§ 5.20 p.m.
§ VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether, in view of the great injury that would be inflicted upon bird life and nature study by the requisition of the nature reserve owned at Wretham, Norfolk, by the Norfolk Naturalists' Trust, His Majesty's Government will announce the abandonment of the War Office proposal to absorb it in the battle area and in this way run directly counter to the views expressed by Ministers upon the urgent need of the protection of wild birds and natural treasures; and to move for Papers. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, it is necessary for me to take a few minutes of your Lordships' time to explain the object of my 801 Motion. The Norfolk Naturalists' Trust is one of the pioneer trusts—indeed, I think it is the pioneer trust—for the protection of birds in this country. It was founded about a generation ago by a well-known ornithologist, Dr. Sidney Long, and since then, by means of bequests, and even more by individual subscriptions, it has succeeded in buying three or four properties of the greatest possible value to natural history.
§ On the coast of Norfolk, near where I live, the Trust has bought a property noted for ducks, waders and terns, and a centre where a great deal of important ringing of birds goes on. It has also bought a property in the Broads, which is celebrated for its nests of harriers, —marsh harriers, Montague's harriers and hen I arriers—and for bearded tits. Thirdly, it has a property in what, in Norfolk, we call Breckland, a sandy district of open country on the borders of Norfolk and Suffolk that has been famous for its bird life in the past. It was the last home of the great bustard. It is still the home of the Norfolk plover, a bird that is becoming more and more scarce in other parts of England. It is celebrated for the number of crossbills that frequent it. I could go on to give your Lordships a long catalogue of the interests this district offers to bird lovers, and to men and women interested in natural history, botany, insects and so on, to say nothing of its historic interest. There are more than one interesting remains of early periods which I believe are unique in the whole country.
§ It is in Breckland that the property of the Norfolk Naturalists' Trust with which my question is concerned is situated. It is composed of about 1,000 acres, and my question particularly concerns the Wretham part of about 370 acres. This is a small property, if we take into account the fact that what is called the battle training area, which spreads over much of this part of Norfolk, runs into something like 30,000 acres. It is a small property, not in the middle of the battle training area but on its outskirts. It was bought only in 1940, and many subscribed to buy it as a memorial to the founder of the Norfolk Naturalists' Trust, Dr. Long, and upon the property there is a monument in his memory. Although it is a small property, it is a very interesting one. It has on it two 802 large meres celebrated for their wild fowl. The late Lord Walsingham, whose property adjoins it, took a great deal of interest in increasing the stock of wild fowl. It was on these two meres and in the neighbourhood that the gadwall became an acclimatised English duck. It was on the banks of these meres that the first pintail nest ever recorded in England was found in 1929. I think I have said enough to show your Lordships that this property is of immense interest to nature lovers.
§ In 1942, a great part of this district of Norfolk was requisitioned for war purposes. This requisition was made in a war-time atmosphere. Looking back, I think we should say that a good deal of it was carried out rather haphazardly. These 370 acres were included in the war-time requisition for, I understand, what are called assembly purposes, and not for training purposes. The difference is that for training purposes a property would be constantly in use for military operations, but if kept merely for assembly purposes, it would be used comparatively rarely, In this case, it was hardly used at all. So much so that since the war ended the War Office have made no use of this little property at all, even though technically they might have said they still had the right to use it for assembly purposes.
§
The first that the Trust knew of any change in policy was in the early summer of this year, when tanks arrived and troops started bathing in the meres. I have here an account of what happened from a local resident, in which he says, in rather picturesque language:
From personal observation it appears that Lang Mere is now a lido where troops disport with discarded airplane fuel tanks as pleasure craft. In addition I witnessed recently, the most deplorable exhibition when an army lorry was driven several times it high speed round the mere whilst two or three soldiers lay on the canvas awning, obviously enjoying themselves.
I give that as an instance of the sudden use that was made of this small area in the early part of the summer. The Naturalists' Trust were under the impression, as I say, that the War Office were making no use of the area at all until then. That impression was further strengthened by the fact that a small part of the Trust property had actually been derequisitioned, and the Trust, I am afraid inaccurately, assumed that the whole of
803
the property had been derequisitioned. Anyhow, whether they were right or wrong, the fact remains that the original use for which the property was requisitioned was not for training, but for assembly.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (LORD PAKENHAM)I am sorry, but I did not quite follow the last point made by the noble Viscount about the misunderstanding. Perhaps he will be good enough to repeat it.
§ VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOODThe misunderstanding arose from the fact that, a small piece of property having been derequisitioned since the war, the Trust then assumed, particularly as the War Office were making no use of the property, that the whole property had been derequisitioned. It was only in the summer of this year that they were brought up against the fact that not only was the requisition still in force for assembly purposes but the War Office appeared to be intending to use it for a totally different purpose—namely, training. That impression was further confirmed by a letter written by the War Office to the Trust saying quite definitely that they required this property for training purposes. If that is the case, then that is a complete end to this nature reserve. If the area is needed for training purposes, the Norfolk Naturalists' Trust may just as well give it up altogether.
It was urged in another place that conditions could be imposed under which the two meres would be out of bounds. I can tell the noble Lord opposite that that is quite useless. These rare ducks—for instance, the gadwall and the pintail—that breed in the neighbourhood do not have their nests, as some people might imagine who do not know about birds, in the middle of stretches of water; they nest in the rough grass all round the water. Therefore, to keep the actual meres out of bounds would not help in the least. I cannot imagine any mitigating conditions that would make it possible for this reserve to continue if the War Office persist in their present contention. Moreover, the Norfolk Naturalists' Trust is, for legal purposes, recognised as a charity—they come under the Charity Commission. That being so, they cannot accede to the request of the War Office for a twenty-one years' lease of this pro- 804 perty; no lease of that length would be valid without the consent of the Charity Commission. What, therefore, is happening is that a small property of great national value is being threatened with permanent occupation by the War Office. Hitherto, the occupation—if occupation there has been —has amounted to practically nothing. Hitherto, it was always assumed that what requisitioning had taken place would come to an end shortly. I should like to ask the noble Lord what is the position with regard to the requisition. Do the Government have to come for further powers to continue it? If not, what is the reason for asking for a twenty-one years' lease?
I hope that I have said enough to show how great is the value of this small property. It is a small property that can have no great value to the general training area. There is the training area of 30,000 acres, which includes this little area, not in the centre but on the outskirts. I cannot imagine that it would make the least difference to military training if this small area were derequisitioned. I therefore ask the noble Lord to take these points into account, and to tell the House that, such is the interest of the Government in the preservation of natural treasures, and in the protection of birds generally, that they are not only going to withdraw their proposal for a lease but are, here and now, going totally to derequisition this property. I beg to move for Papers.
§ 5.37 p.m.
LORD PAKENHAMMy Lords, the noble Viscount is a great lover of natural beauty, but, in view of his record, he will also always be regarded as a great friend of the Services, and I feel sure that he will regard this as far from an easy matter, however one reaches one's conclusion regarding it. I should like, first, to answer, according to the best of my information, the legal point put by the noble Viscount towards the end of his speech. He refers in his Motion to the requisition of the reserve. The requisition was, in fact, effected in 1941, under Defence Regulation 52; and in 1942—which is the date mentioned by the noble Viscount—we transferred to Defence Regulation 51 over the greater part of the area. The present position, putting it quite distinctly, is that the War Office are hoping to obtain a lease of 805 training rights from the Norfolk Naturalists' Trust; but in the last resort there are powers of compulsory purchase open to us, of which we should have to make use. I said that we (that is the War Office, for whom I speak, and the Government, who are behind them) are hoping to obtain a lease from the Trust. But, in candour, I must inform the House of what the noble Viscount is aware: that when the War Office approached the Trust in May with this end in view they were met with a refusal by the Trust to discuss the matter at all. This is where the matter stands at the moment: on the one hand, an offer from the War Office of discussions; and, on the other, a refusal by the Trust to talk about the matter at all.
§ VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOODLet me get this clear with the noble Lord. Does he mean that the whole question is open, or that any discussion must be upon the basis of a lease? If it means the latter, then I can tell him here and now that I do not think there is the least chance of agreement.
LORD PAKENHAMIf the noble Viscount takes that attitude, it makes the discussions rather more difficult. All I can tell him is that the discussions proposed will be on the basis of a lease, with the end in view of seeing whether such a lease can be arranged in a manner which would inconvenience as little as possible the Norfolk Naturalists' Trust. Be that as it may, the War Office suggested discussions and the Norfolk Naturalists' Trust said: "We are sorry, but we decline to talk about the matter."
§ VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOODIt depends whether the War Office started by saying that they would talk only upon the basis of a lease. It is prejudging the question at the start. If the question of whether it is necessary to have the area or not is open, then I think there is everything to be gained by discussions.
LORD PAKENHAMThe noble Viscount has put his point and I shall try to give him only the historial facts. As the noble Viscount will hear when I proceed, this is not a new view which has suddenly grown up; and, frankly, what the noble Viscount said about the misunderstanding rather surprised me. I have no doubt the facts are as he recounted them to the House, but this mis- 806 understanding is not something of which I had been informed before I came down to the House to-day. I can only say that after to-day's debate I hope the noble Viscount and the Trust themselves will agree that discussions, at any rate, should be undertaken. I am bound to express that hope, and I repeat it.
§ VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOODIf they are without conditions.
§ VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOODThe noble Lord must also make his point plain.
LORD PAKENHAMI intend to. The noble Viscount has addressed the House with eloquence, and perhaps I may be allowed to continue my remarks and it may be that at the end the noble Viscount will be somewhat persuaded. The noble Viscount has quite properly gone back into history and he will allow me to range rather wide in replying to the case he has set up. As the noble Viscount explained, the ground of the Norfolk Naturalists' Trust forms part of the land required for the Stanford practical training area. I remember the visit I paid to the area as a whole, though not with this particular portion of it in mind, when I was Under-Secretary at the War Office some years ago. The area as a whole—the part we are discussing to-day has been subject to Defence Regulations 51 and 52 since the war and it is indispensable to the War Department. I gather that that particular aspect of the matter is not being raised this afternoon—the question of the area as a whole. The House will hardly require a reminder—but it should be placed on record—that the Army must be trained in all the methods of modern warfare, and this must be done in conditions approximating as closely as possible to actual conditions. The noble Marquess may recall a Motion which he put down and to which I replied when I was at the War Office some four or five years ago. We all know how difficult it is to find areas which provide battle conditions without damaging scenes of natural beauty. Armoured units have to be sent into the attack or into practice firing their guns, and infantry must advance supported by artillery and mortars and other forms of fire used to 807 cover them. I think we all agree with the principle that we must make the training as realistic as possible.
Although in this country the areas available for training of this kind are very limited, at Stanford there is an area which gives these facilities, and it has been used for some nine years. There is heath land for deployment, there is wooded country for close fighting and it is an area into which a great many shells, bullets and mortar explosives have been thrown. Still recounting the history, in view of the great importance of this open space, I remember the beginnings of it all at that time, and also a public local inquiry, to which I do not think the noble Viscount has called our attention to-day.
§ VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOODMay I again interrupt, with great diffidence? I have said nothing about the battle training area as a whole. This particular little area was never included in the battle-training area. It was always something apart, and never during the inquiry was it treated as a part of the battle-training area.
LORD PAKENHAMI should hesitate to accept that as a correct statement, and as we proceed the noble Viscount may feel that he has gone a little far in that use of words. He can judge of that when he reads what I say in Hansard and say whether in fact it does harmonise with what occurred. There was a public inquiry held on March 9 and 10, 1948, in accordance with the procedure laid down in the White Paper on the Needs of the Armed Forces for Land for Training. That was Command 7278. The inquiry was held under the auspices of the Ministry of Town and Country Planning (not the War Office) and there was an independent chairman, Sir Geoffrey Whiskard. They recommended that this area should be made available for military training. The Norfolk Naturalists' Trust own a part of the land which while not forming part of the actual battle area, is indispensable for the assembly and deployment of troops. I will not go into an almost metaphysical discussion with the noble Viscount about the precise use of the word "training," but that is my advice as to what the area is intended for. It is intended, not for battle, but for assembly and deployment preliminary to battle. That is the inten- 808 tion of the War Office in relation to this area.
This is why I say that I think the noble Viscount is imperfectly informed on the point. The Norfolk Naturalists' Trust were represented at the inquiry and, I feel, from the parts of the evidence which I have read, effectively represented. Major Buxton, D.S.O. appeared for them, and without wishing to weary the House unduly—but the noble Viscount I am sure would wish me to go into it to some extent—I would point out that Major Buxton spoke as follows:
We have acquired a number of properties by gift and purchase, including 360 acres by the extension of the Stanford area.I must make it plain that Major Buxton, appearing for this Trust, dealt with the particular area which the noble Viscount is raising to our notice this afternoon. There is no question of the area never coming under discussion. It was specifically dealt with on pages 115 and 116 of the evidence. I will not read all through the evidence but the chairman said that Ringmere and Kingmere are attractive to various birds. That side of it was brought before the inquiry. I must say that emphatically, because I feel that on this point at any rate, whether or not he regards it as conclusive, the noble Viscount has been imperfectly advised.
§ VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOODI will deal with that later.
LORD PAKENHAMI should be glad if the noble Viscount would do so. It was all threshed out by the chairman and Major Buxton and those participating in the inquiry in 1948, and the representatives of the Trust appeared to agree that their objections would be met to some degree—I do not say totally met, but to some extent met—if an arrangement could be made whereby the Trust could carry on their work in the two meres, Ringmere and Kingmere, which are contained in the area which they own. As I say, it is all in the evidence on pages ll5 and 116.
The situation of the land owned by the Trust makes it impossible for this land to be excluded from the assembly and deployment area, but the War Office are anxious to meet the objections of the Trust so far as they possibly can. I cannot give any kind of optimistic speech that these objections will be met in toto, 809 but they are ready to see what can be done. Although it is necessary for troops and vehicles to be deployed throughout the area, armoured fighting vehicles and other tracked vehicles can be confined to defined routes only and the Trust can be left with some use of the ground. Now I am not going to try to give the House the impression that that necessarily meets the wishes of the Trust. I cannot say whether it does or does not. It is not for me to give too rosy an impression. The War Office are anxious to discuss these things with representatives of the Trust, but at the moment the Trust has slammed the door on discussion. The meres have been placed out of bounds to troops. The noble Viscount seemed rather to cast scorn on that, but at any rate it is well-intentioned and I am sorry he feels it is so little worth discussion.
This matter was gone into in 1948, when there was a public inquiry under an independent chairman. The land is necessary for the Army, and I must make it plain to the noble Viscount that it will not be possible for His Majesty's Government to abandon the use of this area for military purposes. Nevertheless, I hope the noble Viscount will inform me whether he desires more information on this subject—though there are limits to the extent to which we can conduct a discussion of this kind without a map and, of course, the use of the floor of the House. At the same time, I cannot help repeating that I hope the noble Viscount will use his influence with the Trust and at any rate confer with the War Office and see whether, so far as is humanly possible, they can meet the convenience of the Trust. We all sympathise with the motives which actuated the noble Viscount, and I am sorry the requirements of the War Office make it impossible to give way on this issue.
§ 5.52 p.m.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMy Lords, I had not intended to intervene in this discussion. I am not very conversant with Norfolk, and though I have some knowledge of wild birds I cannot be called an authority on the subject. But I find it a little difficult entirely to accept the views of the War Office in this matter. The whole of this training area—I think this is an agreed figure between the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, 810 and the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham—is 30,000 acres. The area about which the Naturalists' Trust is anxious is 300 acres, of which 60 acres are occupied by two meres.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYWell, it is about 1 per cent. of the whole area. I find it almost impossible to conceive that it makes a complete difference to the training schemes of the War Office whether or not this particular 360 acres should be allocated to them. It is a very important area for the preservation of extremely rare wild birds. This is a country which is becoming ever more highly populated, and in which all these treasures of nature are becoming rarer and rarer. Here is an area chosen specially by men of great knowledge and eminence, because it had specific characteristics for the preservation of wild birds. The noble Lord mentioned Major Buxton. Major Buxton is one of the most eminent naturalists in this country, and, I should have thought, in his line, in the world; and he attaches enormous importance to it. I find it very difficult to feel that those who are responsible for War Office policy have given sufficient weight to that type of consideration. That is not an unknown thing in Service Departments.
The noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, referred to a controversy in which he and I were engaged some years ago. I remember another, in rather the same part of the world. It concerned a place called Whitsbury, on the borders of Dorset, Wiltshire and Hampshire, which was greatly coveted by the Air Ministry for bombing practice at the beginning of the war. There were some valuable farms involved, and it was the oldest British settlement in the country. An alternatve suggestion was put forward that the Department should use a place called Godshill, about nine or ten miles away. Practice there would interfere with nobody. It was a bare area, and it was in fact used throughout the war with complete success. Yet, to hear the Air Ministry arguments at the beginning, one would have thought that nowhere but Whitsbury was of the slightest use. I cannot help feeling that there is a slight Departmentalism about tie reply which the noble Lord has given. I know that it is a reply which has beer, given to him, and 811 that he, quite properly, has given it. But I am not convinced by it, and I think nobody who looked with an objective eye at the alternatives to this 300 or 360 acres of land would be convinced.
The noble Lord said the War Office would be prepared to make a concession: that they would be prepared to allow the Trust some use of the land. But has the noble Lord any knowledge of the habits of wild birds? They could not easily share the land with the War Office. I am sure that would be impossible. I do not think that any naturalist would for a moment accept that suggestion, though no doubt it was put forward from the highest motives. For all these reasons I beg the noble Lord to go back to the War Office, and to any other Departments interested in the matter, to see whether these 360 acres could not be excepted from the 30,000 acres of which they form an infinitesimal part.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYNo, I just made an appeal which I hope the noble Lord will pass on to his Department.
LORD PAKENHAMMy Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may reply to one or two points. The noble Marquess questioned my knowledge of birds. He is entirely correct: I am no expert on the habits of birds. But, so far as I could judge, Major Buxton did not rule out the possibility that something could be done on the lines I mentioned. In other words, it is not an absurdity to suggest that the objection could be partially met. I have stated the evidence of that to the best of my ability. As regards the noble Marquess's other point I must say that I cannot find, in this excellent report on wild bird protection in Norfolk, any reference to any particular area. I must make that point. The noble Marquess has asked me to mention these matters to the War Office, and I will do so. But I must point out to him that this particular area of 360 acres is in the middle of the assembly area.
§ VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOODIt is not.
LORD PAKENHAMWell, to my untutored eye it appears so. However, we all know that sometimes accommodation can be reached, if the people concerned study these things with good will, though I should be badly misleading the House if I suggested that a great deal of attention has not already been given to the matter and that there is likely to be a change. At the same time, I shall be only too pleased, now or at any time, to go into these matters with advisers and with noble Lords opposite.
§ 5.59 p.m.
§ VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOODMy Lords I should like to clear up one or two points before I deal with Lord Pakenham's offer. It is perfectly true that the Norfolk Naturalists' Trust gave evidence at the big public inquiry over the battle-training area, but they have always assumed—they assumed then and they have assumed since—that there was a great distinction between the assembly areas and the training areas. What has disturbed me very much in recent weeks is the apparent demand of the War Office to have this property for a training area. That is a totally new demand.
§ VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOODNo, training is mentioned specifically. There is all the difference in the world between a training area, where training is going on constantly, and an assembly area, which may scarcely ever be used. For instance, in this particular case, under the War Office requisitioning the property is liable for use as an assembly area. As a matter of fact, until this summer it has not been used since the end of the war. Therefore, I would ask the noble Lord not only to look into this point further, but also to draw the attention of the War Office to the great difference between what has been the position up to the present time and the future position as contemplated under the War Office letter.
There is this further point. The noble Lord implied that the Norfolk Naturalists' Trust had broken off all communication with the War Office. If my information is correct, they have been expecting a communication from the War Office, but they have had none since they met the 813 representatives of the War Office many weeks ago. That, again, is a point into which the noble Lord should look. He has asked me whether or not discussions can now be resumed, and I will draw the attention of the Naturalists' Trust to what he has said; but I cannot help observing that his other remarks give little hope of anything useful emerging from those discussions. If it is clear that the discussions are to open with a clean sheet, with the intention of the War Office, on the one hand, to leave the area as they have left it now for several years, and of the Naturalists' Trust, on the other, to give right of assembly in the case of need, rarely to be exercised, then I think, without prejudice to either side, the discussions might open. But if the Norfolk Naturalists' Trust are merely to enter the discussions with the knowledge that the War Office are not going to give way at all, the discussions will be quite useless.
Lastly, may I add that I have pressed this case very strongly because I feel strongly about it? I am sorry that the noble Lord has had so bad a case to 814 give in reply. I feel that, if left to himself, he would have given a much more sympathetic reply. I hope, however, that, having heard what the Leader of the Opposition has said, and what I have tried to say to-day, the noble Lord will ask the War Office to look again into the question and ask the other Departments concerned with amenities—for instance, the Ministry of Local Government and Planning—also to look into it. Having, said that, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
§ Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.