HC Deb 22 November 1962 vol 667 cc1444-56

Order for Second Reading read.

5.9 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Julian Ridsdale)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

It is not often that the Air Ministry has occasion to come to the House for legislation, but I am glad to say that this is a comparatively simple Bill, concerned with the extension of an aerodrome, and I therefore trust that the House will cooperate with me and live up to a motto famous in the Royal Air Force, "With speed to the mark."

The airfield at Valley, in Anglesey, is equipped with all the facilities for training in the use of modern weapons which are now in service with the latest types of air-craft, but the main runway must be extended before the airfield can be used in complete safety by those aircraft. The airfield was built during the 1939–45 war, largely on common land, which was then under requisition. After the war, it was decided to keep the airfield on a long-term basis, and common and public rights over that part of the common that had been enclosed were extinguished by the Towyn Trewan Common Act, 1950. The runway extension now needed falls partly on land of which the common and public rights were extinguished in 1950 and partly on land still subject to these rights. This Bill is necessary to enable the extension of the runway to be completed.

In preparing to extinguish these rights, we have consulted the Anglesey County Council—which is the local planning authority—the conservators of the common, the Nature Conservancy, the Society for the Preservation of Rural Wales, and the various amenity bodies which have an interest in the area, including the Commons Preservation Society. None of them has raised any objection in principle to the Bill, and we have been able to meet the points of interest that have been raised. We have, indeed, received much co-operation and assistance, particularly from the conservators of the common and the Anglesey County Council, for which I should like to express my appreciation.

The Bill is relatively simple. Its main purpose is to extinguish the rights of common and other rights over approximately 55 acres of land which we need for the runway extension; and to provide for the payment of compensation. This is the purpose of Clauses 1, 3 and 4. It will be necessary to carry storm water from the runway to the nearest outlet. This will be done by building a drain across what will be common land to an outlet in the nearby River Crigyll, but since the drain will be covered after construction, it will not interfere with the general enjoyment of the common and it is not necessary to extinguish any rights over the line of the drain. Provision has, however, been made in Clause 2 for the temporary interference with the exercise of rights during the construction and subsequent maintenance of the drain, and the subject of compensation on this account is covered in Clause 3.

We know of no private rights of way over the land to be enclosed for the runway extension but, against the possibility that some may exist, Clause 4 provides for them to be extinguished; and for further compensation for any consequent loss or damage if claimed within a year of the passing of the Bill.

The land that needs to be enclosed for the runway extension runs alongside the River Crigyll on the southern end of the common and, without express provision in the Bill, there will be no access between the remaining parts of the common to the east and west of the extended runway. Clause 5, therefore, covers the use of a track which will provide for such access. It also preserves a right of access for the Gwynedd River Board, so that the Board can carry out its duties in relation to the River Crigyll.

As in other modern airfields, subsidiary works outside the airfield boundary are necessary, such as navigational and landing aids, lights, and similar minor works, which will be required in the future. Such installations do not interfere with the general enjoyment of the common and do not, therefore, justify extinguishing common and other rights, but legal provision for such additional works is essential. That is the purpose of Clause 6, which extends the power of the conservators to allow such works within the definition given, to receive financial consideration from time to time, and to apply any such moneys to the improvement and protection of other rights of the common.

We are sorry that we have to make even this relatively small encroachment on the common, but I assure the House that we have limited our proposals to the hare minimum that is essential if this airfield, which brings a good measure of civilian employment to the island and plays a considerable part in its economy, is to continue to make a useful contribution to our national defence.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes (Anglesey)

I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Air for the clear explanation he has given us of the Bill. I have more than a passing interest, because Towyn Trewan is in my constituency, and not many miles from my home.

As the hon. Gentleman has said, a large part of the common was acquired at the commencement of the last war for the purposes of the Royal Air Force—between 650 and 700 acres, I think—and the Towyn Trewan Common Act, 1950 extinguished the common rights in respect of the area, made arangements for the payment of compensation, and so on. Therefore, it would probably be accurate to say that this Measure is an extension of the 1950 Act.

The Royal Air Force wants to extend its main runway. The Under-Secretary did not say precisely by how much the runway is to be extended, and perhaps he will tell the House just why this work is required, and what are the Air Force and military reasons for it. In order to extend the runway, the Royal Air Force needs more of the common land, and this Bill provides for the acquisition of the additional acreage.

As the hon. Gentleman has said, there is no formal objection to the Bill from the County Council, the Valley Rural District Council, or the parish councils concerned. There are three parish councils involved—Llanfair-yn-neubwll, Llechylched and Llanfaelog—and I understand that all three are agreeable to the Bill's provisions.

I am informed that the attitude of the county council remains as it was when the previous Act was passed in 1950, and perhaps I might read the resolutions that it passed at the time, as they are relevant to the present as well. The first resolution was in the following terms: That this Council welcome the Air Ministry's decision to make the R.A.F. Station at Valley a permanent Station and their intention to proceed forthwith with the erection of permanent buildings for the accommodation of R.A.F. personnel together with Married Quarters for Officers and Airmen; they also express their gratification with the statement contained in the recent White Paper on 'Wales' that the aerodrome is available as an emergency and diversionary airport for regular civil air services. The availability there mentioned was one of the reasons why the county council supported the 1950 Act, and I think that the Under-Secretary should tell us what the present position is in relation to the use of the Valley aerodrome for civil purposes. I do not want to depart from the substance of the Bill, but in North Wales we are very ill-served in respect of civil air services, and any indication that facilities are available at Valley would be welcomed by the people of the area. The other resolution stated: That this Council agree that it is not practicable lo reprovide elsewhere the part of Tywyn Trewan Common required for the purpose of the aerodrome and are of the opinion that the claims of the commoners and the owners of the soil can be adequately met by payment of compensation which the Council understand the Air Ministry are prepared to pay in full. May we at this stage be told something about the compensation rights contained in the Bill? Has any agreement been reached with the commoners about this? I note that in Clause 3 an estimate of £1,500 is given, but can the Under-Secretary say whether this is acceptable to the commoners? It should also be made clear that a Bill which extinguishes common and public rights and rights of way should not be taken lightly. It is our duty to scrutinise Bills of this kind most carefully.

A much neglected report is that of the Royal Commission on Common Land which was published in 1958. That Commission made some important recommendations which hon. Members should bear in mind when considering a Bill of this kind. Paragraph 404 of that Report stated: We have come to the conclusion that, as the last reserve of uncommitted land in England and Wales, common land ought to be preserved in the public interest Paragraphs 253 to 255 recommend that Defence Departments—and this is precisely relevant to the Bill—when requiring common land should allow other uses to continue to the maximum possible extent. Paragraphs 253 and 254 of the Report refer spceifically to Anglesey, and Towyn Trewan is mentioned as a site of special scientific interest. I was glad to hear the Under-Secretary say that he had consulted the Nature Conservancy Authority and other interested authorities on their interest in the common.

I am glad to see that in Clause 5 maximum provision is made for the use by the public of the track from the western end of the bridge over the River Crigyll to the Trewan Sands. Are any other rights of way to be extinguished by the Bill and, if so, is provision being made for alternative rights of way for the public?

I turn to the most important point I have to make in connection with the Bill; Clause 6, which will give the conservators power to permit certain additional works in the future. Clause 6 appears to enable the conservators to allow the Secretary of State the right, in certain circumstances, to carry out additional works which could conceivably make use of the whole of the remainder of the common. There is not much of it left, for the right hon. Gentleman's Department has taken most of it and if the Under-Secretary will look at subsection (5) he will see that it states: In this section "additional works" means any of the following, that is to say—

  1. (a) pipes and drains, other than the drain referred to in section 2 of this Act, and works in connection with such pipes and drains;
  2. (b) electrical apparatus, electric lines (within the meaning of the Electric Lighting Act 1882) and works in connection therewith;
  3. (c) means of access (whether for vehicles or for foot passengers) to land in the occupation of the Secretary of State,
and any reference to the construction of additional works shall be construed accordingly. These works, it seems, could be carried out without any member of the public being able to make any representations at all, provided the owners of the soil are willing to give their consent.

I suggest that these are very wide powers indeed. Public rights may, apparently, be taken without the knowledge of the public. I would have thought that hon. Members would want to look at this provision most carefully before giving it our final approval. The Under-Secretary may argue that these are limited and necessary powers, and I agree that they are, but, for instance, subsection (5) could be interpreted widely in the future. Subsection (5, c) states: means of access (whether for vehicles or for foot passengers) to land in the occupation of the Secretary of State,". Could that not mean a good deal of land being involved? Could new roads and footpaths be constructed under this clause? It seems obvious, therefore, that some additional safeguard in the Bill is required to protect the public interest.

I do not want for a moment to suggest that there is any major abjection to the Bill. That is not the case. We appreciate the contribution which the R.A.F. makes to the economy of the island. I certainly appreciate that—especially during the period of difficult unemployment—this Air Force Station has given employment to more than 200 civilians in Anglesey, and this has been an important factor.

However, the Clause gives wide powers over common land; powers which seem to be contrary to the spirit and recommendations of the Royal Commission. Perhaps the Bill might provide that the consent of, say, the County Council should be obtained for such additional works? That would probably meet the case and would meet any criticism which may be made. Subject to these reservations I offer no objection to the Bill and hope that it has a successful passage through all its stages.

5.26 p.m.

Sir Eric Errington (Aldershot)

I wish to say a word or two on the Bill, but I must first declare an interest, living, as I do, just two or three miles from the Valley Airport. I should like to congratulate the Under-Secretary on having had so few objections to a Bill of this character, because one's experience in regard to the abolition of common rights is that one usually produces much more opposition in dealing with it than one does when dealing even with privately-owned property.

However, I should like to know—and to echo what was said by the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes)—more about the civilian position. I observe that the reason for the Bill is the lengthening of a runway by quite a substantial amount; by about 400 yards, I believe. If so, will it be possible to consider the civilian aspect involved? As I understand it, Valley was a diversionary airfield for Prestwick. It does not suffer from the considerable amount of fog from which other airfields suffer. I believe that some time ago there was an agreement by the Air Ministry over the use of this airfield for civilian purposes. It seems that that did not continue for any considerable time but, in view of the shortage of civilian airfields in North Wales, I wonder if this aspect can be reconsidered now?

5.29 p.m.

Mr. Ridsdale

By leave of the House, I should like to answer some of the points which have been raised in the debate, particularly by the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes), who over a number of years has taken a helpful interest in the R.A.F. activities at Valley.

I will deal, firstly, with the two smaller points he made at the beginning of his speech, and, in doing so, I would refer him to the first part of my speech in which I gave the reason why the R.A.F. want these facilities. This airfield at Anglesey is equipped with all the facilities for training in the use of modern weapons in the way the Service requires, with the latest types of aircraft. But the main runway must be extended before it can be used in complete safety by these aircraft. "Safety" is the operative word here. The hon. Member for Anglesey asked by how much it would be extended. The answer is by about 1,500 feet; that is, about 900 feet within the existing boundaries—and 600 feet outside.

Mr. Frederick Mulley (Sheffield, Park)

The Under-Secretary of State said that the airfield is operating with the modern weapons but will not be absolutely safe until the extension is completed. Do we infer from that statement that some pilots are using the airfield although it is not known whether it is safe to do so?

Mr. Ridsdale

No. It is a question of the later types of aircraft which may be used. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that they are not using that airfield without due consideration for safety in any way.

On the question of the use of the airfield by civil operators, which was raised by the hon. Member for Anglesey and by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington), I am aware of the interest of the hon. Member for Anglesey in this matter, but I was not aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot lived so close to Valley. I am afraid I cannot add to what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said on previous occasions, that it would be dangerous to both sides to mix regular civil air services with jet pilot training. It would certainly interfere with the training schedule. We are somewhat limited in the number of good training grounds available to us, and I am sorry that I cannot allow any interference with flying from Valley or from its relief landing ground at Mona. We have always made facilities available to civil aircraft in an emergency, and this will continue.

With regard to the question of compensation raised by the hon. Member for Anglesey, we have already begun negotiating with the surveyor appointed by the commoners to look after their interests. As the surveyor is representing some 200 commoners he has, not surprisingly, asked for more time to study his brief. Since we are all anxious that a just and fair settlement should be reached, I have readily agreed to this and that is why I am unable to place before the House more than an estimate of the compensation that will be awarded.

Secondly, I should like to deal with the question of footpaths which the hon. Member for Anglesey has raised and particularly with his remarks with regard to the Royal Commission. We are doing all we can to see that the commoners have the opportunity to use the paths as freely as possible subject to the use that the Royal Air Force makes of them. Indeed, I fully appreciate the importance of being able to get down to the beach, especially in the summer months. I am happy to assure the hon. Gentleman that the footpath will not be disturbed by the runway extension. The footpath will have to be diverted while the drain mentioned in Clause 2 is being built and while any subsequent maintenance is carried out, but once this is done the footpath will be available as before.

There is one other track about which I am sure the hon. Gentleman is concerned. It is the track from the level crossing round the airfield to the footbridge over the River Crigyll. We have included in Clause 5 provision to allow the track to be used by the public. Some grading of the land where the track runs will be needed, and we shall do this at the same time as the runway is being lengthened. I know that the conservators are worried about the bit of track which runs along the river. They fear that in the winter it will become a quagmire.

We think that this is something which can be settled during the discussions with the surveyor about compensation. It is to be a track and not a metal road and will provide reasonable access for the commoners, their animals and their agricultural implements. But since it is not a proper road, I do not think that this is something which should be written into the Bill. I am sure that we can reach an understanding with the conservators on this point in our local discussions. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall be good and fair landowners and pay particular attention to the rights of commoners. As far as I know, these are the only two tracks, rights of way, common paths which will be affected by our extension.

Lastly, there is, as the hon. Member for Anglesey mentioned, the important point in Clause 6 of the Bill. It has been suggested that the Air Ministry should ask county council permission before starting any extra works under Clause 6 because, as the hon. Gentleman stated, there was the fear of further building and extension on this part of the land. Let me say once again that I am very grateful to the council for all the help it has given in connection with the Bill. I can quite understand that it is anxious that the rest of the common should not be built upon without it first being consulted. However, I think I can reassure the hon. Gentleman by saying that there is certainly no possibility that works carried out under Clause 6 would take up the whole of the rest of the common. The hon. Gentleman will see from subsection (5) that the works which can be done are, indeed, of a very restricted nature. They are navigational and landing aids, pipes and drains and similar minor additions.

This Clause has been deliberately worded to prevent any extension of building and anything done under the Clause would result at most in a temporary interference with the use of the common by either the commoners or the public. For this reason and because the conservators, five of whom are appointed by the local parish council, represent the owners of the common and the local people, I did not think it necessary to write into the Bill the need to consult the county council. We have, however, offered the council a formal undertaking to do so before we start any works. I hope that this will satisfy the council.

In conclusion, I wish to stress once again that we are sorry that we have to make even this relatively small encroachment on the common land and to assure the House that we have limited the proposals under the Bill to the minimum essential if the airfield is to continue to make a useful contribution to our national defence.

5.38 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Mulley (Sheffield Park)

I do not propose to detain the House for more than a few minutes, because I think there is a desire on both sides that the Bill should have an unopposed Second Reading so that the extension of the airfield can be undertaken. However, I am bound to warn the Under-Secretary of State that we shall want to know a little more about some of the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes) before the House passes the Bill. I think that the hon. Gentleman ought to look again at the point on Clause 6.

I do not understand why a formal undertaking is given, as it were, outside the powers of Parliament when, on the face of it, it would seem quite reasonable in a matter of this sort to give the county council what it wishes. We also want to know a little more before the final stage about the compensation involved. I do not think that anybody would wish to delay the Bill because it brings employment to Anglesey as well as serving a very important purpose for the Royal Air Force. I understand that excellent relations exist between the Royal Air Force and the local people and that there is a great deal of good will in Anglesey.

I hope that the station will, as a result of this Measure, be used more, and I would say, although one does not wish to press the point now, that more thought ought to be given, as the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington) as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey made plain, to the use of this airfield in some civilian capacity. The weather there appears to be excellent and I understand that during and after the war it was very extensively used for transport between this country and the United States. It would, of course, not only help the local population if more work were available but would also provide an additional airfield because, unhappily, owing to our climate a lot of aircraft have to be diverted.

I hope, therefore, that further thought will be given to these points. In our sending the Bill forward it must not be assumed that my hon. Friend's points are finished. As the hon. Gentleman said, my hon. Friend has taken a great interest in the Valley airfield and an even greater interest in the general problem of providing employment for Anglesey. Unhappily, prosperity seems to have bypassed this very beautiful part of Wales and if, as a result of this Measure and the representations made in the debate, we can do anything to meet this position I am sure that all hon. Members will be satisfied.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Ordered, That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee of Eight Members, Four to be nominated by the House and Four by the Committee of Selection.

Ordered, That there shall stand referred to the Select Committee—

  1. (a) any Petition against the Bill presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office at any time not later than the tenth day after this day, and
  2. (b) any Petition which has been presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office and in which the Petitioners complain of any amendment as proposed in the filled-up Bill or of any matter which has arisen during the progress of the Bill before the said Committee,
being a Petition in which the Petitioners pray to be heard by themselves, their Counsel or Agents.

Ordered, That if no such Petition as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (a) above is presented, or if all such Petitions are withdrawn before the meeting of the Committee, the Order for the com- mittal of the Bill to a Select Committee shall be discharged and the Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.

Ordered, That any Petitioner whose Petition stands referred to the Select Committee shall, subject to the Rules and Orders of the House and to the Prayer of his Petition, be entitled to be heard by himself, his Counsel or Agents upon his Petition provided that it is prepared and signed in conformity with the Rules and Orders of the House, and the Member in charge of the Bill shall be entitled to be heard by his Counsel or Agents in favour of the Bill against that Petition.

Ordered, That the Committee have power to report from day to day the Minutes of the Evidence taken before them.

Ordered, That Three be the Quorum of the Committee.—[Mr. H. Fraser.]