HC Deb 16 July 1991 vol 195 cc325-32

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

11.2 pm

Mr. Alistair Burt (Bury, North)

I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to raise this important matter for my constituents.

In many ways, the history of the Holcombe moor application is the history of my own time in Parliament and, indeed, of a major part of my life. To explain the background to the debate, I remind my hon. Friend the Minister that the Army has a long connection with the north-west and with my constituency. Bury is proud of its connection with the Lancashire Fusiliers, which were stationed there for many years, and Bury parish church is still the garrison church of the regiment. When I was at school, I was in the cadet force attached to the regiment. Eventually, the regiment became part of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers in a previous amalgamation. The Minister will appreciate, however, that I do not intend to discuss Army amalgamations this evening.

As a schoolboy, I also walked on an area of land known as Holcombe moor. I am fond of the area and know it extremely well. The village of Hawkshaw, which is close to Holcombe, has also had a long connection with the Army. From the early part of this century, the Army had a range in the Hawkshaw area and the relationship between the villages and people of the area and the Army in that training area grew up over a long period.

When I was elected in 1983, certain disputes were becoming clear. The nature of the area was changing. People's leisure habits were changing. There was more walking in the area and disputes and confrontations began to arise between the Army and residents. They were always disagreeable because, while the Army wanted a good relationship with the residents and the residents wanted a good relationship with the Army, for one reason or another a problem arose, there were difficulties on each side and matters became tense and unpleasant. Attempts were made on both sides to improve the atmosphere. I recall at a public meeting in the area trying to improve matters, and I believe that the Army and others sought to make the best of the relationship.

Matters came to a head with two planning applications in 1986. Early that year the Army made an application for an area of land, known as Simon's Sundial cottage, to add to its training area at Hawkshaw. That provoked local concern and I took a position against that application for about 14 acres. Towards the end of the year, the Army applied to extend its training area in the Holcombe moor area by about 916 acres, a substantial acreage, and sought to extend its dry training area by that amount.

After the initial announcement about that towards the end of 1986, extensive work was done during 1987 in preparation for the inquiry. A Minister came to view the area, the Army made its proposals, invited the public to comment on them and tried to interest people in what it intended to do, and various residents groups were set up to counter the proposals.

The inquiry began in March 1988, adjourned shortly afterwards and resumed later in the year. The inquiry was extensive and I pay tribute to those who put much work into it. Various local interest groups were represented. For example, the Redisher residents association, through the work of Mr. Roy Walsh and Mrs. Christine Bolton, did extensive work. Those who have been involved in planning inquiries will be aware of the imbalance of resources available to those who protest, particularly against a Government Department. They did a great deal of work and mobilised much support in the area.

That support was not universal. Groups such as the Hawkshaw village trust, which had maintained a long and pleasant relationship with the Army, supported the Army's application. It was also supported by Army cadet units in the area, which made a plea for more training land. A variety of interested individuals and parties made representations by letter, and environmental groups, including the National Trust, were involved. On balance, however, there can be no doubt that the number of objections that I received outweighed the number in support.

By the end of the inquiry I felt it right to explain further my position on the matter, which I had first made clear in October 1986, when I gave qualified support to the Army's position. By the time of the inquiry, in October 1988, I was able to make my position even clearer. I did so, and I stick to it—I was in support of the application made by the Army for the 916 acres, though I retained my opposition to the smaller application for about 14 acres at Simon's Sundial cottage. The two applications were taken together.

The reasons for my support are not hard to fathom and I made them clear in a submission. I recognise the difficulty of the modern Army in obtaining its training areas, particularly for urban-based territorial forces. We raise many soldiers in the Manchester area and I spoke earlier of our long and proud connection with the Lancashire Fusilliers and other regiments in the area. I am conscious of the obligation that society owes to the Army, obligations which have become more clear and stark since 1988, particularly with the Gulf war, in which soldiers from my part of the world were involved and in which one of my constituents died. There is no doubt that there is strong support for the Army, and I felt that on balance the Army could live with the people in the area.

The use that the Army was requesting of the area did not seem too extensive—the Army was not seeking exclusive use and there would be dry training and not live firing. For a variety of reasons, provided that certain reservations were accepted by the Army in its use of the land, I felt that the application was reasonable. I therefore opposed a number of my constituents, but supported others who supported the Army.

The conduct of the protesters was extremely good. They worked hard and presented a good case. Much work having been done, the inquiry sat for some time and we all sat back and waited for the inspector's decision. We started to sit back and wait in October 1988 and, frankly, we are now sick of waiting for an explanation. It has been too long and the silence has become deafening. It is about time that we had a decision. At first, we accepted and understood—whatever side of the argument we took—that it would take time before a decision would be made. No one was surprised that no announcement on the issue was made in 1989, because it was a significant year when great changes were made to the armed forces because of the momentous changes in eastern Europe, for which this country had held firm. However, concern began to be expressed shortly after that, particularly because at the end of 1989 the Army had to exercise an option on the purchase of land in the Holcombe moor area. Although no decision had been made on the inquiry, the Army had to move and quite properly did so in order to exercise the option to take the land. Naturally, that raised constituents' concerns that some form of deal was being done behind the scenes and I was asked to inquire about it.

I wrote to the then Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces in another place and received an explanation of why the option had been taken up. At the same time, I pressed the then Under-Secretary of State at the Department of the Environment, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan), for an explanation of why the inquiry was taking so long. He replied to me in a letter dated 22 March 1990: I can understand local anxieties about the outcome of the proposal which is taking longer than usual to conclude. It is, however, being taken forward as quickly as possible and I shall let you know the decision as soon as I am in a position to do so. In April 1990, I was required to write to the then Under-Secretary once again. By then, my constituents were pressing me firmly. My letter said: The continuing delay in announcing the result of the Inquiry is adding to speculation and difficulties in the area. I am telling my constituents that I am 'appalled' at the length of time it is taking to resolve the matter, and I thought I had better put you in the picture. On 24 May 1990, the then Under-Secretary wrote to thank me for my letter and said: I am afraid that there is nothing I can add to my letter of 22 March. I am sorry that consideration of this proposal is taking longer than usual, but it is being taken forward as quickly as possible. I shall let you know the decision as soon as I am in a position to do so. On 13 June 1990, Christine Bolton, one of the Redisher residents, wrote to me saying: We find it impossible to comprehend this delay. Surely the issues involved in the matter of the land use must have been resolved months ago, and we can only assume that the delay is due to political reasons. If you are not in a position to discover what is going on there is no hope for us! She continued: You may be aware that 'World in Action' dealt with the issue of M.O.D. land in a programme this Monday. We were included in the programme, and it was interesting to see what is happening elsewhere. I raise that matter with some concern because, if the media were taking such an interest, clearly the position of the Army and the Government was being put in a poor light. Therefore, in the Defence Estimates debate on 19 June 1990 I raised the issue once again. I said: we are still awaiting the result of the inquiry even though the last hearing was more than 18 months ago. Such a delay is intolerable. The arguments at the inquiry were difficult enough, and my constituents know that, providing certain conditions were met, I supported the Army's application for extra land. I said that I appreciated that the responsibility was not that of the then Defence Ministers, but I said: I hope that some notice is taken of the lengthy and involved process necessary to deal with the acquisition and use of training land" [Official Report, 19 June 1990; Vol. 174, column 874.]— because the delay was becoming even more intolerable.

During the summer recess last year, the matter went quiet, but by November and December Mrs. Bolton was again writing to me expressing concern at the changes in the nature of the forces. She said that some thought was being given about whether Holcombe moor training camp would be expanded to take one of the battalions returning from Germany. Again, I sought to check with the Ministry of Defence. The suggestion was given no time by the Minister for the Armed Forces, but it illustrated how, with no decision having been taken, speculation damaging to the Government was arising once again, and I was most concerned.

I met Christine Bolton again at Easter time this year. She referred to another television programme, in which it had been suggested that the decision would be taken not by the Department of the Environment but by the Cabinet. On 22 April, I wrote to the Secretary of State for the Environment, my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), to ask what was going on and when an answer would be given. I told him that I was writing repeatedly to Ministers and receiving no answers.

Another friend of mine, a solicitor called Colin Dawson—an excellent solicitor with a fearsome manner whom I would not like to face in court—has done a good job on behalf of residents who are involved in these matters. Colin began chasing me and asking me to get the Secretary of State to visit the area and explain why the decision was not being taken. I started to feel that I was under intolerable pressure, but I understood that it was being properly imposed by residents.

My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment kindly responded to me on 15 May and 3 July. On 15 May, he wrote: I too am disturbed at the exceptional length of time that this has been before the Department and I am urgently considering what can be done to bring it to a conclusion. On 3 July, he wrote: I can assure you that I am vigorously pursuing the matter. To come to the present, two questions of mine have been answered today—one by the Department of the Environment and one by the Ministry of Defence. Both answers are rather revealing, both relate to costs, and both were prompted by Mr. Dawson. In my question to the Secretary of State for the Environment, I asked if my right hon. Friend would quantify the cost to his Department of the public inquiry. The answer is that the costs to the Department of employing the inspector to conduct the inquiry and to write his report were about £10,000. Fair enough. I thank my right hon. Friend for the answer. I asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence if he would quantify the costs to his Department of the inquiry into the extension of a dry training area on Holcombe moor, Bury in 1988. The response of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces was as follows: No. It is not our normal policy to provide such costs. Why ever not? What is the point of not providing the costs in this instance? Why should there be no costing? Can the Ministry not undertake the exercise? What is the purpose of concealing the costs of the application? Surely no element of secrecy is involved. Does the Ministry of Defence not know the costs? It seems intolerable that such a straightforward question, which can be answered by the Department of the Environment, cannot be answered by the Ministry of Defence.

A series of questions have been raised by the delay that I have described. First, who is in control of the process? Is it the Ministry of Defence or is it the Department of the Environment? Who have been dragging their feet? If responsibility lies with the Ministry of Defence, it should recognise that there is concern about the delay. All the hard work that has been done locally to improve relationships between the Army and residents, which I strongly support, is being put at risk by the delays that are taking place in London.

If the delay is the responsibility of the Department of the Environment, I remind it of the criticism that it experienced in relation to the decision at Stainmore. A dry training area application was made by the Army, the inspector turned it down, but the then Secretary of State for the Environment, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), overturned the decision and allowed the application. That caused great concern. Democratic processes were apparently not being adhered to, and an atmosphere of suspicion and concern was created. In the case that I have presented to the House today, there is in addition the delay to which I have referred.

The Government are much concerned with a citizens' charter and other such matters. Given a delay from October 1988 to date for a decision to be made on the matter which I have introduced, I do not know how much compensation might be suggested under the charter.

I bow to no one in my support of the Army. I am proud of my local relationship with it, which I have emphasised today. No one is unaware of my support for the Army and for its application in the case that I have outlined, but I am bitterly disappointed at what has ensued. The essence of the relationship between the public and the armed forces is consent and understanding. That requires the Army, which must have the ability to undertake its work, to offer explanations and to abide by decisions that are arrived at democratically. It also requires the Department of the Environment and the Government, with the enormous advantage that they have in these matters—certainly over opponents to planning proposals—to deal with a matter as quickly as is reasonably practical in providing an answer.

In this case, either the Department of the Environment or the Ministry of Defence has lamentably failed. My constituents, who include the Army and all their supporters, whatever their points of view—some agree and some disagree with my position—deserve rather better than they have had so far. I hope that the Minister can provide some enlightenment, and some answers to the questions that I have raised.

11.19 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tim Yeo)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) on his success in obtaining the opportunity to raise the matter of the Army's proposals for extending its training facilities at Holcombe moor. My hon. Friend's appearance at the public inquiry and the evidence that he gave there testify to his concern, which he emphasised in his remarks this evening, that a fair balance should be struck between the Army's needs and the public's rights and interests over this important area of open land.

My hon. Friend made a powerful and eloquent speech, beginning with some fascinating personal reminiscences, and throughout it he was at pains to stress his support for the legitimate training needs of the Army. His approach to the issue has been typical of the way in which he has championed the interests of his constituents over the years. I hope that he will be here for many years in the future, continuing to serve their interests.

The inquiry was, as my hon. Friend said, held in 1988, and the inspector's report has been with my Department for two and a half years. My hon. Friend rightly considers that this is an excessive delay, and he has drawn attention to the great and understandable anxiety of his constituents to see the matter resolved. Not only do I understand that concern, but I think that my hon. Friend has been extremely patient in this matter. I agree that we must bring it to a conclusion as soon as it can be done.

My officials have now written to the local authorities concerned and to all those who appeared and gave evidence at the inquiry. The letter sets out the present position in the matter and encloses a copy of the inspector's report. I regret that it also makes it clear that, for the moment, we are not in a position to finalise the decision. That is because we now have before us evidence that was not discussed at the inquiry. In fairness to everybody, an opportunity must now be given for representations about it to be made.

My hon. Friend raised a point about the costs incurred by different Departments at the inquiry, and I shall draw this to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

Mr. Burt

The Minister has said that certain matters not before the inquiry have now been raised by the Ministry of Defence. Is that normal practice? What would give rise to a new inquiry and the consideration of new evidence?

Mr. Yeo

I hope to explain the new evidence that was not discussed at the inquiry, and the reason why I have had to write to those people who appeared at the inquiry. I shall develop the point, and then if my hon. Friend is not satisfied with the information I shall give way again.

Before I describe the evidence in more detail, I should say that development by the Crown generally does not require planning permission. Government Departments have, however, agreed to follow an informal procedure, which is set out in Department of the Environment circular 18/84, which closely follows the procedures for planning applications. Departments notify local authorities of their proposals and if, after any necessary negotiations, an unresolved disagreement remains, the matter may be referred to the Department of the Environment for determination. This may be given on the basis of written representations, or in an informal hearing. If the matter is controversial or of wide interest, as in this case, a non-statutory public inquiry may be held.

The inspector's report recommended that the Army should be allowed to use both areas of land, that is to say, the main area of 916 acres at Holcombe moor, and the 10 acres around Simon's Sundial cottage. It is clear from his conclusions that he recognised that there was a very difficult balance to be struck between satisfying the nation's defence needs and the public's rights and interests in this land—a balance which my hon. Friend also recognises the difficulty of. He said that if the Army succeeded in its application, it would have to be tolerant of the problems of others. In his view, it would be unusual to allow the Ministry of Defence to own urban common land and to do so would be granting them a special privilege. The matter was a very sensitive one and many responsible groups of people had given evidence of the difficulties which the Army's proposal would give them in their businesses and leisure time. Nevertheless, the inspector considered that the Army's need for the land outweighed the annoyance that its use would cause from time to time.

The inspector's conclusions closely mirrored the views expressed at the inquiry by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North. He also spoke of the apparently irreconcilable conflict between the Army's needs and the requirements of conservation, but felt that in the case of the moor the Army's needs should prevail. My hon. Friend's balanced approach required the exercise of good judgment and, in the light of the opposition of some of his constituents, some political courage.

The inspector welcomed the extensive undertakings and assurances which defence representatives had given to the inquiry about how they would conduct their operations if their proposals succeeded. He also asked that careful consideration should be given to a number of suggestions for measures to reduce the impact of training on the amenity of nearby property and to provide safeguards for its users and wildlife.

The letter which has been sent to the parties today explains that, if final clearance is given for the Army training, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment would propose to include conditions covering all the matters referred to by the inspector.

My hon. Friend will be pleased to learn that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State disagrees with the inspector in one important respect, and that is with regard to the smaller proposal, the 10 acres around Simon's Sundial cottage, on which my right hon. Friend shares my hon. Friend's opinion that it should not be used for training.

This brings me to the matter of new evidence which I mentioned earlier. The inspector's report records evidence given by the Ministry of Defence about how often it expected to use the new areas for training if its proposals are allowed to go ahead. He found as a fact that the use was expected to be, by day, three weekdays a month and three weekends a month, and, at night, three nights a week and one weekend a month. The inspector did not suggest that a restriciton to that amount should be imposed on the Army's use of the land, but it is clear from his conclusions that it was a factor which the inspector had in mind in reaching his recommendation that training should be permitted.

In view of the very delicate balance which has to be struck in this case between the Army's need for training facilities and the public rights and interests in this land, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State felt it right that he should go further than the inspector and that he should impose a limit on the Army's use in the terms of the inspector's finding of fact which I have just quoted.

We now understand, however, that the evidence recorded by the inspector on this matter does not reflect the Army's needs. These are now said to be a daytime use of up to three weekends a month and 100 weekdays a year, with night time use of up to one night of the available weekends, and 50 weekday nights a year. That is different from the evidence considered by the inspector. It is a greater use than was stated at the time of the inquiry. Therefore, we consider that, in the interests of natural justice, we must inform all interested parties of it. The letter that we have now sent does that and offers the parties an opportunity to make representations on the new evidence in the 21-day period expiring on 6 August.

I can assure my hon. Friend that we shall carefully consider all further representations which may be made on the matter during the period, including, of course, any representations that my hon. Friend wishes to make. He will not expect me to say anything more about this new evidence, on which I must keep an open mind until I have considered all the representations which may be made during the limited 21-day period.

Mr. Burt

This is a revelation to me and I am extremely obliged to my hon. Friend for this information. It is all new to me. It is a considerable advance on anything that we have had before. It is as near to a decision as makes no difference. My hon. Friend referred earlier to my patience, but it is not my patience that is concerned; it is the patience of my constituents and all their feelings. Although I have only just heard the inspector's report, he seems to have found an admirable balance between need, which I strongly support, as I strongly support his action in passing this matter back to people, and insisting, or appearing to insist, that at this stage great notice is taken of the Secretary of State's recommendations so that the Army sticks to what it originally asked for rather than go further. However, although the case has already taken a great deal of time and we do not want any further unnecessary delay, a 21-day period for representations may be rather tight for some of the parties concerned. Is my hon. Friend the Minister prepared to consider representations to extend, within reason, the time available for that process?

Mr. Yeo

The period allowed is meant to reflect the concern that my hon. Friend properly expressed about the protracted period that the matter has remained unresolved. However, I will certainly reflect on his remarks. If my hon. Friend finds that the parties concerned consider that 21 days is too short a period in which to make their representations, I will consider whether it is possible to extend it.

We are anxious to ensure that those involved have sufficient time to consider properly the additional evidence. As I said, I have to keep a completely open mind until I hear what representations may come from people holding differing views. However, we will not let the matter drag on for longer than necessary, as far as is consistent with a proper examination of all the representations, for reasons with which my hon. Friend is more than familiar.

It is most regrettable that it has taken so long for that clarification of the Army's requirements to emerge, but whatever weight may properly be attached to it in the final decision, it must be taken into account, and it was necessary for my Department to await that additional information before it could proceed towards a decision. Now that information has arrived, it has been communicated to the parties concerned without delay.

I fully understand the anxiety and uncertainty that lack of a decision must have caused all those with an interest in the land—whether they be common right holders, walkers or riders, or public authorities wanting to plan for future conservation and informal recreation. I know that they will be disappointed that even now a final decision is not possible, but I hope that the issue of our letter today, and the inspector's report, will remove some of the uncertainties and pave the way to a decision in the near future.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes to Twelve o'clock.