion of the court on points raised by him to assist him in the determination of the petition. These are powers which can be used only in the most exceptional circumstances. If a reference to the High Court is to be made, it can be justified only where some new matter of grave substance has been raised which ought to be the subject of judicial scrutiny before a proper determination of the case can be made.

As the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, the Secretary of State, in this instance, took this exceptional course, with my advice, and I think that he was right in considering that there were exceptional circumstances justifying this course. This is only the sixth occasion on which these powers have been exercised since the Act was passed in 1926.

It is also important to remember the nature of the rôle which the Secretary of State is called upon to play. He is not a judge. He cannot re-try the case or act as a court of appeal. It is not for the Secretary of State to pass his judgment on the innocence or guilt of the petitioner. All that he can do is to consider—and obviously, from what I have said, he must consider carefully—whether he is justified in any particular case in exercising these extraordinary powers.

As the hon. Gentleman has made clear—and I am obliged to him for the fair and moderate way in which he put his case—there is a clash of evidence and of views in this case. It really comes down to this; whether this young man was in the Geilsland Approved School when this serious offence was committed in Glasgow on the afternoon of Wednesday, 22nd April.

Although the hon. Gentleman has related some of the facts, I do not entirely agree with all his observations, and it may be advisable for me to give the House a short resume of the facts. A woman was assaulted on that day, shortly after two o'clock in the afternoon, by a young man in Kelvingrove Park, Glasgow. Her shouts attracted the attention of others, and the young man made good his escape. The police were given a description of the assailant, and a week later, on Tuesday, 28th April, shortly before midday, the police went to the same park, following an anonymous telephone call. There they found the youth, Colin Temple, who fitted the description they had been given. He was on unauthorised absence from the approved school, and the police had been informed of his absence.

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was suggesting that Temple was subjected to any pressure. I do not understand him to have suggested that, except that he made a reference to Temple's being five hours in custody before he admitted the assault. He was not questioned by the police until he was interviewed by the detective-officer in charge of the case, shortly after lunch, at about 2.15 in the afternoon. In the course of his interview with the officer, he admitted his guilt, and gave certain not insignificant circumstantial details surrounding the commission of the offence Thereafter, he took part in an identification parade and was identified as the assailant, not only by the victim of the assault, but by another woman who had gone to her assistance.

After that, as one might expect, he was formally cautioned and charged, and his reply was, "I am sorry now that I did it." When subsequently cautioned and charged at the Bar, in accordance with normal practice, he said, "Say I am sorry." It was on this very substantial evidence that proceedings were instructed on behalf of my predecessor, and upon which the jury convicted, by a majority, notwithstanding evidence adduced by the defence in support of alibi, to which I shall turn in a moment.

On his apprehension, the staff of the approved school were informed, and the headmaster, after making inquiries at the school, took the view, which he has retained ever since, that the boy could not have committed the offence because he must have been present at the school at the time. The headmaster interviewed the boy that night, and on two occasions Temple confessed to him his guilt. He said, "I did it." He was challenged by the headmaster to explain why he had admitted an offence which, in the headmaster's view, he could not have committed. Temple subsequently withdrew the confession in favour of the alibi which, in effect, the headmaster had presented to him. In the headmaster's own words, in cross-examination at the subsequent hearing—and this, I think, fairly sums up the situation—"I broke him down to what I believed to be the truth." At the trial, the headmaster was not adduced as a witness, for the reasons the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, but the defence of alibi was supported in particular by, in addition to the accused, the witness Ruxton, who was the building supervisor supervising the squad of boys engaged on building work that afternoon. Mr. Ruxton deponed to the fact that he saw Temple in the course of the afternoon in question. It is important that, notwithstanding that evidence, the jury took the view by majority that that evidence fell to be rejected.

I do not want to comment on the inadequacy of the preparations of this boy's defence, but I will say that counsel for the accused at the time adduced this evidence and may well have exercised a wise discretion in not seeking to bolster it up by adducing other boys who were on the list of witnesses in the special defence of alibi. The alibi defence was squarely before the jury at the time and was, by a majority, rejected.

As the hon. Gentleman has said, an appeal was lodged and an application made to the High Court to hear further evidence in support of the alibi which had been rejected. The court took the view that the further evidence it was sought to be adduced was not of a nature which it could be said would have affected the jury's decision, and the appeal was dismissed on 21st October, 1970.

Thereafter, a petition was presented to the Secretary of State in which he was asked to refer the case to the Court of Criminal Appeal under Section 16, in order that evidence of additional witnesses might be heard, or to have further inquiries made with a view to providing a remedy for any miscarriage of justice disclosed.

It is fair to say that the most important matters raised in the petition, which was carefully considered before the decision was reached, were the availability of other witnesses in support of the alibi, the evidence of the headmaster, who had not been called at the trial, and the belief of one of the witnesses, Mrs. Connelly, who had already given evidence but had not spoken to identification, that Temple was not the assailant. I say this of her evidence at the trial: I do not think that it would have been possible for defence counsel to have known in advance what her attitude on identification was. She was not, as I recollect it, a witness at the identification parade. She was not asked about identification and in the ordinary way at least it would not be appropriate for defence counsel to ask a witness on a question of identification when he did not know what her answer was likely to be.

In any event, after very careful consideration, and in consultation with my- self, my right hon. Friend decided that the case could only be resolved by having this further evidence considered by the court. He accordingly took the exceptional step of asking the opinion of the court on the effect of this further evidence.

Evidence consisting of seven pupils or former pupils of the approved school, two members of the staff, including the headmaster, two police officers and four other persons, including Mrs. Connelly, connected with the case, was subsequently heard in March before a judge appointed for this purpose by the court. The presiding judge subsequently reported to the court and my right hon. Friend was informed that, in the opinion of the court, no grounds for interference with the verdict had been established. I should add that, although no submissions were made at the conclusion of the hearing, a further written submission was made on Temple's behalf commenting on consideration raised by the case at the hearing.

In the light of the Crown evidence, which was accepted, and the defence evidence in support of alibi, which was rejected by the majority of the jury at the trial, it would clearly require very substantial further evidence to justify any interference with the verdict of the jury.

Geilsland School is an open establishment. The crucial time was 2.15 p.m. on 22nd April at Kelvingrove Park. It might be convenient if I refer briefly, as the hon. Gentleman did, to the evidence in support of the alibi which was before the jury and the presiding judge at the subsequent hearing.

There was evidence that Temple had been seen at lunch at about 12.30 p.m., that he was not missed from roll calls at 1.30 p.m. and 4.50 p.m., although, naturally enough, the staff concerned could not remember specifically seeing him. If he was at the school that afternoon, he was working in a work party along with another boy, but largely out of sight of Mr. Ruxton, the building supervisor. A visitor to the school saw a boy at the 4.50 roll call who, from his appearance, he subsequently believed to be Temple. There was evidence of a later meeting between the boy and a member of the staff, and several of the boys, including the work partner, spoke to his presence that afternoon. There was also a reference by Temple at his trial to an event occurring at the school some time during the afternoon of that day. I must emphasise again that it is not for my right hon. Friend to judge this case. He could not hear the evidence let alone assess the weight which has to be attached to it. The fact that there are several persons firmly convinced of Temple's innocence does not, of course, necessarily mean that the boy was innocent. When a person has been duly convicted after due process of law then, as I have said, the Secretary of State's only function is to decide whether he would be justified in recommending Her Majesty to exercise the Royal Prerogative of mercy. In this matter obviously the view of the court was a substantial factor, and after the most careful review of all the relevant considerations—I emphasise that because it was not only the view expressed by the court which was the only or the deciding factor—my right hon. Friend came to the conclusion that he would not be justified in making such a recommendation.

I want again to say, because I would not like there to be any misunderstanding, that it is not a question of a group of people conspiring to put up a false case which would result in a miscarriage of justice. Sometimes people do firmly believe that a jury has made a mistake and that an accused or convicted person is innocent. The real test here is what my right hon. Friend can do about that. He cannot just look at one side of the picture. He has to look at the whole evidence and, as I have said, he has to be very careful if he is going to interfere with the verdict of the jury. It was in the light of these considerations that, after most anxious and careful thought, my right hon. Friend reluctantly came to the conclusion that it was not possible for him to make a recommendation in this case.

I am glad to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, on this day in particular, which is the opening day of the Paris Air Show, and when it has been announced that a long-term treaty of friendship has been signed between the Soviet Union and Egypt. In the course of the debate, I want to take account of considerations both strategic and military and also industrial considerations.

In the long course of our history as a naval power, there have been a great many technical developments which have revolutionised naval warfare. In recent times there was the development of the "Dreadnought". After that, the most significant change was the development of naval air power and the whole new dimension it gave to naval operations. In the struggle for the Royal Air Force's identity which took place primarily in a period of retrenchment after the First World War, over-emphasis was perhaps laid on the salient principle of the indivisibility of air power.

This was understandable at the time, but it had costly repercussions. It meant that in those lean inter-war years naval air power found itself way down the list of operational priorities of the Royal Air Force. As one of the leading fighting admirals of the Second World War, Admiral of the Fleet Lord Cunningham of Hyndhope remarked in his autobiography:

"From start to finish the control of the Naval air arm was a costly failure which militated against the vital air efficiency of the Navy. As the Air Estimates were also ruthlessly shorn, the Naval air arm became a sort of Cinderella service, neglected and nearly forgotten. It was not until 1937, after a severe and protracted struggle on the part of the Admiralty, that ship-borne aircraft again came under the full operational and administrative control of the Royal Navy with whom they would work in war. It was only just in time."

It was very much as a result of Sir Winston Churchill's submission to the then Minister of Defence, Sir Thomas Inskip, in 1936 that the Fleet Air Arm as a separate entity came into being. I do not want to rehearse all those familiar arguments and go back to the inter-Service wrangles of that period, or the period immediately after the First World War. I believe that the policy which the Government are now pursuing, leading to functionalism, is the right one. In other words, the flying of the aircraft in support of naval operations should essentially be professionally a Royal Air Force function, although for command purposes it would, understandably, come under naval command where the military effect impinged on the outcome of purely naval operations.

These inter-Service wrangles have, even in the post-war period, cost the British defence policy dear. In the mid-1950s the Royal Air Force was very proud to wield the strategic nuclear deterrent. It was a former Air Officer Commander-in-Chief of Coastal Command, Sir John Slessor, who was instrumental, I think, in winning the battle of the Atlantic, who did almost more than any other airman at that period to weld the great deterrent of the "V" force into an effective instrument of air power and deterrence. In his memoirs he made some pertinent observations of which I would remind the House. He said:

"The original Inskip award of 1937 did endeavour to make provision against unnecessarily wasteful overlapping in shore establishments between the Royal Air Force and Naval aviation. Actually, the decision was drafted by Sir Winston Churchill who later admitted that he had not conceived how enormous was the charge involved. In other words, there had been quite unjustifiable duplication of overheads, shore depots and training establishments, to say nothing of staffs, all of which largely stemmed from this idea that the maritime airman must be something essentially naval and different from his shore-based counterpart."

We have to get out of our mind prejudices about what colour uniform the men who fly naval aircraft at sea will wear. These are matters for Whitehall to decide, but I do think that we have important principles of policy to lay down. The first of these is that although the Royal Air Force must provide functionally for the maintenance of maritime air power, there is a danger that it will be too low a priority.

I welcome most warmly the courageous step the Government have taken in retaining H.M.S. "Ark Royal" in service until the late 1970s. This decision is absolutely right. It is economically right because of the expensive refits which she has recently undergone and it is militarily right because of the wide range of options which the various aircraft embarked upon her will allow military commanders to dispose. For these reasons and not least because of the increasing emphasis on our maritime contribution to N.A.T.O. the "Ark Royal" decision was absolutely right.

There are a lot of questions which remain to be answer. Two or three years ago the defence correspondent of The Times, and others, were writing a number of articles—which I believe to be far- sighted—in which they referred to the gap in naval armaments, a gap which was likely to yawn after the arbitrary and unnecessary abolition of the fixed-wing element of British air power, then to take place before the change of government. The first of these articles was 8th July 1969, headed, "The gap in Naval armament". Then came another on 3rd October, 1969, "Insurance at Sea" in which Charles Douglas-Home hoped that the announcement that the late Admiral Sir Michael Le Fanu, was to become Chief of Defence Staff would mean that a greater emphasis would once again be placed upon the value of naval air power.

Then came an editorial on 30th October entitled, "Tragedy of Errors." It referred to the great procurement errors that had been committed so far in not allowing the Harrier in particular to be converted to the full for naval operations. This year, after the change of government, came an article, perhaps the last that Charles Douglas-Home wrote as defence correspondent, in which he referred to the aircraft carrier gap, which must have influenced the Government in their decision to retain the "Ark Royal", although I am sure they will not necessarily admit this.

The two things I want to emphasise are these First, it is not necessarily impossible, with current aircraft, to maintain a wide spectrum of maritime air capability Secondly, for only a relatively small additional cost to our procurement budget we could provide a whole range of options for our naval air arm and for the marines, in its amphibious rôle, that should not be ignored. In particular, in the second case, the range of options and the confidence in British hardware expressed by certain procurement orders that I shall recommend would have an immense significance to our export achievement in the aerospace sphere.

If we go back to the 1950s and 1960s and the wranglings of that time, the Fleet Air Arm was always adamant that for naval air operations jet aircraft should have two engines and two seats. This was the central philosophy which always underlay its arguments. In the context of air operations at sea, I can understand the good reasons for those arguments. This led to excessively long and heated controversy and not just a compromise of design that turned out to be impossible to attain, but to different procurement decisions on the part of the two Services.

In the first instance, there was the choice, in the Royal Air Force, of the Javelin and in the Royal Navy of the Sea Vixen for an all-weather interceptor. Then came the wranglings over the P1154 which were ultimately contributory to the project's tragic cancellation. I am glad that those wrangles are behind us and I ask the House and the Government to draw the right conclusions from them. One thing that both sets of staff, naval and air, always wanted was a range of aircraft that would be truly inter-operable. I have said this before but I make no apology for repeating it. It was hitherto an impossible goal for various reasons. Now at last there is a generation of high performance aircraft which are truly inter-operable—Phantoms, Buccaneers, the Jaguar, the Harrier and beyond that the M.R.C.A. There is also all the M.R.C.A.'s progeny which one could imagine in the shape of a whole range of variable geometry aircraft, which possess remarkable capability for short take-off and landing.

In short take-off and landing, just as much in the pure vertical take-off and landing sense, there are technical breakthroughs which could revolutionise naval air warfare. In view of the contribution which we have made in the post-war era to developments in air naval warfare, it would be tragic if we did not take the lead in this matter. We developed the steam catapult, the angled flight deck, and the mirror landing aid. All these developments made the operation of modern high performance jet aircraft possible at sea. The United States followed up those developments and the free world has been a much safer place for it.

At the beginning of the Second World War the Fleet Air Arm did not have the advantage of similar technical developments. If what the history books tell us, or what your experience, Mr. Deputy Speaker, tells you, is right, it went into action and established for itself a heroic tradition of engaging overwhelming hostile forces in antiquated machines against all the odds and pulling off amaz- ing achievements. But that is not the sort of thing that I should want to call upon British naval air power to undertake in future.

The Royal Air Force was able to develop the variable pitch airscrew, radar direction for interception, and the high performance benefits of the monoplane. At the beginning of World War II the Fleet Air Arm had none of these. I earnestly hope that the British Navy will have at its command—and I emphasise the word "command"—the advantages of vertical short take-off and landing aircraft and variable geometry aircraft which will not only augment its capability enormously but enable it to maintain its presence on the high seas where it will be increasingly needed in the years ahead.

The naval picture overall is bleak. There is a movement towards Europe. If that means anything—and I know that in recent years we have had collaborative projects with Europe which have worked well—it will lead to a more rational allocation of our defence effort. In other words, at a time when America will inevitably be tempted towards disengagement, Europe should be playing a greater part in her own defence. For us islanders in the United Kingdom it must mean an increasing maritime and air rôle. One envisages that, on the central front, the Germans will bear the main manpower burdens, but that we on the flanks and at the rear of the Alliance will be called upon to provide the mobility and flexibility and long-range strike capability which alone maritime and air power can enable us to provide. It is therefore imperative, especially at this time, when we are going into Europe, that we should develop fully our technical and traditional capabilities in naval and air warfare, which would have immense industrial ramifications.

I must mention the question of the hardware which is available. I know that, in spite of the protestations of Captain Baldwin and others, manpower considerations heavily impinge on naval planning. Will the Government consider again the period for which H.M.S. "Eagle" is likely to be retained in service? I know that she is due to retire from the active Fleet in 1972, but I hope that she will be retained longer. There is absolutely no reason why that fine capital ship which has only fairly recently been refitted should not operate the Jaguar even if she cannot operate the Phantom, with its present catapult and arrester gear.

H.M.S. "Hermes" is being re-equipped for a commando rôle, which is all very fine. But we would be very foolish if we were not to follow the example of the United States and operate our own aircraft, the Harrier, at sea in the close support rôle for backing up amphibious forces. There is no reason why Harriers should not be part of the complement at sea of "Hermes" in addition to the helicopters which she will carry for assault duties.

If we look at the Congressional Record and the testimony of General Hill of the United States Marine Corps about the Harrier, we cannot but fail to be impressed. He said:

"The Harrier has a very unique capability It has either V.T.O.L. or outstanding S.T.O.L. capability. This will permit us in our ship-to-shore mission to operate off any type of ship in the fleet with this aircraft. Not only that, it will permit us to phase ashore earlier."

In other words just about every ship in the Fleet which can carry a helicopter can carry the Harrier. It is arguable whether we should employ our air power in penny packets operating from small platforms and relatively small ships at sea. That is a matter for the Naval Staff to argue about ad infinitum. But this is a unique aircraft which is years ahead of its time—a typical brain child of British ingenuity and inventiveness which has not been realised to the full in its country of birth.

I know that the R.A.F. has done extremely well with Harrier. Conversions on to the aircraft at No. 233 Operational Conversion Unit are going smoothly and well. Three squadrons are operating: No. 1 in this country, which was recently embarked on "Ark Royal" in the Moray Firth, to the great interest of the Russians if to nobody else, No. 4 in Germany and No. 20 in Germany. It will be most valuable in the N.A.T.O. rôle operating from dispersed sites where aircraft are relatively invulnerable to the first strike which N.A.T.O. as a defensive alliance must expect.

The R.A.F. has acted laudably in getting the aircraft operational and proving it so effectively. But it has been not just myopia over the technical possibilities of vertical and short take-off and landing operations but political prejudice which has failed to allow the Royal Navy to get its feet wet with the Harrier. Until the Navy gets its feet wet with the Harrier, the large export potential of this aircraft will not be fully realised.

At a time when the Paris Air Show is under way and the British aerospace industry has suffered cruelly from grave difficulties—for example, over the RB211 engine—it would be a most valuable fillip, not only for morale in the Fleet where air cover is essential, but industrially throughout the country if an order for this aircraft were placed. If we managed to get one or two squadrons at sea in the next 18 months it would be a great advance.

Militarily the arguments for getting this aircraft to sea quickly are overwhelming. The Soviet Union has a large range of surface-to-surface guided weapons of immense capability. They range from the fairly short-range Styx which is operated from patrol boats—and one need only cast one's mind back to the "Eilat" incident to realise how effective they are—to the extremely long-range Shadock which has a range of between 200 and 300 nautical miles. This is a capability which the Government have realised and emphasised in the order for the Anglo-French Exocet as an acknowledgement of the reality of this threat.

I would refer to an article in "Navy" about the surface-to-surface capability of the Russian Navy.

"The Styx, which will range about 15 miles, is fitted in patrol boats of the Osa and Komar classes."

In other words, there are almost hundreds of vessels operating this weapon, and it is a weapon which, so far, we have yet to counter and unless we do counter it we shall be virtually powerless. This, to me, is most alarming, particularly in the narrow waters around these islands and off Europe, where one can expect those patrol boats to operate.

Then there is the medium-range Strela with a range of about 100 miles on the Kildin and Krupny class destroyers of which there are some ten already in the Soviet Navy and in service. It is a very fine weapon but has nowhere near the 300 mile range of Shadock. The veterans of Trafalgar, were there any surviving, and the veterans of Jutland or of Coronel or of the Scharnhorst engagements, or of the chase of the Bismark, would all say that the side which, as in armoured warfare, has the largest range of fire has an overwhelming, indeed insuperable, advantage.

Therefore it is quite essential that we do have air power to counter this threat. For the short term I am glad that we have the "Ark Royal" and "Eagle" in commission, but for the longer term I have my anxieties, and I would most earnestly ask my hon. Friend whether he will get in touch with the naval person of the Front Bench, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy, and impress upon him the urgency of getting further ships at sea, ships which can operate the most modern aircraft.

I know we are giving serious thought to the through deck command cruiser, which will have augmented capability. I believe that this vessel is commensurate with our resources, both of manpower and finance. For goodness sake, if we are not to retain the existing strike carriers very long, let us get on with ordering that cruiser. After all, the shipyards at Birkenhead and on the Tyne and on the Clyde need orders. Let us get on with ordering those ships, and embrace the aerial technology which can exploit the potential of those ships.

With 10 per cent. augmentation of thrust of the Pegasus engine, we get virtually double the ordnance payload from the Harrier in a given radius of action, and even that augmentation of thrust would make the most immense operational difference to the capabilities of that aircraft. The Harrier has experienced over the past 10 years an augmentation of some 100 per cent. in the thrust of Pegasus engine from that of the original Pegasus for the 1127 back in 1960.

It is not unreasonable to suppose that similar developments will be possible in the next 10 years. If that is the case there would be an immense break-through for naval air warfare, and in the immediate future there is no reason at all why the Navy should not get at least one or two squadrons of this aircraft at sea. What is required at present is a proper funding of the Pegasus 15 engine, which will augment the power of the Pegasus to about 24,000 lb. static thrust. Were this done I personally have no doubt that in addition to the United States Marine Corps the United States Navy as well would possibly order the aircraft, and, beyond that, one can see a whole range of navies ordering it:—the Spanish, the Argentinian, the Italian. Virtually any navy which has ships of a size to operate helicopters, they, too, would operate the Harrier.

In conclusion, unless at this crucial time in our naval history we are prepared to make sure that the Fleet Air Arm, whether flown by people in Navy blue uniforms or pale blue uniforms, has a continued high-performance capability into the late '70s or early '80s it will not have the potential which is required to counter the effectiveness in surface-to-surface weaponry which the Soviet Navy possesses. I myself find that a frightening prospect, and the solution is so easy both industrially and nationally. I do ask my hon. Friend to give me some assurance that, following the very successful trials of No. 1 Harrier Squadron in the Moray Firth, he will be very forthcoming to the Navy.

I would open by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson) upon the interesting speech he has made. At the same time I would express the regrets of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy, who is unable, due to unforeseen circumstances, to be here today.

My hon. Friend has raised an interesting issue, the development of naval air power. To give him a comprehensible answer I should like to answer him in toto, as it were, for it would be unreal to speak in this debate only about organic air power, by which I mean aircraft which fly from ships. What I think he wants to hear about is the arrangements for providing air power in its widest sense for maritime operations, and, taking this into consideration, I should like to deal with three points, fixed-wing operations, V.S.T.O.L. aircraft, and helicopters.

First of all, I speak of fixed-wing air operations. My hon. Friend knows that it is the Government's intention that responsibility for carrying out fixed-wing operations will be assumed by the Royal Air Force, and he will also know that it is not planned to build more fixed-wing aircraft carriers to succeed "Eagle", or "Ark Royal" which will be phased out in the late 1970s. I do not propose this afternoon to go into the arguments which my hon. Friend touched upon, because these arguments we have been through in the House so many times. I can only repeat that the policy ultimately to phase out fixed-wing aircraft carriers, and to transfer responsibility for maritime fixed-wing air operations to the Royal Air Force, is not in any way—I am sure my hon. Friends will agree with this—a reflection upon the performance of the Fleet Air Arm. I think everyone in the House will agree that it has served with the greatest distinction in this rôle, and who would not pay tribute to its remarkable record over the last 50 years? However, as my hon. Friend said, we are moving into an era in which the main contribution of the Fleet Air Arm will be in other forms of aviation, to which I shall refer later.

Shore based aircraft for maritime operations will be provided by the R.A.F. and the Air Forces of our allies. So far as the R.A.F. is concerned, there will be the Nimrods for long-range reconnaissance and anti-submarine work, and Lightnings, Phantoms and Buccaneers for air defence, strike and reconnaissance. These aircraft are well suited to the task, and will be supported by tankers for air to air refuelling. From next year the R.A.F. will also be providing a number of Shackleton long range aircraft equipped with airborne early warning radar to supplement the cover provided by the Gannets embarked on the "Ark Royal". In the longer term we look to the M.R.C.A. to take over from the Phantoms and the Buccaneers.

I am sure that my hon. Friend will not want me to refer to the "Ark Royal" or to the Government's decision to extend her service until the late 1970s. This has been debated too often in the House before. I will merely say that "Ark Royal" is being run on to cover the gap, to which he referred, until the improved ships and weapons systems planned for the Fleet come into service on a wider scale. I again stress that it is not planned to replace "Ark Royal" with another fixed wing carrier.

It is important to make this point about the nature of the further service of "Ark Royal" because it is an integral part of the plan that the aircraft for "Ark Royal" will be provided from the total numbers already planned. The Phantoms and Buccaneers have many years service ahead of them, and we should not be justified in buying aircraft to replace those in the carrier rôle My hon. Friend mentioned other aircraft for instance, Jaguars, but their use for "Ark Royal" does not arise, Similarly, there is no question of operating the M.R.C.A. from "Ark Royal" for reasons which are obvious.

I come now to the central theme of my hon. Friend's speech, the deployment of V.S.T.O.L. aircraft at sea. The House will know of the trials which have been carried out this month, and of the Government's position which has been stated on a number of occasions. As my hon. Friend has raised it, I shall go over the main points again. The value of V.S.T.O.L. aircraft operating effectively from ships at sea would obviously stem from their rapid reaction capability. This would obviously be valuable and would complement shore-based aircraft and the ships' own weapon systems. Because we recognise this potential value we are carefully looking at this. The Government have also preserved the option of deploying V.S.T.O.L. aircraft from the cruisers. If V.S.T.O.L. aircraft were to be deployed at sea, they would be capable of operating from the flat tops of such ships as "Hermes". But I prefer not to speculate at this stage about which ships might carry V.S.T.O.L. aircraft if the decision were to employ aircraft of this type in the maritime rôle. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Navy said in an earlier debate, the first priority is to complete the conversion of "Hermes" to the commando ship rôle.

I turn now to the trials which have been carried out recently jointly by the Navy and the Royal Air Force. We are, naturally, concerned to establish whether the costs of deploying aircraft of the V.S.T.O.L. type would be commensurate with the return which would be obtained from such an investment, measured in terms of operational capability compared with meeting the task with shore based aircraft.

As regards effectiveness, these trials will be of considerable value. Earlier trials of the Harrier which were carried out in "Eagle", "Ark Royal" and "Blake" were aimed at assessing the deck operating characteristics of the Harrier. These established that the Harrier could be flown satisfactorily on and off the decks of ships at sea. The most recent trials were designed to carry the process a stage further by investigating the operational capability of these aircraft in the new environment.

These trials, which were witnessed by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Navy, were thorough and extensive. In all, 57 aircraft sorties were flown, including 21 in which the aircraft carried weapons. The results of all these trials are now being evaluated and they will form an essential and important contribution to our studies. There is no want of urgency in this matter; my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy is fully aware of its importance, and a decision will be taken as soon as possible.

I will say a word or two about the sale of Harriers abroad. The United States Marine Corps has ordered 30 and has authorised orders for long dated material for a further 30 aircraft for delivery in 1973. The more of these aircraft we are able to sell, the better pleased we shall be.

My hon. Friend brought up the question of "Eagle". He will know that considerable costs are involved, both in manpower and in money, which would not be justified by the extension of "Eagle" beyond the time when it is to be withdrawn.

My hon. Friend said earlier that he did not see any fixed wing carrier being built. Looking at the possibilities which the through deck cruiser provides, the V.S.T.O.L. aircraft of the Harrier class could be considered just like a rotary wing aircraft in the landing and take-off mode—just a bit more puff downwards and a bit hotter. In terms of space taken up and logistically there is essentially no difference. Therefore, politically, outside semantics about the decision of the last Government, should not this be considered?

All these questions are being considered, as well as the question of the armaments to be put in the new cruisers if they are to be developed.

I come now to helicopters. There is no question nowadays of rotary wing aircraft being the poor relation of fixed wing aircraft. Without doubt, the helicopter will be one of the main weapons of the Fleet in coming years. In the future, almost all ships of the Royal Navy of frigate class and above will be equipped with them. The Wasp, for example, is now largely used in the Fleet, mainly in frigates. It is an antisubmarine weapon-carrying helicopter, but it also operates in the search and reconnaissance rôle. Starting in the middle 1970s, it is intended to replace it progressively in the small ship rôle by the Anglo-French Lynx helicopter, which will have an improved capability.

The large Wessex 3 helicopter, which is fitted with sonar, operates in the antisubmarine rôle from larger ships. It is deployed at present in the County Class destroyers and H.M.S. "Blake", and will be replaced in "Blake" by the Sea King helicopter in the early years of this decade. The Sea King is already operating from "Eagle" and "Ark Royal", and in due course it will be deployed in H.M.S. "Tiger" as well as "Blake" and later in the new cruisers, when they enter service. The Sea King is a more powerful and longer range version of the Sikorsky SH3-D helicopter. It can be said to have added a new capability to the armoury at the disposal of the Royal Navy.

The growing scope and importance of the rotary wing flying task is giving the Fleet Air Arm a new rôle to play in the development of naval air power. Although the fixed wing flying task of the Fleet Air Arm is not complete, there is rather a change of emphasis. And I am certain that tasks in the future will be met by the Fleet Air Arm with rotary wing aircraft with the same readiness and skill as they have been met in the past.

On 1st August, 1967, the Board of Trade appointed Mr. Basil Wigoder, Q.C., and Mr. P. Godfrey to investigate the affairs of the Pinnock Finance Company (Gt. Britain). On 25th September of the same year, at the request of these investigators, the inquiry was extended to cover the 11 Pinnock associated companies incorporated in the United Kingdom.

Thus began the unravelling of one of the most complicated and gigantic frauds in the history of private enterprise in the United Kingdom. For eight years, from 1959 to 1967, the gullible, and perhaps greedy, British investor ladled £13 million into the grasping maw of the Pinnock group—a concern which purported to be making sewing machines, vacuum cleaners, small tractors and cultivators, and sundry electrical appliances.

It was eventually discovered that there were about 80 companies located in most parts of the world: 21 in the United Kingdom; six in the Irish Republic; 23 in Australia; two in New Zealand; one in the U.S.A.; two in Canada; one in Panama; four in the Bahamas; two in France; three in Belgium; two in Holland; one in Switzerland; three in South Africa; two in Singapore; and one each in Germany, Denmark, Sweden and Rhodesia.

This ramshackle set-up was so complex, the documentation so unsatisfactory, unreliable and often contradictory, that the investigators had great difficulty in unravelling the fraud. Many of the officers and employees of Pinnock were either unable or unwilling to give reliable evidence. I will quote from the report—which makes horrific reading—paragraph 13:

"From all the documentation and verbal information we have obtained we came to the inescapable conclusion that this man"——

and I shall say who the man is in a moment——

"engineered the complex structure of the Pinnock group as part of a deliberate policy to hide the true state of affairs from the depositors, or potential depositors."

The whole wretched story began in Australia in 1955. Numerous companies were formed there by the arch-villain of the conspiracy, a Mr. William Ross Wright. By June, 1960, the aggregate loss on his five Australian companies was about £30,000. By 31st March, 1967, less than seven years afterwards, the losses had rocketed to over £1·8 million Mr. Wright got those funds, as he subseqeuntly did in this country, by offering succulent high rates of interest to gullible depositors. As none of the companies ever made profits, from the very beginning the Australia depositors were paid interest only from subsequent deposits. But in spite of that, the companies felt able to advance some £120,000 to Mr. Wright personally before June, 1958, and a further £280,000 in May, 1959.

With those successes under his belt and with his own bank balances in a "flush" state, Mr. Wright decided to try his luck with the astute, shrewd British investor. So he came to these shores. Pinnock Finance (Gt. Britain) was incorporated in August, 1959. From then on intoxicating success came to Mr. Wright. The funds came flooding in. This success was swiftly followed by the formation of all those other Pinnock companies throughout the world. In world coverage, Pinnock and Mr. Wright exceeded that of the British Empire even at the pinnacle of its glory. Most of the companies performed no useful function at all. Such manufacting as there was of sewing machines in Australia, of electrical and other appliances in Great Britain—and I understand that the lawn mowers produced in Britain would not cut the grass—resulted inevitably and consistently in enormous losses. For example, Pinnock Electrical Appliances Ltd. (Gt. Britain) was incorporated in July, 1959; by June, 1967, it has lost £944,000. The losses were made good out of the funds that kept pouring in from these poor depositors.

Similar stories were told in the report about the European companies of the Pinnock group. For example, the Belgian company Pax was acquired by Mr. Wright in 1958. It was liquidated in September, 1967, with losses of over £625,000, again paid for out of depositors' funds. From 1964 onwards Mr. Wright directed his skills to America and the Caribbean—he was an empire builder—and with the same results. By the end of 1964 the accumulated losses were just under £2 million. By the end of 1965 they were very nearly £3 million. When the crash eventually came in 1967 there were losses of £5·6 million. It was the depositors in Pinnock Finance (Great Britain) who financed these operations and lost their money.

The shareholders were at little risk because there was none, except Mr. Wright. As the investigation discovered, on at least four occasions share capital was subscribed in contravention of Section 54 of the Companies Act, 1948. The advertising literature of Pinnock, copies of which appear at the back of the report, was wholly and deliberately misleading, portraying, with an aura of glittering success, an outfit which was far more crooked than the train robbers.

It was, nevertheless, successful in extracting £13 million from depositors all over the world. The Sunday Times of 28th May, 1967, gave a breakdown of the countries from which deposits had come. From the United Kingdom had come £5 million; Africa £1¼ million; Eire £490.000; Europe £460,000; North America £410,000; Mediterranean countries £360,000; Latin America £349,000; the Far East £325,000; and Australasia £70,000.

Where did the money go? We know that £4½ million went to Australian companies belonging to Pinnock; £2,285,000 went to U.K. companies owned by Pinnock; £1 million went to Belgium; £¾ million to Pinnock companies in Eire; £145,000 to New Zealand; £110,000 to Switzerland; £100,000 to Malaysia; £40,000 to Holland; £15,000 to South Africa; and £10,000 to Pinnock companies in Panama.

The only people to benefit from this supreme example of private enterprise were Mr. Wright and a few of his associates. In March, 1964, two sums totalling £10,000 were paid direct to Mr. Wright by Mr. Wright from the depositors. Between March, 1965, and October, 1965, Mr. Wright paid £18,624 to Ladbroke and Company to settle his gambling debts. He loved going to the horses, and he took the depositors' money with him In July, 1965, Mr. Wright took another £1,000, and between July and September, 1966, he took another £30,500.

Other extractions by Mr. Wright and his associates are shown in paragraph 401 of the report. They include £1,000 paid to Mrs. Wright—goodness knows what she did for that—with £6,400 having been paid into Mr. Wright's account at Barclay's Bank at Nassau in the Bahamas.

The investigators concluded in paragraph 649(e):

"Despite the appalling, and we have no doubt deliberately engineered confusion with which we have been faced, we have been able very largely to account for the £9·2 million which was owing to depositors when the final collapse came in March, 1967. It will be seen from Appendix M that the total trading losses of Pinnock Finance (GB) and the associated companies were no less than £6·7 million. Mr. Wright (irrespective of his criminal liability) owes the companies £1 million. The estimated value of the assets at the time of the crash is £1·2 million. In the result there is left unaccounted for what can properly be described in the circumstances of this enquiry as a mere £250,000."

If one looks at paragraph 649(b) one sees a delicate touch of irony as we are told:

"We have certain doubts as the honesty of Mr. Wright's intentions when he started the business, particularly as there is clear evidence that over a period he converted funds of the companies to his own use."

The report continued:

"We are inclined to the view that once Mr. Wright had found the ready source of capital which the depositors provided, he was seized with a determination to set himself at the head of an industrial empire."

If I say that I could go on at length about this the Minister will appreciate how long that could be, for it would indeed take time to extract from the report all the squalor that is evident in this enterprise.

I come to the Government's responsibilities in this matter. As early as 1961 the companies' auditors were hoisting the warning signals that all was not well. Under the terms of the Protection of Depositors Act, 1963, Pinnock was required to file annual accounts with the Registrar of Companies in accordance with the Companies Act, 1948. In addition, under the Depositors Act, 1963, Pinnock had to submit six-monthly accounts to the then Board of Trade to enable it—that is, Pinnock—to continue advertising for deposits.

On these matters barren correspondence took place between the deaf and illiterate and the dishonest—between the Department and Pinnock—between September, 1963, and September, 1966. It must have been crystal clear to the Board of Trade at that time that all was not well with this organisation. Paragraph 530 of the report tells us:

"From our examination of the correspondence between the Board of Trade and Pinnock Finance (GB) we have formed the opinion that the Board of Trade entertained doubts as to the financial stability of Pinnock Finance (GB) and of the Pinnock Group as a whole The correspondence was mainly confined to specific questions on the form and content of the published accounts of Pinnock Finance (GB) and requests for details of movements between one set of accounts and the next. We appreciate that the authority of the Board of Trade to make additional enquiries is prescribed by statute, but we feel bound to question whether this authority is adequate in such circumstances in relation to companies seeking deposits from the public, and whether the provisions for enforcing Acts such as the Protection of Depositors Act are really sufficient to ensure that avoidance of the provisions for the protection of depositors can be detected. It is relevant in passing to note the extension of the Board's powers relating to insurance companies introduced in the Companies Act, 1967."

I have studied these matters as carefully as I can and the conclusion I am bound to reach is that the Board of Trade, as it then was, now the Department of Trade and Industry, stands accused of a colossal failure to carry out its administrative and statutory responsibilities to protect the interests of depositors in this instance. That can be said not only of this instance. For many years the Board of Trade has persistently failed to carrry out its statutory and administrative responsibilities to protect shareholders and depositors from sharks and criminals like Mr. Wright.

My information is that two-fifths of all companies fail to deposit their accounts to Companies House on the due date; that is to say, 200,000 companies out of half a million failed to deposit their accounts nine months after the end of the financial year. Yet according to the latest edition of company statistics of 1969, there were only 189 prosecutions in total. Why this unwillingness to compel companies to comply with the law?

There has been informed and sustained criticism of the Board of Trade, not only over Pinnock but over several years in this and other instances. An acocuntant with very great experience of these matters, Mr. R. Briscoe, is on record as saying that his experience is that the Board of Trade's administration of its duties, as contained in the Companies Act, for the protection of investors is "largely illusory". Professor Gower—I think he is a professor; he may be a doctor—a Law Commissioner and a former member of the Jenkins Committee, said in 1970:

"I hope that there is nothing in my book"—

He was writing a book on company law——

"which suggests that I am so naive as to suppose that the Board of Trade's investigatory powers are being exercised as effectively as they should be. I certainly had no illusions on that score. They"—

that is to say, the staff of the insurance and companies department of the Board of Trade——

"are almost forced to try to find excuses for not doing anything."

Morris Finer made similar condemnations at the British Congress on Crime in September, 1966. The Jenkins Committee on Company Law in 1962, in paragraph 500 of its report, used these words:

"We would however stress that the provision of additional powers will of itself achieve nothing; these powers will only serve a useful purpose if the Board of Trade in particular are prepared to invoke them by applying in proper cases for Court action against fraudulent, reckless and incompetent company directors."

All those warnings from responsible people—and they are only a few that I could quote—have been consistently and persistently ignored by the Department. So we get the monstrous frauds mixed with crass incompetence, such as the John Bloom case, the Savundra case, the V. & G. case, the Rolls-Royce case—and now Pinnock. How much longer shall we go on before the Government Department is alive to its responsibilities to protect people from the nefarious activities of these individuals?

I refer to a book which I borrowed from the Department itself, "The Control of Company Fraud", by Tom Hadden. I quote from page 313. He refers to the processes in company liquidation, and he continues:

"The flaws in this system are twofold. As we have seen, the large majority of cases in which prosecution reports are made never reach the trial stage. The need for action is swamped in the complex administrative tangle between the Court, which exercises a general jurisdiction over the liquidation, the Official Receiver who conducts it, and the Board of Trade and the Director of Public Prosecutions who alone have the authority to institute criminal proceedings. It is not unknown for the papers to be circulated back and forth from department to department with arguments for and against a prosecution until the whole matter is stale enough to be dropped."

That is exactly what is going to happen with Pinnock. But it will not be my fault if it does.

Mr. Hadden continues:

"Most of the cases in which proceedings are actually instituted are the more blatant trading frauds in which the main investigation is in the hands of the police. The fact that only a small fraction of the cases of company failure are subjected to any form of official scrutiny at all is perhaps even more significant."

That is damning evidence of the Government's incompetence and complacency in these matters.

Professor Gower has pointed out that in the United Kingdom few shareholders or depositors can obtain redress because of the extortionate cost of legal action. That being so, surely a greater responsibility devolves on the Government Department to carry out its statutory and administrative responsibilities fully, efficiently and fearlessly.

In the United States there is far greater protection for depositors and shareholders. Their apparatus in this field arose from the Senate inquiry following the great crash in 1929. That inquiry provided the basis for the whole of the apparatus now existing in the United States for protecting shareholders and depositors.

The Jenkins Committee, which reported in 1962, considered the formation of a United States-type of Securities and Exchange Commission. It is true that the Committee eventually came down against it, but with this proviso: that the D.T.I. should continue to exercise many of the functions of such a body, aided by an already-established Companies Act Consultative Committee. Jenkins specifically recommended that

"The Companies Act Consultative Committee should meet regularly to co-ordinate the experience of the various bodies concerned with the protection of investors, and this Committee should advise the Board of Trade (now the D.T.I.) of changes which they consider desirable in the administration of the law or in current practice to protect the investor."

What has happened since Jenkins? The Companies Act Consultative Committee has never met again. Having studied much of what the Jenkins Committee recommended, and having read the views of Mr. Tom Hadden, Professor Gower and others, I am convinced that only a Select Committee of this House can and should, and must, investigate the manner in which the D.T.I, exercises, or fails to exercise, its responsibilities regarding protection for investors and depositors, insurance policy holders and the like.

Meanwhile, I now invite, publicly, any of the Pinnock depositors who have lost their money to write to me urging me that the whole question of the maladministration within the D.T.I. be referred to the Ombudsman, the Parliamentary Commissioner. These scandals can no longer be swept under the carpet by what is probably the most incompetent, inefficient and irresponsible Department of Government.

Meanwhile, what has happened to Mr. Wright? He has just disappeared. Nobody knows where he is. Fifty police forces throughout the world are looking for him. He has got away with at least £1 million of depositors' money. For three years police all over the world have been trying to find this man. There may be some reason for believing that the D.T.I. knows where he is. The Department probably knows that he is in Australia but that to fetch him back would involve a lot of expense and work, and that many people would be involved in the prosecution and a lot of dirty linen would be washed in public. I suppose it is hoped in the Department that with the passing of time all will be forgotten; and Mr. Wright and his gang will be able to live happily ever afterwards.

The Director of Public Prosecutions has already blandly announced that, having regard to all the circumstances, no further action is to be taken at present. I wonder why. It is a scandal of such major proportions involving the honour and efficiency of the entire Government that it cannot be allowed to sink into oblivion. We were promised honest and open government. We must make sure that we get it.

In the Press in the last few weeks we have read stories about old-age pensioners being hounded by the Inland Revenue because of mistakes which the Inland Revenue made. We have read that pensioners are due to repay up to £200 and that pensioners who were hoping to enjoy their retirement had had to return to work to get the money to pay the £200 to the Inland Revenue at £1 a week.

We hound those people. We do not hound Pinnock. This is not going to be swept under the carpet. I shall see to that. I shall take all the steps that lie within my power to ensure that these people are brought to book and that the Department of Trade and Industry lives up to its responsibility and discharges the functions given to it by Parliament.

I will not follow the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) in reiterating our contempt for Mr. Ross Wright, so accurately described as an arch villain. My concern, which the hon. Gentleman touched on at the end of his speech, is more with the part played by the Board of Trade and by the Law Officers in this matter.

The initial police inquiry was conducted by a detective constable who, however diligent, could not possibly begin to understand the complexities he was dealing with. I hope that our present Law Officers will learn a lesson from this and will take action accordingly in advising the police.

I have already tabled a Question to the Secretary of State about the Pinnock Finance Company, because I am convinced that the then Board of Trade was negligent in its judgment during the period 1964 to 1967. Those three years covered the period of the investigation before the Pinnock Finance Company crashed and announced that it was unable to repay its deposits.

The Board of Trade had adequate powers under the Protection of Depositors Act, 1963, which it patently neglected to use. I say this on two grounds. First, Pinnock failed to provide audited accounts for all its companies, and, second, from the information then available it was obvious that the rapid increase in new deposits had provided the funds for the repayment of earlier deposits. Both of these points are clearly specified and provided for in the 1963 Act.

Regrettably, the Ministry is not able to obtain outside financial and accounting advice when considering these matters, so it was the Department's responsibility to have a highly qualified professional team to ensure that the interest of the small saver was protected, this being the purpose of the 1963 legislation.

Pinnock had about 9,000 depositors—4,000 in Britain and 5,000 overseas. The total of deposits was about £8 million. The deposits were invested as unsecured loans with associate companies throughout the world, notably in Australia. This is how the Pinnock Directors circumvented the Companies Act, specifically by creating associated companies instead of subsidiaries usually with an interim nominal share capital. This was his means of operating. Our legislation needs to take this into account. No wonder these companies failed to produce accounts, because in some cases they did not even exist, certainly not as trading entities.

Why, therefore, did not the Board of Trade insist on all these accounts at that time being made available?

My criticism is of those civil servants in the Department of Trade and Industry who conducted the investigation in the period 1964 to 1967. Because of their negligence thousands of small depositors have suffered great financial hardship. Justice must be done. It is only right that the guilty civil servants should be rooted out and sacked.

I am not satisfied with previous inquiries, including that of the Ombudsman, about this company, and I serve notice now that I intend to press for a complete re-examination of the whole Pinnock affair.

I want, first, to deal with the last point made by the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton), who I believe has raised this matter in a perfectly right and proper way. This is a most unfortunate story and one which will benefit from public analysis and debate in the measured tones which the hon. Gentleman used in delivering his speech.

The Inspectors' report was received by the Department on 30th April, 1970, and referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions. As the hon. Gentleman has said, the report did not lead to prosecutions. The question of prosecution is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend, the Attorney-General. In answer to a Question on 24th May, 1971, he said that

"the Director decided in June 1970"

after discussion with my right hon. and learned Friend

"that, having regard to the nature of the available evidence, police inquiries would not have been warranted at this stage".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th May, 1971; Vol. 818, c. 25.]

I can add nothing to that answer. As I have said, it is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend.

However, I should like to state categorically that there is no knowledge of the whereabouts of Mr. Ross Wright and that the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that we know where Mr. Ross Wright is but are not prepared to do anything about it is untrue.

Second, I want to make one point about the publication of this report. Although there was no prospect of criminal prosecution, there was the possibility that the liquidators of Pinnock Finance Company and its associated companies might wish to bring civil proceedings against persons whose conduct was dealt with in the Inspectors' report.

I had, therefore, to consider whether publication of the report would prejudice civil proceedings. The views of the liquidators were sought in July, 1970, which they felt unable to give until they had obtained legal advice. It was not until February, 1971 that the liquidators informed me that they would raise no objection to publication. Arrangements for publication were put in hand immediately, and the report was published on 6th May, 1971. The consultations with the liquidators took some time, but I am satisfied that there was no undue delay and that the report was published as quickly as possible.

The question whether, and if so when, a report such as this should be published is not so simple as it might seem. Publication could prejudice possible criminal proceedings, and premature publication could adversely affect civil proceedings and the interests of creditors. I do not think one can lay down any simple rule. The balance of advantage differs according to the circumstances of such cases. In this case there was no doubt. There was an overwhelming public interest in favour of publication; and I did all that I could to ensure that it took place.

The events took place up to ten years ago and under the last three Administrations. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman did not try to make political capital out of this. I wish he had left out his implied connection between these events and private enterprise, for what we are dealing with is a straightforward case of fraud. What we must do is to try and learn any lessons from it that we can for the future. I want, therefore, to discuss some of the points arising from the very full report of the inspectors, and in so doing I shall deal with many of the points which the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Coombs) put before the House.

A large part of the assets of the Pinnock Finance Company consisted of loans to its associated companies abroad, particularly those incorporated in and operating in Australia. If the associated companies could not repay those loans, Pinnock was insolvent. We now know, from the inspectors' report, that the associated companies were in no position to repay and that for some years the auditors, even if they were not certain that that was the position, had suspected or had grounds to suspect that it was.

In the period up to 1967, the fact that the auditors' reports were unqualified averted the Department from entertaining suspicions on this vital point strong enough to cause it to use its very considerable powers to require books and papers to be produced, to appoint inspectors, or, in certain circumstances, to petition for the company to be wound up. It is primarily a matter for the auditors to satisfy themselves that overseas investments have the value which the directors claim for them.

The Protection of Depositors Act came into force in October, 1963, but even under that Act we do not have powers to compel a company to produce the accounts of its associated companies when those companies are situated abroad. This is a matter which we have already considered carefully, but I believe that it would not be feasible for United Kingdom law to force the production of the accounts of overseas companies which are not subject to British jurisdiction. Nor would there be any way of checking their accuracy even if they were produced.

On this point, I am sure that the House will agree that we must continue to rely upon auditors to satisfy themselves as to the value of assets shown in company balance sheets. Officials cannot conceivably take over the work of auditors in this or, for that matter, any other similar field.

The company had three auditors in the period from its incorporation in 1959 to its announcement in 1967 that it could not repay its depositors. The first auditor completed his report on the accounts for 1960 and started work on his audit of the accounts for 1961. He raised with the directors a number of points which needed to be satisfactorily explained to him if he was not to conclude that at the end of 1961 the company was insolvent. He was not given satisfactory explanations. He sought legal advice about what to do and was advised to resign, which he did. When his successor as auditor had been appointed, he explained to him the reasons for his resignation, and he drew attention to the points which he had raised with the company's directors. He did not, as the hon. Gentleman said, hoist warning signals at all, apart from the fact that he warned his successor.

The second auditor, despite the information given to him by his predecessor, felt able to give unqualified certificates on the accounts for each of the four years 1961 to 1964. The inspectors said that it was clear that he was grossly negligent.

The third auditor reported on the accounts for one year only: he gave an unqualified report for 1965. The inspectors were inclined to the view that this auditor was very much out of his depth when dealing with the affairs of this company.

So the company had an able auditor who resigned rather than give a qualified report, a negligent auditor, and an auditor with insufficient experience to compete properly with the work he took on.

These events raise important questions. The first is whether the first auditor was right to resign without alerting anyone other than his successor. No doubt, on the legal advice he received, he acted correctly. But wider questions of his responsibility to the depositors arise. Had he informed the Department of his suspicions, it is likely that action would have been taken back in 1962. The second point is that the second auditor was, to quote the report, "grossly negligent", and the third auditor was "out of his depth". One asks how they came to be allowed to practise. Again, a hint from either of these auditors would have alerted the Department.

The Government are not satisfied on either of these matters, and I intend to discuss them with the professional bodies concerned in the near future, with a view to possible action.

The next and key question asked by both the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend is whether, despite being lulled by the unqualified reports of the auditors, the Department, then the Board of Trade, should have concluded from its examination of the company's accounts and its and its discussions with the company's directors and officers that the company was probably insolvent. There is no doubt from the inspectors' report that officials were suspicious. The key question is whether these suspicions should have caused them to take action earlier than they did. This must be a matter of judgment.

Two independent experts have investigated this question. First, the Parliamentary Commissioner has examined these events, and, no doubt, hon. Gentlemen have seen his conclusion, that there was no maladministration. He said:

"With the benefit of hindsight, I have considered whether the Board of Trade might be criticised for not pressing the company for further information especially about the finances of the overseas associated companies; but a scrutiny of the accounts and of the information available to the Board at the time has satisfied me that the officials concerned were not lacking in competence in not finding evidence of insolvency".

He has declined to initiate a further investigation on the ground that no new evidence has been produced to cause him to change his mind. Second, the inspector's report has been published. Nowhere does it censure officials.

On this key question, therefore, of whether, despite the assurance of unqualified auditors' reports, the Department should have realised that the company was insolvent, the answer must be "No". It is easy to condemn the Department with the advantage of hindsight, but that is, perhaps, a common human failing.

Nevertheless, the inspectors' report suggests to the Government certain lessons which can be learned for the future. They are, first, the matters concerning the auditors with which I have already dealt. I shall follow these up, as I have already said.

Second, that there should be an even greater degree of scepticism in the minds of the officials who deal with these difficult matters in the future. I assure the House that that lesson has been taken very much to heart.

Third, that amendment of the Protection of Depositors Act should be considered in the manner suggested in paragraph 530 of the Inspectors' report, which the hon. Gentleman quoted. The inspectors questioned whether the statutory authority of the Department to make inquiries is sufficient. We are reviewing this matter, and I shall report to the House the result of that review in due course. I am bound to say, however, that we do not think that it will be easy to get round the difficulty of obtaining the accounts of overseas companies, for the reasons I have described. But we shall certainly consider whether there are other ways in which the Protection of Depositors Act should be strengthened.

I share strongly and fully, as do the Government as a whole, the hon. Gentleman's sympathy for the unfortunate depositors who were the victims of this miserable fraud. There is, I am afraid, no right of compensation for them.

I have touched on ways by which we may be able to lessen the chance of such an affair occurring again. We are very alive to the problem. But the Government can never guarantee that frauds and cheats, even incompetent persons, will not set up in business again. There is always a risk in any investment, and investors, too, have a duty to be careful where they place their savings.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to raise in the House a matter which, though it may appear parochial, reflects a situation which prevails in many parts of the country. I refer to unemployment in the City of Leicester and the Leicester area—an area which has enjoyed prosperity throughout the centuries but which, in common with many similar parts of the country, is beginning to suffer from the effects of severe unemployment.

I know full well that Leicester's unemployment is not at a level such as that which afflicts Glasgow, for example—my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Gorbals (Mr. McElhone) will be referring in the next debate to the tragic situation in his constituency—but I hope that the Minister will not answer the matters which I raise by telling my unemployed constituents that they are better off than people in other areas. If a man is unemployed in Leicester he is as badly off as if he were unemployed in Glasgow or anywhere else. If he has not got the work with which to feed his family, to earn his living, to preserve his self-respect, he is indeed, in a way, worse off in an area where there are more people at work than in one in which it is felt that unemployment is a commonplace. It is bad everywhere to be unemployed, and I beg the Minister not to offer spurious consolation to the 4,300-odd people now unemployed in the Leicester area, or to their families, because they will not thank him for it. Neither should he address this sort of consolation to over 1,000 work people who have been warned that they will be made redundant shortly, and to whom I shall refer in detail, the majority of them coming from one Dunlop plant in my constituency, St. Mary's Mills.

The background is simple. Right through the centuries, going back to the time of Wolsey and beyond, the hard work and effort of the people of Leicester have kept the area prosperous. Even in the grim days of the depression, in the 1930s, Leicester, thanks to its boot and shoe industries, hosiery and a wide variety of light engineering, managed to remain prosperous. Now, for the first time, my constituents are seeing very substantial unemployment and the probability of greater unemployment in the future.

Time and again I am asked the same question: who is next? If the Rolls-Royce plant at Mount Sorrel can go; if the Dunlop plant which has been working for 104 years can be closed down, who next will have to apply for social security benefit? V/ho next will lose a job which, in many cases, is in a trade or profession followed by his grandfather and father before him?

The position today has been very clearly and well set out by the Leicester Chronicle, a paper to which I am greatly indebted for the careful survey which it carried out recently. I wish to refer to the memorial to lost jobs; to the death of a series of excellent companies or plants set out in the Chronicle of 14th May. Each of these redundancies has an unhappy tale to tell for the people involved, and an unhappy moral for others likely to be placed in the same position. This is only the memorial from 8th February this year:

"February 8: 87 employees at the Stoughton Street, Leicester, factory of Rank Precision Industries to be made redundant. Redundancies spread through all sections—management, supervisory and shop floor workers, semiskilled and unskilled."

Unemployment is no longer simply the problem of the unskilled worker and the labourer. It is also the problem of the executive, the manager, the man who has fought his way through his university examinations and emerged to find that there is no longer work for him.

The reason given for the redundancies at Rank Precision Industries was:

"Cutback in overseas business, particularly with the USA."

"February 11: More than 200 workers in the making-up department of Robinson and Pickford (1928) Ltd., Leicester knitwear manufacturers (who employ 230 people) to be made redundant 'within the next few weeks.'

"Reason given: Company's unaudited losses of £104,000, sustained last year, were worse than originally forecast."

That is the knitwear industry, a staple industry of Leicester.

"February 18: Holyoake and Brown, Great Central Street, Leicester, one of city's old established small family shoe manufacturing firms to close 'within the next few weeks', making about 40 operatives redundant.

"Reason given: Adverse trading conditions in shoe trade over many years."

The boot and shoe trade is another staple industry upon which Leicester has survived and flourished over the years.

"February 23: Fredk. Parker Ltd., engineers, Viaduct Works, Catherine Street, Leicester, announce redundancies for 87 of their 1,200 labour force. All grades affected.

"Reason given: Order book decline 'brought about by the situation prevailing in this country and abroad'."

"February 26: North Bridge Engineering Company pay off 43 men in their forging and precision fasteners division at their plant and Aylestone Lane, Wigston factory.

"Reason given: Substantial cuts in production programme 'as a result of the Rolls-Royce situation'."

The Mount Sorrel works closes and the Rolls-Royce situation affects the subcontractors, and all over the Leicester area there are sub-contractors of Rolls-Royce.

"February 26: Cannon and Stokes, Leicester engineers, announce redundancies for 43 men. Men drawn from a variety of trades, including turners, inspectors, labourers and machinists. Mainly those with less than 12 months service with firm.

"Reason given: Lack of orders following the Rolls-Royce collapse, 'particularly the parts being made for the RB-211'."

That is light engineering, the type of industry which has kept Leicester and similar cities flourishing.

"March 19: Morton Potter Ltd., building and civil engineering contractors of Barkby Road, Leicester, to close as builders. Decision makes whole of their 82 staff and employees redundant. However, firm to remain in existence after disposal of assets, as property and investment company."

That will hardly be a consolation for the employees.

"Reason given: The economic state of the country and the building industry."

"March 30: The Herbert B.S.A. company announce they are to close their Sanvey Gate, Leicester, factory. About 180 jobs lost, including those of 12 apprentices. Sam Barston, A.E.F. district secretary, says, 'This is the biggest blow so far as a single factory is concerned'."

He said that before we learnt of the Dunlop plant. I am happy to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Mr. Barston and his trade union colleagues for the work they are doing in the present potentially disastrous situation. The reason given for the Herbert B.S.A. decision was:

"Continuing decline in orders for machine tools."

"April 5: Lingerie and knitwear firm of B. and R. Mellors Ltd., Northampton Street, Leicester, reveal they have made 40 women operatives redundant in last fortnight.

"Reason given: Adjustment to manufacturing requirements."

For the first time we have women being affected by unemployment, this in an area where far more wives than the national average go out to work.

"April 6: Further batch of 120 redundancies announced by Rank Precision Industries. Latest batch involves people 'right across the board' at the East Park Road, Gipsy Lane and Lee Circle premises.

"Reason given: Word trade recession."

"April 16: 'Black Friday'. Fight to keep Dunlop's St. Mary's Mills, Leicester, in operation reported as 'finally lost'. Prospects of complete closure by end of March, '72, and loss of 670 jobs."

I am told that that should read "over 800 jobs".

"Reason given: Unprofitable position in the cycle tyre market."

"April 20: One bright spot as news comes that sackings at the Braunstone works of Reid and Sigrist, about 70 since Christmas, have now been halted."

Thank heavens for that!

"April 26: United Shoe Machinery Corporation International to close Craven Street, Leicester, unit of subsidiary, Elta Plastics Ltd. Jobs of 49 people to go."

They are the people who make the machinery to make the shoes.

"Reason given: Changing styles in women's footwear"—

as if styles in women's footwear have not been changing through the centuries.

"'Decision does not reflect fortunes of shoe industry', says Elta company secretary."

I beg to differ.

"April 29: A. James Portch Ltd., Leicester manufacturers of skirts, slacks and sportswear announce they are to close factory by end of June. Business to be transferred to Scotland. About 100 employees affected.

"Reason given: Local staff recruitment difficulties."

I shall invite the Minister shortly to conduct a full and thorough inquiry into whether the reasons for some of the closures, including that of A. James Portch Ltd., is the transfer of work and factories to other areas where incentives are given to indus- tries to open. I am not suggesting for a moment that the Government should cease to attract industries to development areas. What matters to me is that they should not allow Leicester itself to become a development area. There should not be a re-deployment of unemployment, but that has been the effect so far of the Government's policies during the last nine months.

I come to 6th May:

"Calverleys, the Leicester-based firm of building and joinery contractors announce appointment of receiver to take charge of group's affairs. Labour force cut from 1,000 plus to 322 over a period of time.

"Reason given: Critical state of the liquidity of the group's fund brought about by escalating costs of two large fixed-priced contracts."

I shall refer later in some detail to Messrs. Calverley.

On 7th and 10th May there were two bright spots, 40 new jobs in one trade, a sports and scholastic clothing contractors, and 80 new jobs in a knitwear manufacturers, Britella Ltd., Frog Island. About 110 new jobs to be set against job losses running into thousands.

On 11th May there was good news. Another 100 operatives are recruited by Ladies' Pride Outerwear Limited, and we are grateful to Ladies' Pride which has a booming order book.

The picture of Leicester's unemployed can be summed up in this way: January, 1970, 2,754; April, 2,735; I do not have the figure for June, but I think it right to say that when the Government took power, the figure was certainly less than 3,000. January, 1971, 3,185; April, 4,302. What a shameful increase that is! To that must be added the Dunlop men, if the company carries out its expressed intention to close that plant. Adding to that 160 more, to whom I shall refer, and we have a figure of actual and prospective redundancies which may have nearly doubled in the course of 12 months. That shows the seriousness of the problem, not only the people now out of work, but the fact that the problem is getting worse and snowballing, and nobody knows who will be next.

On Friday, 21st May, the Leicester Mercury was announcing once again that there were redundancies at three firms and that 160 more workers were to get the sack. Again I pay tribute to the local Press for the way in which it has drawn attention to the trends in the Leicester area. But it is said to find the papers so often telling a continuation of this unpleasant news.

"William Cotton Ltd., the Loughborough knitting machine manufacturers, are to make 111 hourly-paid workers redundant and a number of staff employees may also have to be laid off, Alfred Herbert Ltd., the machine tool manufacturers, are to make 27 "white coat" workers at their Lutterworth factory redundant and Wolsey Ltd. are to make 26 redundant at their Bruin Street works in Leicester. Cotton's say their redundancies are due to lack of orders. The decision cames as a bombshell for the workers involved."

Of course it did. There has been a series of bombshells in the Leicester area, becoming progressively more serious, because, of course, the more people there are looking for jobs and the fewer jobs there are, the more hardship comes into the life of my constituents.

I now turn specifically to Dunlop and to that "Black Friday" to which the Leicester Chronicle referred. St. Mary's Mill has been open for 104 years. Its closure throws light on the most desperate miseries of this problem. It is said by the Government from time to time that bad labour relations play their part in the present unemployment situation. Leicester boasts excellent labour relations and always has. In the 104 years of the operation of this plant at St. Mary's Mill, I am told, precisely one day has been lost through disputes. That closure certainly cannot be blamed on bad labour relations.

Indeed, the four Leicester City Members were happy to receive the shop stewards from the plant in a delegation to the House of Commons. They were highly intelligent and articulate men and women, many of whose grandparents and parents had worked in the plant. They had negotiated with the local management, with whom they were on the best of terms.

Last October, they were told that the cycle shop was to close, and immediately they took steps to increase productivity, to lower management costs and to lower labour costs. But that did not save their livelihoods.

There have been no so-called excessive wage demands, if such things exist, certainly not in Dunlop. That factor has contributed nothing to the proposed end of that excellent plant. Nor is there any question of a lack of productivity.

One is entitled to ask what the reason is, and one is told that Dunlop propose to open another plant elsewhere. I ask the Minister on behalf of the workers, because I understand that they have not been able lo ascertain this from the top management, whether there is to be a transfer of resources from an area in Leicester which is starting to suffer from severe unemployment to another area which has greater unemployment. Is this a redeployment of unemployment? Will the Minister inquire, so that people will know what the situation is?

The Chairman of Dunlop has been good enough to indicate his willingness to meet local Members of Parliament and we look forward to discussing the matter with him. We have had considerable courtesy from the management, but one dares to hope that this fine, long-standing and excellent enterprise will not be killed off and certainly not because there is a greater tax incentive to open another plant elsewhere. By all means let us open another plant elsewhere, but let us not create unemployment, particularly among people who have worked in the same plant loyally and, in many cases, for generations.

That presents another example of the difficulties created by the unemployment of skilled people. When an unskilled man, or a man with skills wanted in many industries, is made unemployed, there is a reasonable hope that he will find a job in the area where he lives. But in the Dunlop plant there are men who are rubber workers and who have striven in that part of the industry, often for generations. That is their skill; that is their talent. If they are dismissed, where are they to find employment? Where else is there a rubber plant to give work to these good people? There is one other Dunlop plant, so far as I know, in Leicester. The position is very unhappy.

I ask the Minister specifically to comment, not only upon the economic aspects of such closures, but on the human element, because unemployment is not just a question of money, not just a question of enterprises making more money by transferring work elsewhere, but a question of human beings whose families have to be looked after and who are entitled as of right to work.

I referred to Messrs. Calverleys, a longstanding building firm. Here is a clear indication of the snowball effect of unemployment. In my constituency, there is a housing estate, Wyggeston Gardens, an estate of some 200 homes, fairly modest and fairly small, but often lived in by people who have spent their life savings on buying these new homes from Messrs. Calverleys. A lot of these constituents are elderly.

A short time ago, they asked me to a meeting held in a shop owned by one of them. It was packed with people with complaints about construction jobs not being done—problems concerning the public areas, of fences shown on the plans and the show houses but not available—and complaints concerning defects in building. I took this matter up, and received and immediate and courteous reply from the chairman of the company on 30th April. He said:

"In summary, it is our intention to finish off all the external works so as to get the roads, paths and open areas up to adoption standards during May. We are investigating and carrying out remedial works on the six other complaints."

A matter of days later, the firm wrote once again to point out that it was now going into liquidation and was sorry but the circumstances had changed. It said:

"The attached letter was written to you the week before last… Since then the appointment of a Receiver has been made for the Company. At the present time we are unfortunately not in a position to deal with the complaints which were the Company's responsibility but this should be determined in the near future."

When unemployment comes, it hits not only those who are unemployed. It hits the people who were creditors in one sense or another of the company concerned. When people become unemployed, not only does their self-respect suffer but they cease to be producers. They are fully entitled to unemployment benefit; they have earned it and they need it. But they do not want to live that way. Nor, indeed, is it to the advantage of the community that they should live that way. Once they receive unemployment benefit, it affects the tax position of the rest. And the unemployed cease to be good customers of local shops and industries and house builders. So the snow- ball continues to roll and all are affected. It is easier to stop unemployment at its inception, before it gets really serious, than it is to roll the snowball back up the hill when the situation gets desperate.

Who, then, are the unemployed in Leicester? There is a complete range of them. The young people so far have not been badly affected and I hope that they will not be. It is very serious when children leaving school cannot find work. Nothing can be worse.

The family is affected. If it is the father, there is the demoralising effect of having to live off his wife's pay while he is looking for work and of knowing that the children know that their father is not wanted.

Then there are the older people—and by that I include even those in their 40s—people who are no longer sought after because they have not got so many years working life ahead of them. Once they reach the 50s and the 60s and find themselves unemployed, it is very difficult for them to get other work. I hope that the Minister will make reference to the problems of the elderly, who are just as entitled to work, who are fully entitled to look forward to a dignified retirement and who should not have to eat up their savings because they are prematurely retired.

The results in Leicester are getting serious. What is to be done? First, I ask the Government to provide a greater stimulation for industry. The Budget has not been enough. It made a start in that direction, but it was too little. It is not getting through.

Secondly, there should be an end to the ignoring of the problem of Leicester's unemployment and the unemployment in other cities that have been prosperous and are starting not to be. I welcome the emphasis upon the development areas, but I beg the Government not to allow my constituency and the area around it to turn into a development area. The problem of the unemployed in Leicester should be regarded as serious now, because, to the 4,000 people now unemployed and the 1,000 others who know that they are to be made redundant, the position is already very serious. There should be an end to this drift into disaster.

Thirdly, there should be a Government inquiry into the transfers of assets and products and work from one area to another. It is right that the development areas should be assisted; it is wrong that unemployment should redeployed so that one provides employment in one area in return for providing unemployment in another.

Fourthly, there should be energetic retraining of unemployed people, where necessary. I want to know how many officers are specifically employed by the Department to look after the unemployed. I suspect that this is one area in which the Government have succeeded in creating a good deal more jobs than before.

The questions which have been raised, and which I am grateful to have had an opportunity to air, affect actually or potentially everyone in my constituency, whether he be a shop floor worker, an unskilled worker, a highly skilled operative, an executive or a senior manager. Jobs at every level are being lost. The situation is deteriorating and I ask the Government to take urgent steps now to deal with it and never again to provide the sort of answer given to me yesterday at Question Time which said, in effect, "Oh, well! There are places which are worse off." Indeed there are, but I trust that Leicester will not be allowed to join the ranks of those cities where unemployment becomes endemic and chronic. I hope that it will not be too long before my constituents cease to ask that dreadful and anguished question when they see firms closing and redundancies increasing—"Who is next?". That is a question which should not have to be asked in this modern age.

I am glad to have had the opportunity to listen to the arguments so powerfully put forward by the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Greville Janner). Notwithstanding his dissatisfaction with an answer he received yesterday—not from me—I think that he should realise, and I hope that Leicester will realise, that, while we understand Leicester's problems, we have to look at the whole of the country. It is only by doing that that we can assess a proper policy.

The hon. and learned Gentleman has quite fairly acknowledged that the unemployment situation in the Leicester area, although a little less favourable than in recent years, still does not give the same cause for concern as do some of the harder hit parts of the country. I am afraid, whether he and Leicester like it or not, that I must point out. in order to get the matter into perspective, that the provisional May percentage rate for Leicester of 2 per cent. is well below the corresponding rate for the East Midland region, at 3 per cent., and the national average, at 3·3 per cent.

In saying this I would not wish for one moment to belittle the personal problems and anxieties which the loss of a job inevitably brings about. In quoting statistics I am very much aware that it is human beings and not percentage points that is involved. The hon. Gentleman was absolutely correct when he said that unemployment is unpleasant under a Conservative Government as it is under a Labour Government. Unemployment is the unpleasant fact. Nevertheless statistics are a fair indication of the situation, which is by no means unfavourable. The number of vacancies reported to the Department of Employment for women and girls considerably exceeds the number registered as unemployed and nearly 1,000 vacancies are on record for men and boys.

The right hon. Gentleman has directed some criticism at the operation of the Government's regional policies, and I must remind him that for many years successive Governments have operated regional policies aimed at giving priority in the encouragement of new industry to those parts of the country which have to contend with decline in their own established industries.

I was relieved to find that he was not suggesting a lowering of priorities at the expense of Scotland, Wales or the assisted areas of England. I accept that all policies need to be examined from time to time to ensure that it is right to retain the objectives and also to ensure that the methods of attaining those objectives are the most effective possible in the circumstances. This is exactly what we have done recently with regional policy.

The present framework of assistance will enable industry to make investment decisions in future with confidence. When we came into office we set in hand a detailed study of regional policies, which included a thorough examination of areas throughout the country with problems of unemployment and slow growth. We found that against the background of rising unemployment since 1966 the older industrial conurbations of Scotland and the North-East stood out as exhibiting disturbingly high and persistent levels of unemployment while facing massive problems of dereliction and industrial decline.

The policies pursued by the previous Administration simply have not succeeded in counteracting the trends that have led to the situation. It was left to this Government to give priority to those older conurbations by designating the new special development area to direct regional assistance to vital and profitable firms and to link it more closely to the increase of jobs where needed and to make reforms in taxation necessary to give industry confidence to carry out the investment and expansion required for national and regional progress.

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the policies of this Government are certainly not intended merely to shuffle and shift unemployment about the place. They are much more deeply conceived than that. The hon. Member was worried lest there should be a loss of industry from Leicester to the assisted areas. Again I am sure that he will appreciate that any anxiety he has on this front ought to be greeted with pleasure by his hon. Friends or my hon. Friends in assisted areas where industry is so badly needed.

A word now about I.D.C. control. It is true that not all applications for these certificates for the Leicester area have been approved. The operation of I.D.C. control has been recognised by successive administrations as an essential part of regional policy. Beyond question I should be heavily criticised from both sides of the House if I were not to do all in my power to direct the attention of industrialists seeking to expand towards those parts of the country where unemployment has for many years been a grave and difficult problem. I do not think that the Government administer the I.D.C. policy in an insensitive way. Every application is carefully considered and we do all in our power to ensure that full weight is given to the arguments put forward with each application.

No policy which is aimed at establishing priorities and setting an individual plan in the framework of a national need can please everyone all the time. Nevertheless it is essential that we have an I.D.C. policy, that it should be administered firmly but flexibly and that is the policy of this Government.

I know Leicester, I have been there a number of times. I was there shortly before Christmas and I know that it is a clean and attractive city with a considerable diversity of industry. It is true that some sectors of industry have found it necessary to reduce their labour force recently.

The hon. Gentleman referred to a number of firms. In particular, he referred to Dunlop. We have had no indication that the Dunlop work is to be moved elsewhere. I do not propose to comment on the individual firms concerned because decisions to cut back employment are difficult and unwelcome for management to make, but they are essentially decisions for management. Any enterprise which is carrying too great a burden of wage costs, whether by employing excessive numbers or by granting unreasonable wage demands, is putting its viability at risk and so jeopardising the jobs of all its workers. Movement from job to job is part of the pattern of employment, and the resources of the Department of Employment stand ready to assist all who have to make such a move. In a city such as Leicester there is a variety of industry and of employment which many parts of the country may well envy.

The hon. Gentleman asked me for statistics about the number of employment officers. I regret that I cannot give him that information today because it is a matter for the Department of Employment, but I will ensure that a request is conveyed to the Department and no doubt it will be able to give him the figures in due course. However, the Government recognise the importance of making full use of the skills and abilities of people of all ages. Staff in employment exchanges do all they can to persuade employers not to impose age limits on the jobs they are trying to fill and to engage men and women who can do the job whatever their age.

Under an extension of the Department of Employment's vocational training scheme announced on 25th March professional and executive staff aged 40 and over who have been registered as unemployed for 13 weeks or more may receive financial assistance for short courses above craft level with employers or attend suitable courses where they are available at colleges of further education.

Under a new scheme introduced on 1st January employers in development and intermediate areas—which is not Leicester—who engaged and undertake to retrain workers aged 45 and over who have been unemployed for at least eight weeks can qualify for grants from the Department of Employment. The problem of unemployment among older professional and executive staff is much the same for all parts of the country.

While placings in Leicester decreased in recent months, they nevertheless averaged 330 a month for men and 100 for women in the first four months of this year. A computer vacancy job bank has been set up to help workers affected by Rolls-Royce redundancies. Leicester is one of the offices receiving copies of the computer printout. Plans are in hand to outhouse unemployment benefit work at Leicester and modernise the existing office to provide better facilities for employment work. The Occupational Guidance Service at Leicester was strengthened in October, 1970.

Leicester has been noted for many years for its bustling prosperity, and the slight check to its progress which has been noticeable recently is, I am convinced, only temporary. The area has an underlying strength and confidence which will ensure that as business confidence is re-established by the policies we are continuing the upward trend will be restored. As the hon. Member will be aware from the answer to his Question earlier this week, which he did not like, unemployment in the Leicester area is still considerably below the national average. This bodes well for the future when the economy starts to move again.

When will that be?

It will be very much quicker than was the case in the four years between 1966 and 1970.

I have been abroad recently on a number of occasions engaged in trade activities, and I can assure the House that Leicester's industrial skill and the expertise of those engaged in it are widely respected overseas. This, I think, also can give cause for confidence. I believe the locality will benefit from the stimulation of business confidence at which the present Government's policies are aimed. To bring this about, these are the sort of things which the hon. Gentleman and his friends and, I hope, the Leicester Chronicle, will be publicising, if they wish, as I believe they certainly do wish, to attract industry and to bring prosperity to that area, because once this has been achieved, once the Government's economic policies have taken effect, I believe the future prospects for Leicester's industry and its people are excellent.

In thanking you, Mr. Speaker, most sincerely for the privilege of debating the question of unemployment in Glasgow, I may say to you and to the Minister that it is somewhat ironical that nearly 50 years ago one of my illustrious predecessors, George Buchanan, was sent from the city to fight and argue in some of the same troubles we are facing today. A group of elderly people in Glasgow yesterday pointed out to me the similarity, and the growing similarity, between the conditions facing Glasgow today and those Glasgow was facing in the 1920s.

At the present time in Glasgow we have a shocking 10 per cent. of male unemployment, and a total of 38,000 men and women looking for jobs in the city and finding it extremely difficult indeed.

Within that figure there are two very disturbing aspects. The one I myself find the most disturbing and the most serious is that we have 2,200 school-leavers still looking for jobs, and this figure, I must tell the House, will be very much aggravated in June when several hundreds more school-leavers come on to the labour market. This is most serious indeed, and it is disturbing me and many of my friends in the trade unions that the employers are not taking on apprentices, and not taking on young people. This must be catastrophic for both the city and the West of Scotland in five, ten, twenty years' time when employers in industry will be looking for an adequate pool of skilled labour.

Another fact which is disturbing is that graduates of the two universities in the city are finding it difficult to find places in commerce and industry. We are seeing a repetition of the 'fifties, when many of these young people, professional people, highly-skilled technocrats, were having to leave this country and go abroad to get the sorts of positions which would justify the time spent on their education. The people of Glasgow, the people of Scotland, the people of the country as a whole, spend a great deal of money educating these young people, and if we are to get growth at any time, if we are to get what we require to pay for our welfare services, we shall need these contributions, these are of the type of people we need in Glasgow and in the West of Scotland. The fact that industries such as Rolls-Royce and I.C.I. have not been coming forward to employ such young people constitutes a very serious situation indeed.

I accept the point made in the local Press, that this is the worst unemployment situation since the beginning of the Second World War. So concerned is Glasgow Corporation that on 13th May it decided to make an immediate approach to the Prime Minister. It will be an all-party delegation which will come down to make

"an immediate approach to the Government for special action to be taken to alleviate the consequences of factory and other closures and to inaugurate a programme of work including acceleration of housing to provide employment in the city.'"

That is the point which will be made by the Lord Provost and the all-Party delegation. This is after the "special aids" offered by the Prime Minister; they are not nearly adequate enough to meet the needs of Glasgow in its present situation.

The Bank of Scotland, in a recent statement, said that it was preparing for a "wave of bankruptcies" amongst its clients in the coming year. This indicates how deeply disturbed are the people who handle commerce and industry from the financial side. I hope the Minister will grasp the serious implications of these statements.

One always asks what lies behind the figures and who is to blame. The Government continually blame the high wage claims of the unions, but if wages did not keep ahead of prices the purchasing power in the pockets of the people would be inadequate and further unemployment would follow.

We are told that the trade unions with their wage claims are pricing themselves out of the industrial market, but I have recently studied some figures given in the monthly Survey of Business Conditions in the United Kingdom for May, 1971. They show that unit labour costs in the United Kingdom were 9·8 per cent. higher in 1970 than in 1969, but the increase in Italy was 10·9 per cent., while in Germany, which is at present being counted by the Minister, there was a staggering increase of 12·1 per cent. These industrial countries seem able to manage their economy much better than we do, and they do not have anything like the situation that is growing in Glasgow.

My firm conviction, and that of my hon. Friends, that the abolition of investment grants, the gradual abolition of regional employment premiums and the uncertainty about I.D.C.s are at the root of this trouble, and have undermined the policies initiated by the last Labour Government in the regions. While we welcome the Government's initiative in the special development areas, we have not seen any specific project emanating from that scheme. It may be that it is rather too little and too late. This crisis of confidence has been caused by the complete ineptitude of the Government, and their failure to tackle the situation has resulted in the city of Glasgow, which has always been described as the industrial capital of Scotland, being described now as the industrial graveyard of Scotland, and that is very sad. As a proud Glaswegian, I feel angry and bitter to see in this famous city the gaunt monuments of empty work-ships, empty factories and empty yards. These are the casualties of a Government bankrupt of ideas, indifferent in approach and, unfortunately, still paying homage to the resurrected dinosaurs of Toryism. Hon. Gentlemen in the Tory Party take great delight in inflicting their revenge on trade unions in the mistaken impression that the unions in their claims for wages are responsible for all the ills of our country today.

If I appear to be somewhat petulant I make no apology. It is all too easy to plan redundancies and cut living standards from the comfort of the boardroom or the Tory club. It is equally difficult for Ministers of a Tory Government who live in the stockbroker belt to appreciate the indignity of the labour exchange and the social security office or the difficulty of a man who is unable to keep up the hire-purchase commitments, on a house, a car, or domestic furniture, which were taken on in the optimism of full employment.

An equally worrying aspect is the growing number of people on short-time work in Glasgow and the surrounding area. There have been savage increases in the cost of prescription charges, school meals and other welfare benefits. The food trade publication, the Grocer, says that since the election there have been 6,869 food price increases—that is, in one year alone. The cost of living is becoming extremely difficult for thousands of Glasgow wage-earners who are still below the national average. I am deeply concerned, as are the families in Glasgow, when I read about a £25 a week national average. I could take hon. Members to many of my constituents who bring home less than half that amount.

We must have concern not only for the unemployed but for the thousands of part-time workers—who are part-time only because they cannot get full employment. The people of Glasgow, like the people of Scotland as a whole, have their pride. I do not want to be told that there is the Family Income Supplement to help low wage-earners, or that there are extra welfare benefits—which, incidentally, the Government are spending a fortune advertising. The people of Glasgow do not want a stigma of "pauper" which their parents and grandparents had. They do not want to suffer the embarrassment of their children having to have a free school meals ticket, or of having to go into the chemist shop for free prescriptions, and to be stigmatised in the community. They want the same opportunities as they had under the Labour Government, namely, a chance of full employment. They want to take their rightful place in the community.

I turn to look at some of the solutions. I do not claim to have the immediate panacea for the problem, and I do not expect the Government to have it either. But I accuse the Government of a failure to appreciate the magnitude of the problem. I will recall to the Minister some of the famous companies which have closed their factories in Glasgow and the surrounding areas. These include Babcock and Wilcox; Foster Wheeler-Brown; Turners Asbestos, a subsidiary of Turner Newall; Sternes, a subsidiary of Hall Thermotank; and Dobbie McInness, a subsidiary of the Weir Group. The fact that these famous companies have decided to close their factories makes my point about cutting the living standards from the comfort of the boardroom, without regard to the social consequences.

The Glasgow overspill town of Cumbernauld has the astonishing figure of 1,000 redundancies. If this is allied with the serious redundancies in Singer and Rolls-Royce, there is a bleak outlook for Glasgow and the West of Scotland. This situation deserves urgent action from the Minister and his Department.

The harmonious industrial relations between unions and management in Glasgow cannot be bettered anywhere else in the United Kingdom, and many employers will testify to the truth of that statement. I pay tribute to the trade union officers in Glasgow and the West of Scotland for their patience. One of them said that he had been in on the death of so many companies that he was beginning to regard himself as an undertaker rather than an industrial official. We need a vast public works programme, and we need sizeable investment of public funds. This could be tackled by way of hospital building and house building, and I would suggest that we should build a unit for the chronic sick, rather than have some 300 chronic sick in geriatric wards in Scotland. These opportunities should be created to alleviate suffering, not only for the benefit of the unemployed, but for the benefit of the young chronic sick who are suffering in such wards.

I would ask the Government to think seriously about training and retraining programmes. I know that some reservations have been expressed on this matter by the trade unions. The point has been made "Why bring in more trainees when men are being laid off work?" I disagree with that point of view. If there are to be some 2,200 young people standing idle, I would rather see them being trained for the future than doing nothing. I ask the Minister to consider these points in relation to public investment and to have regard for voluntary bodies which appreciate the difficulties of the situation and have a pride in Glasgow and the West of Scotland.

A new project is Clydefair International, which has the purpose of projecting the attractiveness and beauty of Glasgow and the West of Scotland. Glasgow Corporation has recognised this to be a viable project and has donated £30,000. I hope that, after consultation, the Minister will recommend some financial support being given to this project, which has been organised by industrialists and ordinary people who have a burning pride in their area.

The wrong impression about this part of the country is often conveyed to people living in the South and abroad. The Minister will agree that only good can come out of harnessing the voluntary spirit in the community. Indeed, what results from it can be greater than the benefits resulting from Government measures.

Glasgow expects action. Time is not on our side and the workers will not be treated like machines. They are no longer prepared to be used as pawns in the freeplay of market forces. They are far too well educated for that. Whatever our fathers and grandfathers were prepared to accept, the reality of modern times must be appreciated.

Speaking at a Tory conference the Prime Minister said, "We will change the course of history". He had better do something about the course of unemployment, or his words could turn out to be a tragic prophecy.

I recently received a letter from a constituent complaining about the Government's regional policy. Samuel Collins is a firm which could expand and provide 300 new jobs. One new job is valuable. Surely we should do every- thing in our power to encourage industrialists who are prepared to expand in Scotland. This expansion would mean building a new factory 16 miles from where this firm has its base, but under the Government's present regional policy it would have to move 30 miles before getting the grant. I trust that the Minister will look into this and similar matters because firms in Glasgow and the West of Scotland should not be inhibited from expanding in this way.

I urge the Minister to consider having a permanent exhibition of shipbuilding and engineering in my part of Scotland. These are skills which Glasgow and the West have in abundance. Kelvin Hall is, in terms of floor space, one of the largest arenas in the United Kingdom. This or another building could be used for a permanent exhibition to attract buyers from abroad. I understand that a successful shipbuilding exhibition has been held in Oslo, and we should emulate that.

The situation in Glasgow today is tragic. I trust I have said enough to prove that. I hope that the Minister has the answers to my questions, and that if he does not have them he will soon get them.

I follow normal custom in expressing gratification for the opportunity of taking part in the debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Gorbals (Mr. McElhone). At the same time, I deplore the circumstances which make such a debate necessary.

My hon. Friend has given the figures for unemployment in Glasgow. The Minister will find no satisfaction in saying that they are less than the national average. They are well, well above it and constantly growing.

In my own area, the firm of Davy United, which is synonymous with Bridgeton, will close down completely at the weekend. Skilled and semi-skilled workers and administrative staff are now on the scrap-heap. I now learn that the firm of Anderson and Mather in Bridge-ton is transferring part of its enterprise elsewhere, with a further loss of 260 jobs.

But these are the issues that hit the headlines and which the Press focus upon. They do not take account of the continuous lay-off of small numbers of men in almost every firm in my area. Last Friday I attended a mass meeting in my constituency, a meeting not only of the unemployed but of the employed, united in their view of the future, united in their uncertainty as to what the future will hold for them.

I assure the Minister that as well as showing great concern, they show great militancy. I can understand this because, speaking from personal knowledge, I know what unemloyment really means. There would be no point in my undertaking the exercise of telling the Minister what I experienced during my protracted period of unemployment. Albeit that was in the 1930s, what I found then I have no doubt the unemployed are finding at present, perhaps to a different degree.

One thing that emerges from unemployment is the misery and despair, and ultimate apathy, of those who are unemployed for a lengthy period. The Minister will be aware of a report of a mission to West Germany which took place at the end of November. I commend the mission for its energy and initiative. I sincerely hope that its efforts on that visit will result in new enterprise in Scotland. One of the inducements offered during the trip to West Germany was the pool of skilled labour in Scotland ready to be tapped. No one can doubt that the pool of skilled labour exists and is constantly growing. What I find rather ironical is that I read in the Sun of 19th May the headlines "Germany Calling!—200,000 Jobs for Britain's Unemployed" and then I read that an agreement has been reached to channel German vacancies through our 1,000 employment exchanges throughout the country.

I assume that the Government are concerned about this matter. But if their policy is to make it easier for our skilled men to leave these shores, one wonders what would happen if the German industrialists who are being courted come to this country only to find that the skilled men had left it to go elsewhere. I cannot help commenting that not so long ago we heard from the then Opposition—especially the Scottish Members—a great song and dance about emigration figures. As that song and dance was made at that time, one wonders what the reaction is now when they are actually encouraging people to leave Scotland to seek jobs elsewhere.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals has made suggestions about what should be done. If people really matter to the Government, the Government must give back to the unemployed man his self-respect. They must give him the opportunity to use his skills, which must be for the benefit of the Government and of the nation.

Unemployment is not an academic problem but it tends to be treated as such. We can revel in an exchange of statistics, but they prove nothing. At the end of the day, statistics cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, tell the story of the human misery of families involved in protracted periods of unemployment. I cannot see any lessening of this in Glasgow. Nor was there any solace in an answer I received from an Employment Minister not long ago. He pointed out that when the Government's policies bite, Glasgow will benefit. When are the Government's policies likely to bite? When are the unemployment figures likely to drop?

If the Minister can give some hope to the ever-growing number of unemployed and the ever-growing number of workers who live under the threat of becoming unemployed, we shall have achieved something today.

I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Gorbals (Mr. McElhone) for raising this important subject. I agree with him and with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Bridgeton (Mr. James Bennett) that we would all much rather that it was not necessary to debate this subject.

I apologise to the hon. Member for Gorbals for the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Anthony Grant) is not here to answer the debate on behalf of the Department of Trade and Industry, as this is normally a subject which comes under the responsibility of that Department. My hon. Friend has asked me to deputise for him, because he has had to go off to another important engagement. I am very glad to deputise for my hon. Friend and to answer as well as I can the important points which have been raised.

All of us recognise that the scourge of unemployment is appalling for those who must suffer under it. All Governments try as hard as they can to reduce the incidence of and the effect of unemployment. The first and most important priority that the Government have in Scotland is to stop and then reverse the rising trends of unemployment which have been going on for some time. There can be no happiness and no success in affairs generally in Scotland while we have this unemployment with us.

As the hon. Gentleman would wish, it is our wish that all our policies should be geared to reducing unemployment in any way that we can. This afternoon I shall say something first about the basic causes for the situation; then I shall outline some of the action we are taking to reverse the trend; then I shall say a few words about what I think we can do in the months ahead to help reduce unemployment.

The basic causes of long-term and increasing unemployment in Scotland have often been detailed. I shall not detail with great care what these reasons are.

It is largely a problem of male unemployment. This is not to say that there are no women unemployed, but the problem of male unemployment is much more important and much greater than that of female unemployment. The main cause is to be found in what I would describe as a bunching of redundancies in certain industries in recent months and years combined with a low level of activity in some parts of the construction industry.

There has been a reduction in shipbuilding employment, for reasons of which we are all aware and which have often been discussed in the House. This has been largely achieved through natural wastage, but it has nevertheless has some impact on the number of jobs available for other people. This is true also in the construction industry.

The rate of this rundown is now on the whole reducing. In the 16 months from the beginning of 1970 no fewer than 17,000 people were declared redundant in the Greater Glasgow area. These redundancies had a variety of causes. Some were related to the general situation in world markets. It is not for the Government to be able to pronounce on the detailed reasons why individual industries may be adversely affected from time to time by world market situations. The decisions, know-how and expertise on these matters must remain with those concerned in the industries who are familiar with their problems.

I am sure that the House will agree that such decisions to cut back on production are never lightly made by management. Indeed, in their own interests, managements have every incentive to resist making such cut-backs or redundancies unless they are absolutely forced to do so. Moreover, to the extent that the streamlining of operations in a company helps it to operate more efficiently and competitively, this process, although often painful in itself, gives greater safeguard to the jobs of the remainder of the labour force who continue thereafter.

Information on all these factors cannot be at our finger-tips at all times, but it is the Government's duty and intention to see that a stable economic climate is created in which efficient firms can flourish and have the opportunity to make their businesses successful and do well.

To this we must add the Government's duty to see that those areas which have particular problems arising from the rundown of traditional industries and which have long suffered high levels of unemployment are assisted to attract new industries. I shall come to that later.

It is difficult to draw firm or quick conclusions from individual sets of figures taken over fairly short periods, but hon. Gentlemen may be somewhat relieved to hear that the present indication from notifications we have received so far over the second quarter of this year is that for the Glasgow travel-to-work area the total number of redundancies taking effect during this quarter is likely to be about half the number in the previous quarter and in each of the last quarters of 1970.

That may be little progress, and, as I say, it is too early to draw final conclusions from the figures, but there is some indication of a slackening off in the level of redundancies now.

I must emphasise at this point that it cannot be said that, whatever the difficulties are, this Government have done nothing to help. Not only has there been a major review of regional policy—in the previous debate, my lion. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry mentioned some of the features of that—but there has been massive special help directed particularly to Glasgow and its region. So much has this been so that I have been receiving criticism, quite telling criticism, from other parts of Scotland to the effect that they wish that they had some of the extra help which Glasgow has been receiving during recent months.

Although I entirely agree that the results are yet to be seen and that, so long as we have redundancies and unemployment in the Glasgow area we must all remain thoroughly dissatisfied, I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises that a great deal of direct and positive action to help Glasgow has been taken.

Will the Minister itemise some of the benefits which the Government have given to Glasgow? I do not know anything about them. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. James Bennett) does not know about them. No one I speak to in Glasgow knows about them. I should be delighted to hear the hon. Gentleman expand on the benefits which Glasgow has had over the past few weeks or months.

I am sorry now that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman, for I was about to come to exactly that, and we have spent a moment or two unnecessarily.

In the first place, we have conducted a complete review of regional policy. It is possible for the hon. Gentleman and I to disagree on detailed aspects, on whether, for example, investment grants are better than investment allowances, but the general measures which have been taken have been directed to helping industry in every way we can. In the previous debate, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Greville Janner) complained about the operation of the I.D.C. policy, saying that some developments which he had, quite rightly, wanted in his area had been refused because industrial development certificates had not been granted. That was eloquent proof that our I.D.C. policy is still being pursued as actively as it was before and that the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that it had been weakened does not bear examination. We have maintained the I.D.C. policy and have refused to implement the recommendations of the Hunt Committee that the limit should be raised to £10,000 square feet all over the country. Scotland and Glasgow retain their strong preference in that way.

Second, there is the question of investment grants and allowances. Some firms do better out of investment grants than they may do with investment allowances, but many will do much better out of the new system. Firms in the development areas will receive a 10 per cent. higher building grant than they did before; the maximum has been raised from 35 per cent. to 45 per cent., a significant improvement. Many firms will get a great deal of benefit from the reintroduction of free depreciation on new plant and machinery which they want for new factories and new developments. There is the question of the whole service industry in Scotland, which had no help from the previous system and now has the benefit of 60 per cent. investment allowances on plant that it may buy new to expand its business. It is not possible to say, unless we take each individual case, whether a particular firm will be better or worse off.

The Government's design in changing the system was to make a better and more flexible package for industry. In that connection there is an important new freedom for the Government to give much wider and more flexible help under the Local Employment Acts, help which is more closely related than ever before to the production of new jobs, which we all want to see.

The hon. Gentleman is extolling the virtues of investment allowances as opposed to investment grants. Can he tell us why the Conservatives in Northern Ireland thought it essential to retain investment grants and not to go for the investment allowances, when some of the Northern Ireland Members voted for them for Scotland in this House?

That is an entirely different question, depending on what the Northern Ireland Government may have thought was best for their circumstances. If the hon. Gentleman doubts what I have said, he should ask some of those in the service industries whether they think that they are better off. Half of our jobs in Scotland depend on the service industries. It is no use pretending that they are not better off.

There is also the question of the special development area. I was very glad that the hon. Gentleman warmly welcomed its introduction. He was absolutely right, because it was one of the major new initiatives in regional policy for many years. The special development area legislation was originally intended for small areas particularly affected by colliery closures. This new departure, announced in February by my right hon. Friend, designated a relatively vast area of Western Scotland, Clydeside right round about Glasgow in a very wide area was give special development area status, which has never been given on that scale in any other part of the country. It is a very important new attraction that Glasgow and Clydeside have. I hope that we shall find that once industry starts expanding again in the country it will be a powerful magnet to attract it to Glasgow to take up some of the labour now lying unused with people waiting to fill jobs. No one should under-estimate the effects the S.D.A. can have, and the major step forward that it was to introduce it.

Last winter we had a winter works programme specially for Scotland; no other part of the United Kingdom had it. It produced nearly £2 million-worth of extra work during the winter.

The hon. Member asked particularly for a massive public works programme now to try to help with unemployment. It is a very attractive idea, but it is not possible to bring forward vast and highly-complicated projects, such as hospitals and roads, overnight and to accelerate them in that way. It is certainly possible over a long period to bring them forward, and we are doing that as much as we can, but, because of the difficulties of planning and pre-planning and construction and so on, one just cannot turn a programme on and off like a tap. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are looking at every way in which to bring forward such work as well as we can within the programmes.

All the main constructional programmes are going ahead, not merely at their previous pace, but often at an increased pace. The hospital building programme, for instance, has had extra money allocated to it by the Government. The school building programme has had special extra money allocated to it to help to build usually more primary schools in many parts of Scotland, and Glasgow is included in that. The road programme is going forward and increasing.

The one which is not increasing and which we should like to see increased is the housing programme, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned as one of his suggestions. I am extremely anxious that every possible house which is needed by every local authority, including Glasgow, should be built as fast as possible, and there is no restriction by the Government on the number of houses which may be built by a local authority if it genuinely needs to build houses. I have myself been going round the country trying to encourage authorities to build as many as they can, and I hope that the programme will improve and produce results.

As for other constructional employment; we have just launched the biggest publicity campaign ever launched by the Scottish Office on house improvement, which has a big contribution to make to providing a larger number of new homes and modern standards, particularly in Glasgow. Government grants for this purpose are generous and so far the publicity has produced more than 2,000 inquiries about what people can get in the way of grants to get on with the improvement of houses which might otherwise be falling into slums. This, too, will be another way which will help to take up some of the unemployment in the construction industry, and these improvement works are a particularly labour-intensive type of house building work, employing many craftsmen on what is sometimes difficult and tricky work.

As for the housing programme in Glasgow in general; we have announced important and extensive extra special help for Glasgow involving large sums of Government money. For instance, we have committed ourselves to finding an extra 7,000 houses for Glasgow's overspill in the cities and counties round about Glasgow. They will probably be built by the S.S.H.A. and the cost will fall on Government finance. We have committed ourselves to asking the East Kilbride Development Corporation to build a new town development at Stone-house in Lanarkshire eventually reaching 10,000 houses, and again the vast bulk of the cost will come from Government funds specifically directed to helping Glasgow.

Then there was the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in March of completely new and special help for Glasgow, to try to encourage it to make major strides to improve the environment of the city. This could amount to £1 million a year for a period of five years. That is another piece of special help for Glasgow and for nowhere else.

Whatever else may be said, and one may say that unemployment in Glasgow is still a desperately worrying and major problem, no one can say that the Government have done nothing for Glasgow. We have done a great deal and I am confident that it will produce results when its full effects are seen.

May I finish by saying a word about the future, for I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends would agree that, in spite of our concern and his concern, genuine concern, we all want to know whether there is anything we can do to help to lessen the problems for the future.

I have been encouraged in this regard by the thoroughly positive and helpful attitude taken by everyone in the West of Scotland—by managements and trade unionists, the Scottish T.U.C. and all the other bodies—to the important matter of getting the promotion of Scotland going outside Scotland, both in the rest of Britain and overseas. I have been doing all I can to get this on to a more efficient and organised basis so that Scotland can go forth outside its own borders and tell people of the immense advantages and possibilities there are for new industries in Scotland.

We have been building up these campaigns and the story which we can tell to the rest of the world. In Glasgow there are sites for industry and there are Department of Trade and Industry factories in many parts of the city ready to be used at any time. There is the pool of spare labour—although that is something that we wish we had not got. Nevertheless, it is an immensely valuable resource in attracting new industries. Europe has a great shortage of labour and the first thing that industrialists there ask is whether, if they should set up a faotory in Scotland, there is available labour. We can tell them that it is not just any labour, but experienced and skilled labour which they could use almost immediately. One sees what an attraction that is. We are grateful for the positive attitude of the Lord Provost of Glasgow, the Chairman of the Glasgow Chamber of Commerce, Mr. MacLellan, and others, based on the new organisation for the West of Scotland under the title of "Scotland West".

This new body has shown its determination to get across to people outside Scotland that the West of Scotland is very much alive and kicking and has a great deal to offer. Those industrialists who come to the West of Scotland will find a ready welcome; they will find facilities waiting for them to use; they will find people ready and willing to step into the jobs. That is the sort of attitude we should get over when we are, quite naturally, worried about the level of unemployment, which we all deplore. It is time now for Glasgow and Scotland generally to step forward and let the world know what they can do and the facilities they have.

All these measures I have outlined involve heavy expenditure by the Government, and most of them involve a direct preference for Scotland, as against other parts of the country which are not so under-developed, and for Glasgow within Scotland itself because of Glasgow's particularly heavy unemployment problem. All these measures are directed to helping Glasgow to attract more industry to replace the lost jobs. I share the hon. Gentleman's concern and distress about his constituents and the unemployment, which we all deplore. But I say to him that at least we have in this Government a Government who recognise the problem and have done a great deal to produce new help to counter these trends. We shall never be found lacking in finding more ways of doing this job when they are necessary, and the hon. Gentleman can feel that there is an open door to him for any suggestions that he has for putting this distressing problem right.

I hope that Glasgow will find that these measures are having their effect as the main state of the economy begins to move into expansion, as it should do following the Budget. It is that that we have been preparing for over the last few months. I am certain that Glasgow and the West of Scotland will not be found wanting in taking advantage of these measures and making good use of them to the benefit of their citizens.

Like other hon. Members who have taken part in these Adjournment debates, I wish to record my sincere thanks to you, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that it will not have gone unnoticed by the Chair that out of the seven debates today four have been initiated by Scottish Labour Members and two have been answered by a junior Minister at the Scottish Office. To my mind this shows the vigilance and dedication to duty that people North of the Border can expect from their elected representatives at Westminster.

I hope when the Under-Secretary comes to reply to my points he will give much more specific facts instead of the platitudes which he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Gorbals (Mr. McElhone). It is not my intention——

It is not my intention to recite the history of how the application by Chevron Oil for permission to locate a refinery at Portencross passed first to Ayr County Council, then to a public inquiry and finally into the hands of the Secretary of State. The Under-Secretary is an Ayrshire M.P., like me, and is aware of the history of this controversial issue.

It is my intention to examine the Secretary of State's handling of the application when it passed into his hands last June, the reasons he has given to Ayr County Council for refusing Chevron's proposed development, and the consequences for Ayrshire and for employment which arise out of his decision. When I made an application for an Adjournment debate almost two weeks ago I had a strong suspicion—I will not put it any higher than that—that the Secretary of State had already decided to veto Chevron.

On Tuesday of this week my suspicions were unfortunately confirmed. I must express my bitter disappointment. In my view the Secretary of State has made a stupid decision. That decision, the length of time he required to make it, his jumbled contradiction of reasons, letters and statements trying to justify his action, all demonstrate what many of us have privately feared for some time but refrained from saying—that the Secretary of State lacks the necessary political weight, political character and political backbone for the job he holds.

Rubbish.

Whatever the right hon. Gentleman's attributes are as an ordinary person—and I quickly acknowledge that, like the Under-Secretary, he is a charming Tory gentleman—the fact is that in the world of politics people need sterner qualities than Tory charm. In the view of the majority of people in Ayrshire—and I am duty-bound to tell the Under-Secretary this, having made contacts all over the county this week—the Secretary of State is not fit for his job and we want him to resign.

The right hon. Gentleman has made must of his own statements about the need to exploit the unique potential of Hunterston/Portencross. In the 1969 August/September edition of New Scotland, which I believe is a Conservative publication, the right hon. Gentleman said that he was not opposed to development. He said:

"Of course the Labour Government are trying to misrepresent us as being opposed to the developments which are in prospect."

Among these developments to which the Secretary of State referred was the possibility of the location of Chevron at Portencross. His next words were important. He said:

"Nothing could be further from the truth"

In the next paragraph he gets even bolder when he says:

"Our message is a different one. It is that we in Scotland should make the fullest use of this new asset, by being ready to respond to the demand from industries which will arise from it."

Just to rub in how anxious he was to get a response to any industries which were interested he went further and said:

"One important way of responding is to have a more than adequate system for dealing effectively with proposals for projects as they arise."

"Dealing effectively with proposals for projects as they arise" was a key phrase in that article. Within a year of writing it the right hon. Gentleman had become Secretary of State for Scotland and had the opportunity of doing just that—effectively dealing with the project which had arisen. I refer to Chevron Oil. Whatever high standards he may have set himself as "Shadow" Secretary of State, his performance fell well below them when he took office.

Instead of the swift execution of a decision, the right hon. Gentleman dithered like an old woman for month after month. I suspect that the real reason for the delay was not that he could not make up his mind; I think his mind was made up on Chevron at a very early stage of the Government's life. In my view, the delay was a tactic which he employed in trying to drive Chevron out of Portencross. He hoped that Chevron, frustrated by the long inquiry and the lengthy period of indecision thereafter, would simply give up and go elsewhere. Then the Secretary of State could claim that the company had just simply gone away and he would be relieved of the odium attached to a decision to send it away. That tactic failed. He was forced to a decision.

I turn to the Scottish Development Department's letter of 24th May conveying the decision to Ayr County Council. The Secretary of State claims in that letter that his decision had been conditioned by two factors: first, the view contained in the Scottish Development Department's letter to Ayr County Council dated 9th December; and, secondly, the alleged changed circumstances in the number and capacity of proposed new refinery projects since the Department of Trade and Industry intervened with a memorandum sent out earlier in the New Year.

The Secretary of State claims that since the publication of the memorandum three possible new projects have been announced. I ask the Under-Secretary of State—perhaps he cannot give the answer today, in which case no doubt he will write to me—whether the Government knew of these three possible developments when the Department of Trade and Industry issued its memorandum about Chevron at Portencross.

But, more important, I stress that the word used in the Scottish Development Department's letter of 24th May is "possible" when it mentions three proposed new projects. I have done some checking on these three possible new projects. I understand that B.P. at Grangemouth is only considering expansion. The project at Shellhaven does not yet have planning permission, although I concede that it will probably be forthcoming as it would simply be an extension of an existing site. The third one—Burmah-Total, at Cliff, on the south bank of the Thames—is a green field site proposal, as was Chevron's proposal at Portencross. No planning permission has been granted for the Burmah-Total development. Indeed, that proposal is likely to be subjected to a lengthy public inquiry.

Therefore, these three projects are only possible additions to the United Kingdom's refining capacity. Chevron's was not a "possible" development; it was a definite development. It is precisely definite developments that the Secretary of State does not want at Hunterston, and so he used the flimsy excuse about other proposed developments to kill off a much-needed job booster in the West of Scotland.

Mention of jobs brings me to my next point, which concerns sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) on page 2 of the letter of 24th May. These are the reasons given by the Secretary of State for turnning down the Chevron application. In sub-paragraph (a) he complains that he wants to reserve Hunterston at Portencross for industries which require the unique facilities of the deep water there and the available flat land.

The Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State are aware of the Metra-Weddle Report, published in January, 1969, which emphasised time and again that oil refining is one of a limited number of industries capable of exploiting the unique facilities at Hunterston. The report lists the industries which could use the deep water at Hunterston. The Metra section and the Weddle section deal with this matter in detail and make the important point that steel and oil are the only two projects able or likely to seek developments there in the foreseeable future.

The Secretary of State has turned down oil development because he says in the letter of 24th May that his decision is final. I may as well warn him that in compensation Ayr County Council, industrial Scotland, and certainly the Labour Party in the whole of Scotland, and particularly the Labour Party in Ayrshire, of which I am secretary, intend to carry him and his hon. Friends quite mercilessly till we get some tangible demonstration that the steel site and the oil terminal will be located at Hunterston-Portencross very shortly indeed.

According to the Glasgow Herald, a well informed newspaper, steel is a matter to which the right hon. Gentleman has obviously hitched his political star. Well, he had better get it. If not, he will find not only Ayrshire but the whole of Scotland will demand his resignation, because we all recognise the profound importance of that development for the future of Scotland. The Secretary of State will be well advised to give every practical assistance to the Clyde Port Authority to get the oil terminal under way. That project can be supported as a necessity irrespective of the central location of the steel works.

Perhaps I am straying somewhat from Chevron. I recognise that, and I want to return to Chevron and the Scottish Development Department's letter of which sub-paragraph (b) claims that the job loss due to the Secretary of State's decision numbers around 375, and it says that such a figure is not of major significance even in North Ayrshire—and the emphasis is mine. There will be several interesting reactions to that statement, and not only in North Ayrshire but in Central Ayrshire, and I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) will readily confirm that.

However, that figure of 375 is only half the true story. No mention is made of the 2,000 construction jobs which would have been forthcoming in the employment market, in which more and more men are being put out of work. Despite what the Under-Secretary said to my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals, the fact is that unemployment in the construction industry is rising. I asked a Question the other day about this, knowing that this Adjournment debate was coming up. I asked for the figures of construction workers unemployed in the West Central Scotland area. The Under-Secretary of State for Employment replied that in the Glasgow planning region in November, 1970, 10,867 in the construction industry were unemployed; the figure rose in April, 1971, to 14,405, and rose again in May this year to 14,575. So 2,000 jobs in construction work for Chevron at Portencross would have made a fairly significant bite into those unemployment figures.

No mention is made, either, in that letter, of the 700 permanent jobs which Ayr County Council, on expert advice, expected to be created indirectly because of the refinery's location at Portencross. The letter is significantly silent on the growth of petrochemical industries, the sort of industry we looked for in Ayrshire because of this development by Chevron. Not only North Ayrshire would have received a job spin-off but all Ayrshire stood to benefit from the petrochemical development.

I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire will recall that when he raised the petition in Ayrshire in favour of Ayr County Council's planning project he got thousands of signatures from miners in South Ayrshire, some of whom, like the trade union leaders, had read the Metra report. There could have been benefits even as far as New Cumnock. All these places would have benefited from the location of the refinery through job spin-off. This is not mere idle speculation or wishful thinking on the part of the miners whom I represent in this House.

The possibility of petro-chemical works arising out of the Chevron development was examined deeply in the Metra/ Weddle report, which on page 23 records Chevron's intention to acquire partners to engage in petro-chemical development. On page 29 the report notes that Chevron is orientated towards this type of activity and that there appear to be good possibilities of such a venture going ahead. On page 26, dealing with employment, the report notes the number of jobs on the refinery itself, mentions the additional indirect jobs to be created, thereby endorsing Ayr County Council's point of view, and says:

"Any petro-chemical development, however, is likely to boost these figures significantly"

Sub-paragraph (c) of the letter deals with the so-called "deleterious" effects of a refinery. On Wednesday of this week the Secretary of State for Scotland at Question Time said:

"… a combination of a refinery and a steel works can produce some of the worst atmospheric pollution, and therefore a refinery might be prejudicial to the steel development."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th May, 1971: Vol. 818, c. 371.]

That is quite a statement for the right hon. Gentleman to make, and I question its validity. I shall pursue, with expert advice, the validity of that statement.

At the Hunterston inquiry the independent scientific evidence was to the effect that the proposed oil refinery at Portencross need not cause the pollution which the right hon. Gentleman suggested. That scientific evidence seemed to confirm the view attributed to Professor Weddle in the first pages of the Metra/Weddle Report—his views on those first pages can be confirmed in his own part of that Report—that his opposition to Chevron's location at Portencross was on grounds of visual intrusion, not pollution.

I want to turn to the effect that this decision has had on Scotland, on our external image—which the Under-Secretary of State was talking about 10 minutes ago—and on our people's morale. The Secretary of State has inflicted considerable damage on our credibility as a country anxious for new jobs and new industry. We simply cannot afford the sort of news comment which last Tuesday's decision received in those parts of the Press which help to form industrial opinion. What sort of impression do we give to industrial decision makers when they read the story in the Financial Times, headed:

"Scotland finally rejects plan for £50 million Chevron refinery"

and then go on to read in the news coverage that the decision comes as a bitter blow to the company which has waited nearly two years since its original application and has already made it clear that rejection could well lead it to seek an alternative site on the Continent? It will take more than the miserly sum allocated for the promotion of Scotland internationally to overcome the damage which the Government's decision on Chevron has inflicted on our reputation.

In Scotland, a country which is racked with unemployment, the rejection of Chevron has brought gloom everywhere—except to the selfish minority in North Ayrshire whose spiritual leader is that well-known radical and industrial visonary, Lord Glasgow, who even now, having tasted victory over Chevron, is out to kill the ore terminal and the steel works.

Yesterday at Question Time in column 573 of Hansard the Prime Minister claimed that the Chevron decision was widely welcomed in Scotland. There is not a shred of evidence to support his statement. It is as naked of objective fact and truth as the one the Prime Minister made on 16th June last year when he promised to reduce prices and unemployment at a stroke.

The Scottish T.U.C. has condemned the decision, the C.B.I, has condemned it, and the Lord Provost of Glasgow, who is not a member of the Labour Party, and the Convenor of Renfrewshire, who is also not a member of the Labour Party, have both condemned it. Ayr County Council, the members of which know more about the unemployment problems in our county than any member of the Government, has also condemned it by 52 votes to eight. Ayr County Council is Labour-controlled, but neither the Under-Secretary nor the Secretary of State will find any comfort in that. The 52 votes cast against the Government include the majority of Tories on Ayr County Council.

The Under-Secretary knows that I am genuinely angry about this decision. When he returns to Ayrshire this weekend he will find that my anger is nothing compared to the fury which has been aroused there this week over this issue. I speak on behalf of the County Convenor of Ayrshire when I say that we want this matter urgently reconsidered. The Secretary of State has, in our view, made a catastrophic error which he must correct immediately. It is essential that the Secretary of State should respond to the authentic voice of Scotland which demands reconsideration. I warn him that if he does not use his office on behalf of the Scottish people they will demand to remove him from office and will succeed. I hope that the Under-Secretary, who is not under any direct threat of resignation at the moment, will not be too "cocky" when he stands up to reply because his majority is much more risky than the one the Conservatives lost at Bromsgrove yesterday.

I listened with great interest and respect to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars), but his speech was a little unrealistic. Surely the salient fact on this decision—and I speak with no constituency interest, but only with a Scottish interest—is that my right hon. Friend had to ensure that the unique resources of Hunterston were left clear of the possibility of an integrated steel works. I back my right hon. Friend on that decision.

On the point which was made about the refineries and capacity in Scotland, surely the Secretary of State could not have overturned the reporter's recommendation in this respect at the time. Indeed, the Department of Trade and Industry recommendations referred to the capacity of the United Kingdom as a whole. The hon. Gentleman was inclined to make little of the three announcements which have been made since then showing that the Secretary of State was entirely right not to regard this as evidence of substance——

Order. The hon. Gentleman should realise that the debate must end at 4.30.

I have very little more to say, Mr. Speaker.

One should subtract from the 375 jobs that the hon. Gentleman mentioned the 130 agricultural. We still think that there is a possibility of some 8,000 to 12,000 jobs in prospect in the envisaged development. Surely this is much more important for the long-term employment position in Scotland. Therefore, surely the Secretary of State was right to keep open the unique possibilities of Hunterston in regard to an integrated steel works in which Scotland must participate for the development of the steel industry.

I will try to answer as many of the points as I can, but I will answer one point in particular—and it may be the only one because I have not much time.

This relates to the intemperate nature of the hon. Gentleman's remarks about my right hon. Friend. It is, of course, quite in order for us to disagree on any matter, but it is unnecessary that, because we disagree with a particular decision, we should call in question a person's whole integrity. The fact is that my right hon. Friend went out of his way to disagree with the reporter on the original part of his decision about Hunterston to pave the way for the steel development there that everyone hopes may eventually come. It does not seem genuine to accuse my right hon. Friend of being against development when he went out of his way to do what I have described. It is unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman should have said that.

What the hon. Gentleman does not realise is that the Secretary of State is well aware of the planning procedures. The hon. Gentleman forgets that his right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) some two years ago, after an exactly comparable length of inquiry and procedure, turned down another project of a similar kind, though one of less importance, which related to the Munro application in Renfrew.

He was wrong, too.

When his right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock took that decision, I do not recall the hon. Gentleman calling for his resignation or describing him as being against development. Nobody would have been as stupid as to do that. The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock made his decision as best he could, as my right hon. Friend has done in this case. We would do better in this House to accept that in situations like this a genuine effort is made by Ministers to do the best they can with the jobs they must tackle.

The hon. Gentleman criticised the fact that the inquiry was not reopened, as was at one time proposed, to deal with the supplementary evidence by the Department of Trade and Industry. The reasons for not reopening the inquiry were set out in the decision letter of 24th May. I do not have the time—nor do I believe that it would be profitable for me to do so—to go into all the details of why my right hon. Friend made this decision, particularly as he has made crystal clear all the factors he took into account in making the decision.

On the question of employment, I assure the House that all the employment factors were carefully considered by my right hon. Friend. It was made clear on page 3 of the letter of 9th December that the indirect employment figure which would have come from the Chevron development was very much taken account in the taking of the decision.

The hon. Gentleman went on to make certain comments about Press reports on this subject. I suggest that he brushes up his reading of the Scottish Press. He said that he could find no evidence of any commentator taking a view different from his own. I can think of several newspapers that took a very different line and fully appreciated not only that there were several points of view but that the Secretary of State had done his best to reach the right decision in the interests of Scotland as a whole.

The hon. Gentleman complained about the delay in reaching this decision. It has taken almost exactly two years to reach it. I would not pretend that this is an ideal situation. Nor should it be the norm in cases of this kind. However, the Hunterston proposals were more far-reaching than any other set of proposals in the planning sphere that we have faced for some years. Other proposals to which I have referred have been comparatively small matters compared with the decisions that had to be taken about how the Hunterston peninsula should be used.

If one ignored all the planning Acts, the rights of minorities to express their views, the benefits to Scotland as a whole resulting from reaching the right decision and of how this part of Scotland in particular would be best used—whether for this purpose, as a refinery, as a steel complex and so on—one could certainly take a quick decision. In other words, the hon. Gentleman's complaints about delay do not hold water.

I come to what is by far the most important issue, which is the basic approach to the economic restructuring of West Central Scotland and the way in which that basic approach affects Hunterston. The hon. Gentleman suggested that it was inconceivable that my right hon. Friend could have decided against Chevron. Clearly, however, a great many people besides my right hon. Friend have been able to conceive without difficulty not only that he might decide against Chevron but that it would be right to do so. I am not speaking of people publicly committed in advance to the amenity interest, but of the responsible national Press.

I reiterate what my right hon. Friend has said publicly to the Chairman of the West Central Scotland Plan Steering Committee—that environmental quality is an economic resource because it can attract people to live, and then invest, in a region. Public concern about the quality of the environment is growing and I am sure that it will continue to do so. Any region which ignores that growing concern may appear to gain short-term economic advantages in consequence, but will certainly weaken its long-term competitive position against regions which allow for that concern.

This is more important in Scotland because the quality of the natural environment could be one of our major basic resources. We must husband that resource just as we do other resources. We must have employment, and to get it we must sometimes sacrifice some amenity. It is the job of the Secretary of State—this has applied to Secretaries of State of all parties—and the planning machinery to see that if such a sacrifice is made, it is done with discretion and in return for an economic gain that justifies the sacrifice. The argument turns very much on whether one's opinion is one way or the other on that.

My right hon. Friend's transactions on Hunterston have throughout been governed by these considerations. He made his policy clear in the letter of 9th December. He is convinced of the industrial potential of Hunterston and, hence, has zoned land for industry there going beyond the recommendations of the Reporter taking the inquiry. He made it clear in that letter that he would sacrifice the great amenity of Hunterston only for industry of special value to Scotland, which needs the unique facilities that are available at Hunterston.

It was suggested by the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend has capi- tulated to a privileged minority of objectors. That is nonsense. My right hon. Friend took the greatest care and caused considerable disquiet to those objectors in the first part of his decision. Whatever one's opinion on this issue, my right hon. Friend cannot be accused of doing anything other than taking account of the best interests of Scotland as a whole and of the best interests of the development of this part of Scotland in particular, a factor which is of the greatest importance.