HC Deb 26 November 1947 vol 444 cc2073-92

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

7.53 p.m.

Mr. Swingler (Stafford)

I am aware, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that this is a splendid opportunity for a back bencher but I do not intend to take up much of the time of the House, though I hope that the fact that the Adjournment Motion has come on early will enable a number of my hon. Friends who represent the county of Staffordshire to participate in this Debate and to express the feelings of large numbers of people upon the matter which I intend to raise. This is primarily a constituency matter, but it is also one which concerns a large number of people in the West Midlands beyond the bounds of my constituency, and, indeed, concerns people all over the country who are anxious to see the preservation of rural amenities in Great Britain.

First, there is the question of the area of Cannock Chase in Eastern Staffordshire as a rural amenity and, secondly, the maintenance of public access to this area. Cannock Chase covers some 30,000 acres, of which 24,000 acres are scheduled today as a wild life conservation area by the Ministry of Town and Country Planning. It is a large and undulating piece of open countryside, relatively unspoiled, a great part of which has for some time now been maintained by the Forestry Commission. The first point I want to make is that it is regarded by thousands of people as a beauty spot, that it contains many lovely beauty spots of wild nature, that on parts of the Chase still rare flowers survive, and that thousands of people in the West Midlands are concerned to maintain this area as a rural amenity. Secondly, from time immemorial common access to Cannock Chase has been maintained and, in modern times, it has become in the summer months a week-end playground for many thousands of people and a particular attraction for ramblers and those who like to go across the open parts of the country. In the third place, this area is close to, and easily accessible from highly urbanised and heavily congested areas of the West Midlands. It is reasonably available to the people who live in the vast conurbation around Birmingham, to the people of the Black Country, and to the heavily urbanised and developed areas of the West Midlands generally.

As I have said, a great deal of this area is classified today by the Ministry of Town and Country Planning as a conservation area for wild life, but I hope this evening to get from my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning a statement to the effect that it is a prime objective of his Department to maintain the whole of Cannock Chase as a rural amenity of open countryside, to maintain the rights of public access that have been maintained in the past to that area, and to develop it, as it is regarded by very many people in the West Midlands, as a potential National Park for the future.

In both world wars parts of Cannock Chase have been requisitioned and used by the military authorities. In the first world war there was a fairly considerable encampment in Brocton near Stafford, and some other parts were taken over, but by the end of 1920 all these had been surrendered and the whole of the Chase had once again been restored. In 1939, naturally more extensive areas of this open countryside were taken over. Part was taken over by the War Office for an encampment and for a small arms range; part was taken by the Royal Air Force for a range for the demolition of explosives and for a technical training school. In 1942, nearly 400 acres were taken by the Ministry of Supply as a testing ground for the armoured fighting vehicles produced in the factories of the towns in the West Midlands. So a fairly considerable area was taken over during the second world war between 1939 and 1945.

I believe I am right in saying that it was the natural expectation of everybody living around Cannock Chase that shortly after the second world war came to an end these requisitions would be surrendered, as had been done after the first world war; that these areas would be restored as rural amenities, and that public access would once more be open. Nevertheless, today, nearly two years after the end of the war, we still find the War Office holding on tenaciously to nearly 500 acres of Cannock Chase, and we find the Royal Air Force holding on equally tenaciously to another 460 acres for a technical training school and a range, where they are demolishing explosives day by day and not so far from a residential area in my constituency.

What concerns the people in my constituency, and in many other constituencies, the Rural District Council of Staffordshire, which initiated the attempt to get these areas derequisitioned some time ago, and many other local authorities which have since taken up the matter, including Staffordshire County Council, is not only that the War Office and the Royal Air Force are not relinquishing their requisition two years after the second world war, but that now the Services have made increased demands for land on Cannock Chase, which would sterilise and deny access of the public to a much larger area than ever before. The Services have now disclosed that they desire a total area of 1,850 acres on Cannock Chase, which is rather more than they had during the period of the war. The Ministry of Supply, who had given up their tank testing ground on Cannock Chase, desire permanently to establish a testing ground in this area for armoured vehicles. The War Office desires permanently to have an encampment and a small arms range. In addition to the natural expectation that some land would be wanted by the Territorial Army today, to which there is no considerable objection among the people, we see the demand to continue the occupation established by the military authorities during the war, and to extend that occupation.

I want the Parliamentary Secretary to realise that this is not merely taking away nearly 2,000 acres from the people of that district, but that larger areas will be denied to public access, whatever spokesman of Service Departments may say, because these areas are being used as ranges for small arms, or for demolition of explosives. Whereas today it is merely a matter of 1,000 acres occupied by the War Office on Cannock Chase, a much larger area is denied to those who desire to ramble across the Chase, and to visit beauty spots. The people I represent, in the West Midlands are very much concerned by this increased demand for land, and their concern is by no means allayed by the fact that, recently, further demands have been disclosed. We find now that the War Office wants a part of Dove-dale, and their ambitions extend to Upper Hulme and the national park in the northern part of Staffordshire. They wish to extend where there is very little open countryside today, and people are wondering how far these demands are going, and if this is the thin end of a powerful wedge. Whatever may be said by the Services about maintenance of access in the areas they take over, if in effect this occupation continues, and is extended, not only will a considerable piece of countryside previously unspoiled be despoiled in future, but in fact quite a large area will be denied to the public.

More than two years after the end of the war we have not yet received the White Paper on the land requirements of the Services, and agitation, protests, unrest and disturbances are going on all over the country about these requisitions by the Services, and their ambitions for the future. At the moment, the Armed Forces are holding on to more than 1 million acres of land, in comparison with 310,000 acres which they held 10 years ago. They have more than three times the amount of land they had in the normal period between the wars.

I know my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning will reply that these demands by the Services are at present under consideration by the Committee on Services Land Requirements, and that the Minister can do nothing until he has received the recommendations of that committee and considered them. Furthermore, he will say that there will be opportunity for inquiries, protests, local inquiries, and so on. I warn him that if this occupation, if these ambitions of the Services to take over these areas on Cannock Chase are permitted by his Department, there is going to be most serious opposition from all concerned in the West Midlands. Quite certainly the opposition of the local authorities concerned will be aroused, and public opinion will be inflamed over a wide area. The West Midlands is a heavily congested urban area, in which there are very few bits of open countryside. It has suffered a great deal in the past from despoliation of the countryside, the dereliction of land, and indiscriminate grabbing of sites by industrialism—industrialism in its broadest sense. I hope that if he has not already paid a visit to the Black Country, he will shortly do so, in order to view the effects of industrialism and the dereliction of land in that part of the country. People in this heavily industrialised area have very few parts of the countryside which are beauty spots and natural amenities easily accessible, and available to them outside the urbanised and suburbanised areas, but Cannock Chase is one of them. Cannock Chase is a great area of wild life and natural countryside that has hitherto been unspoiled, and it is surrounded by these great urban areas. Bearing that in mind, I hope that my hon. Friend and his Ministry will stand firm, will dig in their toes, and resist at all costs encroachments upon this land and attempts to deny public access to it, from whatever quarter these threats may come.

8.11. p.m.

Mr. Harold Roberts (Birmingham, Hansworth)

Although my knowledge of this matter is by no means as intimate as that of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Swingler), I represent a constituency which was formerly part of the county of Stafford, and which borders on the Black Country, I agree that the hon. Member in no way overpaints the picture of the congestion of the West Midlands That vast conurbation which may be said to extend from east of Birmingham until one reaches the westerly confines of the Black Country at Stourbridge, or thereabouts, and advances northwards to Wolverhampton. The hon. Member is right in saying that there is no true open space for the Black Country and the area to the north with the exception of Cannock Chase. In Birmingham we have the very beautiful Sutton Coldfield Park, which is north of the city.

Mr. Cecil Poole (Lichfield)

The hon. Member says that in Birmingham they have the beautiful Sutton Coldfield Park. That park is in the Royal town of Sutton Coldfield, in which I have the honour to live, and not in Birmingham.

Mr. Roberts

I can assure the hon. Member that I do not intend to go poaching. I have no idea of annexing the royal borough. I should have said that by the kindness and good will of the inhabitants of the royal borough, we are allowed, for a modest charge, to disport ourselves in Sutton Park, where they go for nothing. But after all, permission for us to do so at 2d. per head is never refused, and I feel that the ancient borough will always be kind enough to extend to us the privilege we enjoy at that modest figure. So we have Sutton Park in the sense that we enjoy it. The Black Country further west is worse off. Cannock Chase is really the only spot to which the people there can go until one goes westwards to the Wyre Forest and Kinver Edge.

This matter raises a very important and difficult question of policy. Everywhere one finds demands from the Services, which I suppose might be said to be of two kinds, one for large areas suitable for modern military or Air Force training, the other for areas not so large, but which are eminently suitable for weekend camps or Saturday afternoon exercises of Territorials. No sane man would want to do anything to increase the problems of the Services which, in this overcrowded country, are difficult enough without being made more difficult. The plea I would put forward is that we should not be content with the present Committee, which I rather suspect of considering each case as it comes up. I feel that the Ministry of Town and Country Planning should try to get together with the Services and review the problem of defence in relation to amenities as a whole. I am sure that the hon. Member for Stafford would not desire, any more than I do, to be narrow-minded, and if there really is a national necessity, we shall bow to it at once. I am bound to say, however, that at the moment I fear that consideration may be a little perfunctory, and may be limited to the consideration of each proposal as it comes forward.

I feel that if the whole proposals, the whole programme or plan of the Services, could be brought under review by the Services and the Ministry of Town and Country Planning, and, if need be, let the representatives of local authorities be heard on these important matters, a result might be obtained which would be more satisfactory, not merely to local opinion but to informed public opinion generally. If I may give one illustration, the hon. Member referred to the case of Dovedale, and at first sight that did appear to be a very bad thing. I am bound to say that on consideration it appears that the damage to amenity will be very little, if at all, more than was the case prewar when, in practice, we could all enjoy Dovedale. Here the matter appears to be more serious. The problem is one of real gravity to the West Midlands. I am quite certain that the Parliamentary Secretary will take the friendly criticisms of myself and the hon. Member for Stafford in the right spirit. I hope that the raising of this matter may lead to the larger question being more fully considered by all concerned.

8.16 p.m.

Mr. William Wells (Walsall)

All hon. Members from Staffordshire, and a very large number of their constituents, would wish not only to associate themselves with what the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Swingler) has said, but also to thank him for the energy with which he has prosecuted the matter and the skill with which he presented his case. He carried out his task so fully that there remains little for me to add. However, I welcome the distinction which the hon. Member for Handsworth (Mr. H. Roberts) drew between the two kinds of Service needs. I would be the last to wish to cramp the Services and to prevent them from having land which they seriously need for the purpose of training. I recognise that before the war their training was hampered by the inadequacy of the spaces provided.

The hon. Member for Handsworth drew a distinction, very useful when discussing this question, between land needed for the purpose of local Territorial Army training and land needed for rather wider and more extensive national purposes. Those of our constituents who serve in the Territorial Army have as members of that Service, at least as high a degree of priority for making use of Cannock Chase for training, as they and other constituents of ours have for using it for pure pleasure and enjoyment. As the hon. Member for Stafford said, none would begrudge the Territorial soldier land near his home and convenient for weekend training; but in my submission the case of Government Departments taking large areas of land for purposes which have no immediate connection with the inhabitants of this highly urbanised area, is quite different from that of the Territorial using the land for training. It is wrong in an area such as this, where the average worker has no open country, except Cannock Chase, to which he can go for his weekend pleasure, that he, the average man, should find himself debarred from large parts of the district simply because the Ministry of Supply find it convenient to test tanks there. It may be convenient for the Ministry of Supply to test tanks near where they are made, but it is far more inconvenient for our constituents to be deprived of their place of weekend pleasure and exercise. They cannot go to distant areas; the tanks can. It is wrong that large areas of open land should be occupied in the middle of this urbanised district.

If we take Walsall and the Black Country in which I am interested, what have they got? To the south there is Birmingham; to the west, the Black Country; to the north, a large mining area and a good deal of agricultural land; and immediately to the east of Walsall there lies the Sutton Coldfield area which is very agreeable though somewhat enclosed. The only open country is Cannock Chase. I urge the Parliamentary Secretary to give an assurance that he will see that this matter is looked at from the point of view of the amenities and welfare of the people of the Black Country. I can only assure him that my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford was not in any way exaggerating when he said that if the decision were taken which would deprive us and our constituents of the use of this land for our leisure purposes at weekends and on holidays, there would be a wave of protest both from the people and the local authorities concerned.

8.21 p.m.

Mr. H. D. Hughes (Wolverhampton, West)

I hope that the Ministry of Town and Country Planning and, still more, the Service Departments, will recognise that this Debate is only the first rumblings of a storm which will assuredly break over their heads if, as a result of the work of the Inter-Departmental Committee and the public inquiry which will follow, the people of the West Midlands realise that they are going to be deprived of a large area of Cannock Chase for their lawful purposes of recreation. This is an area, a large part of which is officially scheduled as a conservation area; that is to say, quoting from the official Report of the National Parks Committee; It is an area whose contribution to the wider enjoyment of the countryside is so important that special measures should be taken to preserve its natural beauty and interest. I am speaking, and very many of my hon. Friends are also speaking, not just as individuals, but with the backing of our local authorities, who have already registered official protests on this matter. Indeed, my own local authority, representing an urban population of 150,000, has gone further and has demanded that Cannock Chase should not merely be a conservation area, but that it should, in view of its significance for the district, be considered as a National Park. That is a measure of the importance with which we regard this problem. I want to quote again from the National Parks Committee's Report, which contains a most significant paragraph on the relation of Service land requirements to the problem of national parks and open spaces. In paragraph 151 of their Report, the Committee say: It would be no exaggeration to say that the appropriation of a number of the particular areas now listed for acquisition by the Service Departments would take the heart out of the proposed National Park areas in which they are sited, and in certain cases render our proposals for the designation of individual National Parks entirely nugatory. Service Department occupation and use will also involve other subsidiary objections, such as the disturbance by gunfire of the peace and harmony of far wider areas than those actually appropriated, the disfigurement of the landscape by camps and military buildings, serious detriment to agriculture, interference with wild life, the inevitable defacement of the surface of the land and destruction of its vegetation by tracked vehicles, and the danger and annoyance occasioned on narrow roads by military traffic. These remarks by an official Government department are no exaggeration of the problem with which we are faced in Cannock Chase. My hon. Friend mentioned the large urban area from which Cannock Chase is most easily accessible. According to a calculation which I have worked out concerning Staffordshire and Birmingham alone, in the county boroughs, the Metropolitan boroughs and the urban districts we have a population of 2,500,000, many of them living in the Black Country, that great conurbation which is one of the worst served areas in the whole of England and Wales for open spaces. Again, referring to the National Parks Committee's Report, the nearest areas to that conurbation which are scheduled as national parks are the Peak District, 25 to 50 miles away, Brecon Beacon, 50 to 75 miles away, and North Wales, 50 to 75 miles away. These areas are of little use to an urban population for a Saturday afternoon or a week-end. The people in the Black Country want to get out to an area where they can get a decent view, some fresh air, and can enjoy the open space. To do that, they have to go to Cannock Chase; there is nowhere else to which many can go. That is why we regard this issue as of great importance.

A week or so ago, I caused considerable amusement in this House by, referring to a visit which I made one Sunday afternoon this summer to Cannock Chase, when the danger flag was flying. I should, perhaps, have added that it was a red flag. The immediate problem, quite apart from the future scheduling of Cannock Chase, is that, as a legacy from the wartime occupation by Service Departments, large areas of the Chase are now kept inaccessible to the public. In these areas there are considerable spaces with blocked roads which the public cannot enter. Then there are the firing ranges. The one to which I referred was supposed to be accessible on Sundays when no military operations were in progress. On the Sunday when I was there, it was quite clear that no training was taking place, but the danger flag was flying, and the "Keep Out" notices were all erected. Fortunately, the good sense of the public led them to ignore the notices, and to use the open space. It was quite clear to them that, although the flag was flying, there was no danger.

I take this opportunity to draw the attention of the Service Departments, not only to the need for the derequisitioning of much of this area, but to the need to do it promptly, and to see that in all their necessary operations in the immediate future they take every step open to them to enable the public to make the maximum possible use of the area. I agree with the hon. Member for Handsworth (Mr. H. Roberts) and the hon. Member for Walsall (Mr. W. Wells) that we can discriminate between the legitimate use of part of this area for the purpose of training the Territorial Army and the wider Service requirements. But those who listened to the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Swingler) will have realised that many of the demands of the Service Departments for this area are not connected with the Territorial Army at all, that they are tasks and problems for which the military authorities could use land far removed from a big urban area like this.

The Black Country grew up without the benefit of a Ministry of Town and Country Planning. The industrialists of those days laid the land derelict, and the result is that today there are vast areas of waste land, partly open space, but space which is of no use for recreation purposes, or for anything else until a tremendous remedial job has been done. Now that we have the Ministry of Town and Country Planning, we, look to it to restore the damage done to the Black Country in the past; we look to it to see that, perhaps, almost the last remaining piece of decent countryside adjacent to that area is at least preserved for the recreation of the people of that neighbourhood.

8.29 p.m.

Mr. Cecil Poole (Lichfield)

I am deeply conscious that it is a most unpopular thing to make a long speech on an Adjournment Motion on one of the very few occasions when Members and the officers of the House have a chance of going home decently early. It is for that reason that I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Swingler) on getting his Adjournment Motion on an evening when there is so much time available. Therefore, I do not propose to detain the House for more than a few moments, although I hope it will not be considered invidious of me if I say one word in support of my hon. Friend, especially when it is remembered that the greater part of Cannock Chase lies in what is the finest constituency in this country, although represented in this House by myself. Therefore, it is not invidious of me to say a word in support of my hon. Friend on this subject.

I want the Parliamentary Secretary to be under no illusion about the volume of public feeling in this matter, and it is for that sole purpose that I have risen tonight. I do not know whether all the representations of the local authorities have reached him, but if they have, he will have seen that they are couched in no uncertain terms. I want him to bear in mind that the Service Departments invariably take the line of least resistance and always choose the easiest place for their own particular purposes. If any of the Service Departments have any difficulty in finding alternative sites for some of the objects which they have sited on Cannock Chase, some of us will be perfectly happy to show them places which are equally suitable, although, perhaps not so convenient to them, but which will not be such a challenge to the rights and freedom of people who use Cannock Chase.

This area is used by ramblers from all over the Midlands. It is probably the most popular place in the Midlands, and, as other hon. Members have explained, it is not only the people in my constituency who make use of Cannock Chase. It is nothing short of a public scandal that the Service Departments today should seek to increase their hold in an area and acquire more land than they held even when this country was threatened in time of war. We invite the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us fairly quickly what is his decision in this matter, because we have waited a long time. It is time that a decision was taken so that the local authorities may know where they are, and the Parliamentary Secretary should now tell us that he is prepared to resist the demands of the Service Departments in this matter. We give him the full assurance that if they want anywhere else on which to site the things which they have sited on Cannock Chase, many of us will gladly help them to find such sites.

8.33 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning (Mr. King)

The House as a whole will be grateful, as I am sure will many local authorities, to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Swingler) for having raised this subject. It is good and right that air and light should play on it, just as it is good and right that air and light in a physical sense should be available to the constituents of my hon. Friend in their hard earned hours of leisure. No one who knows the devotion of my right hon. Friend the Minister to the cause of National Parks, conservation areas, footpath preservation and allied subjects, could doubt his sympathy with any claim to those broad acres of moorland and heath which form the beauty and wealth of the English countryside. I can assure hon. Members of his anxiety, which is shared by every member of the Ministry of Town and Country Planning, to assist those who, lay their just claim to the enjoyment of those places.

The Debate has ranged wide, with reference to Dovedale, Upper Hulme and areas other than Cannock Chase. Perhaps I may be forgiven if, first, I say a few words on the general subject and then come down to the particular problem of Cannock Chase a little later on. I think it will be agreed that we must take this matter in due order. We must establish some principles and proceed from some accepted data. Some hon. Members, though none who have spoken tonight, think there should not be any Armed Forces. Obviously, we cannot share that view, and I am sure the majority of the House agree with me on that. We must assume that there are to be Armed Forces, and we must also assume that there are to be efficient Armed Forces. If there are to be efficient Armed Forces, they must have a training ground. Many hon. Members, certainly on this side of the House, are anxious that the Armed Forces shall remain very small in number. That is a common view. The smaller they are in number the more vital it is that they should be efficient, and if they are to be efficient they must train with modern weapons. It is a commonplace to say that modern weapons are very destructive. They are destructive over an increasingly wide area, a much wider area than in prewar times. Therefore, we cannot juggle with this problem. We cannot push the Forces about from place to place. We have to take a fair view and a broad view, and if we are, as I hope, good administrators, we have to set up appropriate and efficient machinery of allocation which will take into account all the interests involved. They are many—amenities, agriculture, forestry, industry, building. That is exactly what we have done.

We have brought about, and there is now in existence, the Services Land Requirement Committee, on which all relevant Ministries are represented. That Committee is considering many matters, and at this very moment it is considering the matter which tonight is under debate. It is a Committee that can take a broad view. It is right, I think, that the chairman of it should be representative of the Ministry of Town and Country Planning, because the Ministry of Town and Country Planning is in this matter, to some extent, a disinterested Ministry, and in so far as it is interested, it is interested because it is sympathetic with the views of my hon. Friend. I admit frankly that I am in some difficulty. Having set up that Committee, to which I shall refer in greater detail in a few minutes, it would not be right, it would not be good administration, it would not be courteous, for me to forejudge the issue. I have to bear in mind something similar. It is possible—by no means improbable—that, arising out of discussions now going on, there will be a public inquiry. It would not be right that, during that public inquiry, I should be quoted as having expressed with too great emphasis this view or that.

Mr. H. Roberts

Does the Committee merely consider a specific case as it arises, as this one; or does it keep all the requirements of the country as a whole in review, as, I suggest, it should?

Mr. King

That is the point I was about to moot. I want to deal at some length with the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised. I say, first that I think there has been to some extent unnecessary publicity—unnecessary scares—over a number of areas which, in fact, will probably not stand a very great chance of ever being required at all. The procedure, which must be regarded as being of importance, is this. The sponsoring Department, the War Office, or one of the Service Departments, or the Ministry of Supply—puts in its application to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning, and the Ministry of Town and Country Planning, without comment, passes that claim on to the local authorities. It gets back from the local authorities their comments, and at that point the claim goes to the Committee. It is inevitable that at the moment it reaches the local authorities there should be publicity. In many cases there is publicity before the Ministry of Town and Country Planning has a chance to make up its mind, or before the matter has gone to the Committee.

Mr. C. Poole

Do we understand that the Ministry of Town and Country Planning is purely a post office in this matter, to receive a demand from a Service Department, and to push it out to the local authorities? It seems to me fantastic that the Ministry of Town and Country Planning should function in that way without being in a position to express any opinion.

Mr. King

If my hon. Friend will allow me to finish, he will see that that supposition is wholly untrue. The local authorities then return the application with their comments. It is at that point that it goes on to the Committee. With the local authorities' recommendations it is then possible for the Ministry of Town and Country Planning to consider the thing as a whole, and then its responsibility begins. It cannot begin, however, until the Ministry—I think this is fair administration—has in front of it the views of the local authorities.

Mr. Swingler

I should like to get the procedure perfectly clear, because there is a good deal of misapprehension about the procedure and about the point at which decisions are taken. What I should like my hon. Friend to explain is this. Does the Minister consider the question, whatever demand is put forward by the Service Departments, or whatever is the particular matter which has gone to the Services Land Requirements Committee, or does he pass his requirements to that Committee before he has considered what is his policy? Is it a fact that the Minister of Town and Country Planning does not consider what are his views or policy about the claims of the Services for land until some recommendation has been made by the Committee?

Mr. King

That is not so. The Chairman of this Committee is a representative of the Ministry of Town and Country Planning. The Committee, having reported under his chairmanship, with the other Ministries also represented, the report comes back to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning. At that point the Minister comes in. It goes to the Committee, and it comes back to the Minister. We are all aware, and no one can be more aware than our Ministry, of the extreme difficulty of considering this problem area by area. That is a major drawback to my mind. At this point, we must mention the production of the White Paper on the Services Land Requirements. It is known by the House that that White Paper has been in preparation for some time. We may seem open to criticism because it has not been produced before, but we must bear in mind the immense variations which have taken place in the size, composition and disposition of the Armed Forces in the last two years. Anyone who considers this question must have some data about the Armed Forces. If is only very recently that we have been in a position to give the information at our disposal.

Mr. William Shepherd (Bucklow)

Then, why is it that this White Paper has been promised since last February, and, as each month has gone by, hon. Members who are looking forward to its publication have not found it available?

Mr. King

The hon. Member will be aware that the composition of the Armed Forces has only very recently been finally determined. The production of that White Paper is now very close indeed. It is, in fact, in draft.

Mr. H. D. Hughes

Does the White Paper contain the decisions on all of these areas? Will it give a decision in regard to Cannock Chase?

Mr. King

The White Paper will not do that. It will be an overall review of the total land requirements of the Services. It is only when that is done that it becomes simpler to consider the requirements area by area. Perhaps I may refer more directly to Cannock Chase. I agree with much that has been said on this subject. I agree that the Midlands have a very special claim. It is a conservation area, although I would point out that there are 52 conservation areas. It is not to be confused with a wild life conservation area, which is something quite different. I agree that the Chase is one of the few pieces of amenity land to which the Midland wage earners have access. They are less fortunately placed than the wage earners in many other parts of the country, and it is right, therefore, that we should give them special sympathy. I have a word of comfort for my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford. I can assure him that the 1,858 acres are not the thin end of the wedge, as he described it. We hope—indeed, I am sure, that this will happen—that the increase in amenity which he seeks will take place. But we must not fall into the error of supposing that one ammunition boot, resting on amenity land, is necessarily an offence to that area. It may be, and probably is, but there is the possibility that it may not be. There is a considerable difference, for instance, between a piece of land reserved for dropping atomic bombs and a piece of land reserved for very occasional use by the Territorial Army. It is not only whether Armed Forces use the land; it is how they use it, and when. In considering this matter we must keep that distinction in mind.

There are 30,000 acres in Cannock Chase, and 15,000 of them are relatively undeveloped. Let us get down to facts and figures. Of these 15,000 acres, 1,858 are now in use by Government Departments. These 1,858 are divisible into four main areas. Four hundred and eighty-five are at Rugeley, and are in use for general infantry training by the Territorial Army. They deny to nobody the use of the land. They are seldom there, and today they are very few; they constitute what I would describe as a small interference with, amenity. There are also 518 acres on Rugeley Range, which is a small arms range, also for the Territorial Army. It is not frequently used. Access need not be denied, save on the rare occasions when firing is actually going on. There are 395 acres in Cannock Chase itself. They are used as a tank training ground and a vehicle proving establishment. One or two tanks may use that ground, under present arrangements, for some 30 days in the year. Here, I think my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall (Mr. W. Wells) fell into an error. There need be no denial of access to the public here, although I will not say that there is no infringement of amenity. I do not like tanks; I think they are an infringement, but I would describe this infringement as being of a medium character.

Mr. W. Wells

Does my hon. Friend suggest that while tanks and, possibly, new types of weapons are being tested, the public will be allowed access to that area?

Mr. King

I said that the tanks would use this land for about 30 days in the year. Out of these 1,858 acres we are now down to the last 450 acres. They are being used as a demolition area, and there is an explosives school there. Here, we are dealing with an area of major controversy—what I might call an explosive controversy. In so far as the Army use the land the condition of tenure is similar to that for the Rugeley range. But that area is largely under the control of the Air Ministry. I wish that were not so, but I can give my hon. Friend this assurance—and I choose my words with care—that the Air Ministry will do everything in their power to find an alternative. If my hon. Friend, or any other Member, can suggest any constructive alternative, I hope he will do so. I cannot say absolutely that we shall succeed, but we shall try very hard.

To sum up: at the very worst 1,858 acres are now used by Government Departments in one way or another. That is one-eighth of the aera of Cannock Chase, and I hope that the one-thirty-secondth that is in dispute will revert to its proper use. I give the pledge that if substantial dissatisfaction remains when we have the machinery and it has produced its proper and final recommendations, there is, as a last resort, a public inquiry. Finally, I want the House to feel—because I know that this is a difficult subject—that we at the Ministry of Town and Country Planning are deeply interested in it. Perhaps I might add a personal note. I have lived all my adult life in the countryside and on the edge of a chase in which some of my happiest hours were spent, and as that is typical of nearly all of those concerned in our Ministry, we are determined and desire to bring about the relief of these areas as soon as possible.

Adjourned accordingly at Nine Minutes to Nine o'Clock.