HC Deb 08 March 1967 vol 742 cc1478-80

Motion made and Question proposed. That the Isle of Wight and Portsmouth (Solent Forts) Order 1967, dated 9th February 1967, a copy of which was laid before this House on 16th February, be approved.—(Mr. Skeftington.)

12.23 p.m.

Dr. Reginald Bennett (Gosport and Fareham)

I wish to put two points to the Government. I should perhaps declare an interest in this matter, because some years ago I wrote to my hon. Friend who was then the Under-Secretary of State for War and asked when these forts were likely to be coming on to the market as I was interested. I was told that they would be coming up for public tender. In due course documents arrived and a firm of agents communicated with me, saying that one of these forts in which I was interested would no doubt cost about £400,000 to build today, and therefore £80,000 seemed a very suitable sum for which one could be sold. My son, who was then aged 11, raised a syndicate, which includes some very well-known names in the City, and made an offer of £40. Since then I have heard no more, but I must declare my interest, as so far as I am concerned the matter is still open.

The subject with which I am concerned today comes under Article 4 of this very interesting Order, which allocates these forts to certain local authorities. I have been doing some homework with the pilots' guides and the charts, and I would venture to suggest that the allocation of some of these forts is really rather unfortunate. So I would seek to put my point and to ask the Minister whether he would do something about it. There is no doubt at all that No Man's Land Fort. as shown on this pretty little map which I have—I could not call it a chart because there are no soundings on it—is obviously nearest and most appropriate to Ryde Borough. It is equally appropriate that the Horse Sand Fort is connected by its nearest shallows to the City of Portsmouth. But I would seek to say that the Spitbank Fort at Spit-head, which is situated no more than 1.2 nautical miles—as I pricked ii off on the chart—from Haslar ward and my constituency, is connected physically much more with Gosport than with Portsmouth.

If one looks at a real chart all the way from the Spitbank Fort to the nearest dry land in Gosport, the soundings never exceed a depth of more than one fathom four—to wit, 10 ft.—at low water ordinary spring tides, whereas between that fort and the City of Portsmouth the water goes down to ten fathoms—six times as deep as it is between the fort and Gosport. In other words, the fort is really separated geographically much more from Portsmouth than from Gosport. It is, in fact, connected by a series of shallows of which the best known is the Hamilton Bank upon which, not unnaturally, the "Nelson" duly ran ashore shortly before the outbreak of the last war. I can remember the men being drilled to run from side to side, to try to rock the old "Nelson" clear of the engulfing Hamilton. I would say that in every sense it is appropriate that the Spitbank Fort should be allied to Gosport.

Similarly, in the case of St. Helens Fort, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend but which is a fort in which I also have a financial interest, as I measure it on the chart it is .55 nautical miles from Nodes Point, the little promontory which is visible on the map in the hon. Gentleman's hand. But it is only .6 nautical miles from the other side, from Bembridge, in a southerly direction. There, again, it is more naturally connected with that side, Bembridge, and therefore should come under the Isle of Wight rural district and not under the Borough of Ryde. In fact, it is so well connected with the land there that I and many others have walked out to that fort at low tide, and I consider that it should be attached to the other local government area.

I am not going to press other points which I have in mind, because time is very short. But I should like to place on the record that I want to know that in return for the rates which will be levied there suitable services will be provided, such as lighting and police and refuse disposal and other things. These will no doubt need further explanation in the course of the debate. But I should like, particularly, to ask the Minister who is in charge of this Order to con- sider this carefully, again, with a view to allowing a changed Order to be brought out allocating each fort to one of the four adjacent local authorities.

12.29 p.m.

Mr. Mark Woodnutt (Isle of Wight)

I have listened patiently to my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett) and I would express the hope that he is not considering annexing the Isle of Wight to Gosport and Fareham. The first point I wish to make on this is a purely academic one. Article 2 purports to set out the purposes of the Order in paragraphs (a) to (g), and it deals with registers of electors, lists of jurors, local government elections, valuation lists, and all sorts of things. But the main purpose of this Order, which is to bring St. Helens Fort and No Man's Land Fort within the boundary of the Isle of Wight, and Horse Sand Fort within the boundary of the City of Portsmouth, is not mentioned at all. The intention is set out in the Preamble, but even that states that the Order arises from a request of the Isle of Wight County Council and the City of Portsmouth, when we all know that the suggestion emanated from the hon. Gentleman's Ministry—

It being half-past Twelve o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed Tomorrow.