HL Deb 29 January 1975 vol 356 cc529-56

5.16 p.m.

Lord BROCKWAY rose to call attention to the decision of Her Majesty's Government to retain the army ranges at Tyneham, Dorset, contrary to the recommendation of the Nugent Committee on Defence Lands 1971–73; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name. This second mini-debate follows very appropriately the first which has just concluded. That was a debate for the salvation of derelict lands ; this, I think, will prove to be a debate to save beautiful and valuable land from becoming derelict. In previous debates and on other occasions in this House, I have told the story of the Tyneham Valley in detail and I do not propose to repeat it now. I will say only that Tyneham Valley is on the Dorset coast, to the South of the Purbeck Area, a wonderful bay with cliffs higher than Beachy Head, with a beautiful old village of white cottages, an exquisite church and an old manor house with an Elizabethan wing, the great rolling Purbeck Hills and that mystic heath immortalised by Thomas Hardy in his book, The Return of the Native. I have never claimed that each of those features is unique; but I do claim that the harmony of all four is unique in Britain. It is also unique in its ecological value. I quoted in earlier speeches the statements of renowned scientists to this effect.

As a layman, it is extraordinary when one goes down to that beach to see the different colours of the sand and the rocks upon the cliffs. This is in contrast to the devastation of the china clay pit on Thomas Hardy's Heath. From there one can see the marvellous differences of colour. Nowhere in the whole of the British Isles is there treasure of ecology such as that which exists within this area. In that respect it is unique. I am not going to say that it is absolutely unique, but it is of exceptional value from an archaeological point of view. One will find on Thomas Hardy's Egdon Heath burial grounds used at a time before Christ in the Bronze Age, and one will see the whole history of the development of man: the Iron Age fort where the armies of Rome were resisted; the 13th century manor house, and the modern beauties of the architecture of the last century. There are few areas in the whole country which are more important in archaeological value.

This area was taken over by the Army during the Second World War in order to accommodate the Forces which were to land in Normandy. The residents showed an extraordinary readiness to leave their homes from patriotic motives. They attached to the door of the Church the following message to the Army: We have given up our homes to help win the war to keep men free. We shall return one day and thank you for treating the village kindly. When they were evacuated from their homes, they were given the most solemn promises that they would be allowed to return. The then Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, gave that promise in the House of Commons. The War Department sent a personal letter to every tenant in the area guaranteeing that, when hostilities were over, they would be allowed to return to their homes. But they have not done so, the Army is still there.

Only three weeks ago I accompanied an old man, now 62 years of age, who was a resident of Tyneham, to see the Prime Minister at No. 10 Downing Street, and he left this message: If you reject this plea"— and the plea was that he should be allowed to return to his home— I must make a second request, that when my time comes I will be interred in Tyneham Churchyard". The Defence Lands Committee, of which the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, was Chairman, considered this problem—and other areas occupied by the Army throughout the country—and in July, 1973, issued its Report. It recommended that the RAC Gunnery School in this area should be removed to Castlemartin in Wales. At the same time it said that the RAC's centre at Bovington should not be removed. It advised that Lulworth and Tyneham should have amenities for the enjoyment of their areas.

I shall acknowledge that when that authoritative Committee made those recommendations, we thought that at last Tyneham might regain its freedom, and that the tenants might regain their homes. It was with a sense of disaster that we heard that these recommendations had been rejected by the Ministry of Defence, They were rejected on four grounds. The first was the non-availability of Castlemartin. The second was on the grounds of local support for the Army remaining at Lulworth because it employed 800 people. The third reason was because of the danger of unsuitable development after the Army left the area in contrast with the conservation practised by them. The fourth reason was the cost.

I have the utmost sympathy with the people of Castlemartin in resisting the transfer of the Army ranges from Lulworth and Tyneham to Castlemartin; but I want the Government to keep an open mind at least to the point of considering other alternatives than Tyneham and Castlemartin. The Nugent Committee considered other alternatives. It considered Kirkcudbright. The objection there was that 5,000 additional acres would be required to accommodate both the experimental tank range already there and the tank fighting range from Lulworth. But there is now a new situation. It arises at Shoeburyness, which was considered as a third London airport. The proposal that the experimental range at Kirkcudbright should be transferred there has been considered. The Countryside Commission has asked the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Secretary of State for Defence to investigate these alternative proposals. I have not the knowledge or experience to judge them. All I am asking of the Government tonight is this: do not close your minds permanently to the idea that this area in South Dorset shall not be released from Army occupation but consider whether there might be other alternatives.

The second ground of the Minister's decision was the alleged opinion in Lulworth that the Army should remain in order to provide employment for 800 men. I think the Minister himself will agree that there was a misunderstanding on this issue. The people of Lulworth and even the Minister of Defence himself said that 800 men would be affected. In fact, those 800 men are employed at the RAC centre which the Nugent Committee recommended should not be removed at all. Also, in a Written Answer given in another place in December 1973, it was indicated that the actual total was not 800 but 135.

The third argument for the Ministry of Defence was that if the Army withdrew there would be unsuitable development. I acknowledge that danger, but believe the suggestion I shall make in conclusion could be accepted as meeting that danger. It is also urged that Army occupation has conserved the territory and I recognise at once that development which might endanger beauty has been deterred by Army occupation. Nevertheless, the people of Tyneham would regard as a joke the idea that the Army occupation has meant the preservation of beauty. The Army has destroyed the historic burial grounds which were there before Christ at Thorn Barrow. They have damaged beautiful whitestone cottages and the Elizabethan manor house is in a state of shambles; even their exquisite church has a damaged roof. Worst of all, I would say, is that on Thomas Hardy's Egdon Heath there is now the ugliest, biggest hole in the whole of Dorset. It is there because of the project for china clay. In the previous debate the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, referred to china clay as the greatest danger in the dereliction of land. Here on this beautiful heath is an ugly hole 80 feet deep and a quarter of a mile across, which I myself have seen and regard as an absolute sacrilege of the beauty of that mystic expanse. The extraordinary fact is that the Army permitted this to take place without any planning permission whatever from the Dorset County Council. It was not until 1973 that the Dorset County Council granted planning permission for this disaster in order to—and I put this in quotation marks—"regularise" this illegal position.

I should like to refer to one further outrage which the Army have committed while in power. Many of you will know that wonderful coastal path—the longest in the whole world—which goes all the way round the South-Western peninsular to Lands End, approaching the Eastern coast in the South. It is broken only at one place, at Tyneham, and there for eight miles in probably the most picturesque coastal area of all, at Craggy Gad Cliff, the Army has intervened and the path stops. One has to make a detour of 20 miles or so inland and now the proposal has been made that, for Army purposes, it should be fenced. No, my Lords! While the Army has prevented development which might have become dangerous, it has committed absolute outrages on the beauty of this territory.

I should like to add two other instances only, because I am conscious of the need for brevity. There is now a suggestion that Tyneham Valley should be "tidied up" by demolishing damaged cottages and farms. This would mean the death of Tyneham Village. These are lovely cottages and lovely farmhouses: damaged, Yes, but quite capable of being repaired. It would be, historically and visually, a sacrilege. The second suggestion now being made is that the unique Wild Life Museum should be deliberately destroyed, and this would include badgers, to which your Lordships' House has recently been giving so much attention.

I turn now to the last point which was made by the Ministry in defence of its decision. Its estimate was that £30 million would be required to clear the area of unexploded shells. I think, without exception, no one in that area believes that that estimate is justified. I am not sure that I ought to say this publicly, but I have gone by car and have walked all over this Army area. I have seen cattle and sheep, farm labourers—and not an unexploded shell. I should have thought the area where this investigation had to be made was very limited.

I welcome the proposals which the Ministry of Defence has made for greater access. It is to be available during holidays and weekends. There is to be a group representing the local authorities, the Countryside Commission, the Department of the Environment, the Property Services Agency (I am not quite sure what that is) and the Ministry of Defence, to advise about access to this area. In a sentence, I make a plea that the local people in Tyneham, the Friends of Tyneham, who have been so much involved in this issue and who are so deeply concerned about the beauty of their territory, also should be asked to join this advisory committee who are considering their area.

Lastly, my alternative. It is that a National Park should be established for the whole of Purbeck. It would include Lulworth and Tyneham and the Army areas. It would stretch from the outskirts of Poole along the coast towards Weymouth and North to the heath beyond Wareham. It would be the area of the Purbeck District Council. I began by referring to the harmony of Tyneham valley. It would be completed by this proposal. It would include Corfe Castle—that old, fascinating town with, on the side of its main road, the great hill and the ruined castle at the top, reminding one almost of Princes Street in Edinburgh. A National Park, if it were established, would meet many of the objections which I have voiced. It will allow the county council to protect the area. It would permit Government intervention to deter threats to the environment. It would provide funds for access projects and for reclaiming derelict eyesores. Perhaps most important of all, it would encourage the co-existence of farming and the use of areas for leisure. My Lords, this is not just a matter of the effect of Army ranges. Oil is now entrenched at Kimmeridge and Steeple and threatens these areas. There is a bursting population from Poole and Bournemouth. There is a necessity for plans to restrict caravan sites in areas so that they will not be an outrage to beauty. The situation was summed up by that remarkable article by Brian Jackman in this week's Sunday Times: Only by designating the whole of the Purbeck district a national park—the strongest form of countryside protection that exists in Britain—can this priceless tract of heritage coast and hinterland survive. We have no National Park in the South of England. Why should we not have a National Park, a retreat of beauty, before it is all mechanised and urbanised? This National Park would be within 100 miles of London, reached easily by the new motor roads. This is not just an issue against the retention of Army control; it is an issue of preserving and extending the beauty of our land. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.

5.45 p.m.

Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD

My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords much enjoyed the eloquence of the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, in moving his Motion. As I listened to his eloquence I felt that Thomas Hardy himself could not have done better. It was a first-class exposition of one side of the argument, and my brief intervention this evening is simply to place on the Record the perspective of the recommendations of the Defence Land Committee in their Report with regard to Lulworth in particular. It was our recommendation that the Royal Armoured Corps gunnery range should be given up. First, the Committee were convinced by the evidence we took from the Services of the need for that gunnery range facility now provided at Lulworth to be provided somewhere. Therefore, if Lulworth was to be given up, re-pro-vision elsewhere of an equal tank gunnery range was essential. In this context I would add a footnote which, of course, was not part of the business of the Committee. I recognise that the Royal Armoured Corps is at the sharp end of the Army. It must be trained for instant action and with top-class armament. I think all noble Lords in this House would recognise that our post-War experience has shown that peace in Europe can be preserved only by a balance of power and not by good resolutions alone. The experiences of Hungary and Czechoslovakia are still fresh enough in our minds to make that a practical issue.

The Committee, after searching the length and breadth of the British Isles, were convinced that there was no satisfactory alternative to Lulworth—after discounting one or two possibilities which we discuss in the Report—except Castlemartin, subject to two conditions. I should add that Castlemartin has the merit of being a first-class tank gunnery range, probably the best in Europe, and it has a large spare capacity. It is not used as a gunnery range in winter. Therefore, increased use of it would not occasion acquisition of additional land. One of the conclusions the Committee reached was that, whatever might be the difficulty in retaining existing ranges, it was nothing compared with the difficulty which would be encountered in trying to acquire a new one. Castlemartin met the particular qualification that it has spare capacity.

There were two conditions which we laid down clearly in the Report for making this recommendation. The first—and this was not mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway—was that the Germans, who now have five months' training period annually at Castlemartin, would be willing to compress their training period from five months to three, and in the most accommodating fashion possible; and secondly, that there would be no repercussions from Germany with regard to the training facilities provided for our troops in Germany—and we were thinking of the ranges at Hohne—which might reduce the facilities that we have there. For obvious reasons the Committee could not take evidence from the Germans, and therefore we could not test the practicability of this condition.

The second condition which we mentioned in the Report was that the additional use of the Castlemartin range would not be too objectionable to feelings in South Wales. In this context we thought that as the range was already used for some months in the year and no extra land was required this might have been possible. In the event, my Lords, neither of these two conditions has been fulfilled and. obviously, it is not possible for me to reconvene the Committee to ask what their opinions would have been in the light of this new knowledge. But I think I can say without any doubt that had we been reconvened the Committee would have unanimously concluded that the Lulworth range, with all its limitations and objections, must continue because that capacity of gunnnery range is essential for the training life of the Army.

I think it is right to recall in this connection that no single issue occasioned the Committee greater heartsearching than Lulworth. We took evidence on the spot at Lulworth, and in London. We heard the case from the eloquent local protagonist for Tyneham and for Lulworth generally, we inspected the site and investigated every aspect, so we felt the full impact of the strong and, I may say, impassioned feelings which the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, so well expressed. Also, of course, we took most detailed evidence from the Armed Forces about their needs. We also visited the Castlemartin and Kirkcudbright ranges to see the possibilities there and took evidence from the Chief of the General Staff because he naturally has an interest in this matter. In addition, we spent many anxious hours debating this matter in private before reaching our conclusion. I think I should record with gratitude the: generous measure of co-operation which was given by the distinguished members of the Armed Services on the Committee, in consenting to go along with our ultimate recommendations. It was in the hope that we had found a long-term solution to the well-known Lulworth problem, without the reduction of the total gunnery range facilities in this country, that the Committee reached this conclusion unanimously.

The Government's decision not to accept our recommendation, for the reasons I have stated, will bring obvious relief to the Army interests in the short-term, but I fear that the basic problems of the site, which the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has so well expressed, remain and must continue to cause anxiety in the long term. If I may add a side-note the noble Lord's perceptive suggestion, now that the Maplin airport is not to be developed, is a possibility. Assuming that the seaport is not developed, it is possible that the experimental firing at Kirkcudbright could be shifted to Shoe-buryness, and if that is so I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, will tell us. It would then be possible to consider moving the Lulworth gunnery range to Kirkcudbright, although I should say that the Kirkcudbright layout has certain topographical difficulties.

I should like to record our impressions as a Committee of the good work already done by the Army, and of their willingness to do anything they can to give public access to the beaches and the coastline. On a cumulative basis this already amounts to nearly two months in the year. As a result of our Report, a good deal more will now be done and the Government have generously committed some £100,000 which will be needed to make this extension possible. There is, however, a continuous problem so long as the ranges are in regular use in providing safety for the general public, not only from exploding shells but also from the unexploded shells, and this is a point which we as a Committee investigated in detail. I am delighted to know that the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, safely negotiated this land. I always thought he bore a charmed life; now I know it is true. There are, in fact, large numbers of unexploded shells about and it really would not be safe for the public to roam about there.

Let me conclude my remarks, my Lords, by saying that our Report was an attempt to find the right balance in the interests of the whole nation between the proven needs of the Armed Services on the one hand, and the equally proven needs of the general public for recreation and amenity on the other, having regard to the training areas in this country. I know that all the members of our Committee would have been much gratified by the kind words of appreciation of the Minister in another place, which indicates that we may have had a measure of success. The only point which I really want to make today—and I am not criticising the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, who was very fair to our Report—is that I am most anxious that our Report should stand as a whole and that arguments should not be taken out of it and pleaded one way or another, because I hope and believe that it has struck a balance which may be helpful in the future.

5.56 p.m.

The Lord Bishop of SALISBURY

My Lords, I rise with some diffidence as a new Bishop of Salisbury, sandwiched between the eloquent fire of my noble friend behind me and the sweet reasonableness of the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, and the noble Lord, Lord Digby, because I have discovered that, so far as Dorset is concerned, everybody in my diocese is called either Digby or Wingfield-Digby, or is related to either or both. Nevertheless, as Bishop of the diocese who was on Sunday last in Corfe Castle, I could not help thinking that if not I but the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, had been the preacher extolling the virtues of Corfe Castle, the sermon might have been received more enthusiastically and the collection larger.

Nevertheless, I am responsible for the spiritual welfare of those who live in the 2,006 square miles that is my diocese. As regards Tyneham Church, of which I have a picture here, I am no ecclesiologist but I have made careful inquiries, and I am bound to say that the word "exquisite" came to my ears with some amazement. Parts of it are Early English, parts of it suffer from Victoriana and it was closed in 1943, as the noble Lord will know. All the fittings were removed, the organ is in use in nearby Steeple, the stained glass windows have gone to Church Knowle, the pews have gone to the garrison church at Bovington and the silver is largely in Lloyds Bank at Wareham. Therefore, I can safely say that the fittings have been put to the best possible use. However, I am bound to say that had this church not been closed it would have been declared redundant long ago and, I suppose, we would have waited for what we are hoping to receive from the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, when the Government give us at least £1 million for historic churches.

Dealing with the very tiny population who wish to worship, we note from careful inquiries of local people who have lived there a great time and of the three parish priests concerned, that most of them worship at nearby Steeple, at Kimmeridge, at Church Knowle, and at Wareham, and they have been doing so happily for years. Indeed, when it was suggested a few years ago that there should be a public service in the church to which the noble Lord has referred, careful inquiries were set on foot. It was found that practically all of the people who came were visitors from other countries, although through my postbag I am fully aware of the very strong feelings of the gentleman who went with the noble Lord to Downing Street, because he has memories of thirty years ago. One fully understands that. The expense of opening that church again would not, I am sure, be countenanced by any of my fellow spiritual authorities.

Then we were asked about the graveyard, since graves have been mentioned. We found that goodly numbers of people come to see the graves of their loved ones—those who have not had the good sense to be cremated. We found that there were only three relatives still alive who were interested in any of the graves there. However, having listened to the noble Lord I shall make careful inquiries about whether this one gentleman will be able to be buried there as he wishes, and I hope that we can concur with his wishes. I have made careful inquiries of the three parish priests, and as one of them is ex-Army, another ex-Navy and the third neither, your Lordships will realise they have tried to balance all the arguments of the Nugent Report and the local people. They find that people who are living there are extremely attached to the friends they have made in the Army. It is not, perhaps, my brief to question the number of people whom the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has quoted as being employed. My information is that it is rather more than the small number which he mentioned. I understand from my personal inquiries that they would be very sorry indeed to see the Army go, and they pay tribute, just as tribute has been paid in this House, to the good landlordship of the Army and their willingness, repeated to me seventy-two hours ago, to do everything they possibly can to make such paths, et cetera as are available under certain conditions the best possible for those who visit.

I am solely concerned with the spiritual welfare of the people who live there and I just want it to be on public record that as Bishop I am totally satisfied that all those who wish to worship, and who worshipped previously, in Tyneham Church can be accommodated happily in the surrounding parishes in the foreseeable future. While I am grateful for the tribute which has been paid to the glorious beauty of the diocese, particularly that one part of it in which I travel, I cannot believe it would be right for that church to be opened again. As a citizen, I am bound to wonder whether the enormous expense of moving the Army is worth while. However, I venture to think that as regards the spiritual aspect the situation is as good as it could be.

6.5 p.m.

Lord DIGBY

My Lords, as Chairman of the Amenities Committee of the Dorset County Council, I have a particular responsibility for footpaths and countryside matters. Therefore I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, for initiating this debate. I should like to deal with the problem from two sides: first, the Government's decision to retain the ranges and, secondly, the proposal for a Purbeck National Park.

I welcome both the Nugent Report and the Government's rejection of their recommendation that the ranges should be released. This may seem to you to be incongruous and contradictory, but I believe that this Report has concentrated the minds of all concerned—the Army, the local councils, the amenity bodies and the general public—upon the problem. We have all had to face up to the possible consequences of the Army's withdrawal; to the Army the expense of withdrawal, to the public the loss of jobs, and to the naturalists the loss of a unique environment which has such rare flora and fauna. The result is that the Army is making every effort to improve access for the public while maintaining the habitat needed for the botanical species and birds which have long since been destroyed elsewhere by development, overcrowding and economic agriculture.

I can assure the House that the Army are making a sincere effort and that those in command are taking endless trouble to find out what people want and to act accordingly. A Working Party of the Army, local planning authorities and amenity bodies has been set up and agreement has been reached, which means that the Dorset Coastal Path will probably be completed by next September—anyway, by the following spring. This is a great achievement. From the placards which greeted me when we were opening the Devon part of the South-West Peninsula Coastal Path, I realised how strongly people feel about the gap at Tyneham. This path will be completed, but it would not have been possible to have completed it without the stimulus of the Nugent Report. May I thank the noble Lord for the way that his Report has concentrated all our minds upon the problems.

Apart from the coastal path—much of which would be too steep or too arduous for a family outing—loops of paths have been designed to cater for the less energetic as well as for the athletic. Those paths will be open to the public on 46 weekends, 16 days at Christmas, seven days at Easter, seven days during the spring Bank Holiday and seven weeks in the summer. I know that this is not complete access, but it is a very considerable advance upon the previous position.

At the same time I welcome the retention of the ranges, as I believe that it is only because they kept away the crowds of people, cars and the farmer's plough that we now have this unique habitat. No doubt ramblers would like greater access, but the naturalists would like less access. I believe that a fair compromise has been struck that will make Tyneham a real amenity without an expense that would, I fear, be prohibitive at the present time.

I now turn for a moment to the proposal for a Purbeck National Park. This is a very attractive idea, and one which certainly I welcome at first sight; but the details and real benefits will need to be studied carefully. No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, will give his views on this. First, I feel that the area of this park should be the Isle of Purbeck rather than the local government district of Purbeck, which is a much larger and more diverse area and includes Upton, practically into Poole, and, in my opinion, is not really suitable for a National Park, whereas the Isle of Purbeck is well defined and is the part that should be conserved. Secondly, I am concerned that the mere fact of a National Park will attract vast numbers of tourists which the area is incapable of absorbing. There is danger in the traffic that might be generated, and as part of the great attraction of this area consists of small winding lanes they would not be enhanced by traffic jams. In fact, the southern section of the Wareham by-pass was deliberately kept to a single carriageway because the roads of Purbeck could not deal with the extra traffic.

Often conservation is seen as preserving the goose that lays the golden eggs, but I suggest that it is equally important to ensure that those golden eggs are not transmuted into lead by the crowds that are attracted by that very conservation. This is the major problem of conservation and amenity, and I see it as one of the possible dangers to the National Park concept. I am trying to evaluate the advantages over the present system of planning control in an area of outstanding natural beauty. Since local government reorganisation planning staff have been in very short supply we must think twice before setting up a new organisation that would need considerable staff of high calibre. Of course a National Park would have a higher conservation status than an area of outstanding natural beauty, but the only extra power over what is already in the hands of local authorities is the right to prohibit the ploughing of downland.

It has been said that the planning authorities would allow huge caravan parks to proliferate. I must dispute this. We stand to be judged by our record, and our record at Purbeck is good. There is only one small caravan site, well tucked away, along the whole of the coast from Swanage to Lulworth. It is fashionable in conservation circles to denigrate the action of local councils, but I would remind the House that in a democratic society those councillors are responsible to their electors, whereas amenity bodies, by their very nature, represent sectional interests. As council-lors we have to weigh up all sides of a question and stand by the results, and it is often the difficult financial results, the difficult results of overcrowding and suchlike, that are eventually more important than the short-term conservation.

Dorset County Council and the Countryside Commission are actively pursuing a plan to establish a heritage coast from Ringstead to Studland—a rather longer area, including the whole of the Purbeck coast. This is an imaginative concept, and I hope that we can see what it achieves before embarking on a National Park for the Isle of Purbeck.

6.14 p.m.

Lord SANDFORD

My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, for giving us the chance to review what has happened here and I should like to start by congratulating, if I may, my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford on a most thorough investigation of this problem. He has received the congratulations of another place for his Report but not, I think, congratulations here. It is a most thorough Report, every bit as thorough and painstaking as anyone in Dorset or any of us could have wished for. At the end of it all, he and his Committee felt that it would be possible to move the work of the ranges at Lulworth to Castlemartin, given certain conditions which, as he has explained to the House, have not, in fact, been fulfilled. His Committee ascertained that it would cost £14 million to make the move. Now £14 million is enough to keep all 10 of the National Parks in England and Wales going for several years and it is money which, if it were in my hands, I would think twice before expending on one single move of this kind.

My noble friend went on to recommend that meanwhile—and, in any case, whether or not the ranges moved—the public should forthwith have greatly increased access to the military areas in holiday periods and at weekends ; and my noble friend Lord Digby has just confirmed that that recommendation is already in the process of implementation. The Committee recommended—perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, will confirm this when he replies—that sums of the order of £10,000 per annum, plus up to £55,000 or rather more than £55,000 of capital expenditure this year should be allocated to make such access possible, largely by increasing the numbers of staff working as wardens in the area. The number in question is 42 wardens, which is probably as much as all the National Parks put together. I am glad that that recommendation has been accepted, but I think we do not want to overlook the generosity and the extent of it. That access has been provided, or if it has not already been provided it will be progressively provided. Perhaps in winding up this debate the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, could say for how many weekends outside the holiday periods the areas will be open to the public this year.

Secondly, I would agree with my noble friend that in the circumstances I have just described, Her Majesty's Government's decision is at least for the time being the right one, but I hope the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, will respond to the request from the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, and the observation of my noble friend Lord Nugent, that the question of a double shift involving Kirkcud-bright, Shoeburyness, and Lulworth could now be looked into again in the changed circumstances of the Maplin situation.

The third point that is before us is the proposition that the situation should be dealt with by the creation of a National Park for Purbeck. Of course, that certainly would accord the place a new status, but I very much agree with my noble friend Lord Digby that the designation of a National Park here would add very few extra powers of control and preservation to the hands of those already concerned in the matter on the Dorset County Council; very few additions to the armoury they already possess for the protection of this area as one of outstanding natural beauty.

So we have to ask ourselves what would be the effect of that designation, in practice, on this small, precious, vulnerable area of Purbeck. I would agree with my noble friend that by far the greatest single effect would be enormously to increase the pressures of the public already upon it, and that is not something to be recommended lightly or unadvisedly, although I dare say it should be considered in due course.

I should like to end with a further tribute to my noble friend Lord Nugent on what I consider really to be his main achievement, certainly in this area. His achievement has been to bring about, by the process of concentrating peoples' minds upon this issue, a climate in which the citizens of Dorset have come to feel that the troops—at any rate in Purbeck—are more desired and welcomed than trippers. So as I understand it, they, too, are content with the Government's decision, as I am.

6.20 p.m.

Lord WINTERBOTTOM

My Lords, I have been well aware of the deep concern felt throughout the country about the future of the Tyneham Valley and the whole area of Lulworth, at present occupied by the Royal Armoured Corps. I have also been aware of the implications when people think of the sterilisation of a very lovely part of the British landscape. As a result of my awareness of this feeling, ten days ago I went down to the ranges and walked over substantial parts of them. May I say at the outset how deeply impressed I was with the concern felt by the commanding officer of the ranges and his staff with regard to their dual responsibility. They have the responsibility for training our future tank soldiers, and they have also responsibility as citizens of this country to preserve the wonderful countryside as it has been protected by the Army occupation, and making it available to a greater degree to the many energetic people who would wish to explore it.

My Lords, the main arguments for retaining the present situation have already been deployed in the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, explained why the original proposals are no longer possible, because of the require-ments of the German Army in Castlemartin. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Salisbury explained that in terms of the spiritual needs of his parishioners of Tyneham, these could be met in the surrounding parishes. The noble Lord, Lord Digby, made a most informed statement about the exact inter-relationship of the Army and the countryside and its people, which he has studied obviously at first hand.

My Lords, because I believe the arguments against a move have already been stated, may I answer various detailed questions put to me by my noble friend Lord Brockway, by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and others. May I say straight away that in the prose poem with which the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, started this debate, he made one point which is absolutely fundamental, and which applies to the present situation. The noble Lord spoke of the beauty of the area, its historic implications, its literary background. He spoke about the Iron Age fort sited on one of the great downs in order to resist the armies of Rome. The existing ranges are there now to resist the invasion of modern barbarians. The role they are playing today is the same as that played by the Iron Age fort a couple of thousand years ago.

The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, in the course of his speech blamed the Army for certain acts of outrage and vandalism. He said that the Army destroyed the historic burial ground. No, my Lords, the Army did not destroy the historic burial ground. A foreign dictatorship, the Nazi movement, destroyed it, because they imposed on this country, which is basically pacific, the need to mobilise armed forces and to train them to protect the society which most of us value. That is the reason why the Tyneham and Lulworth ranges have ceased to be available for the normal pacific use of a lovely countryside. They have been absorbed into the protection of our society, which to me is more valuable and significant than a smallish stretch of beautiful countryside. It is our society which is at risk, and not a valley.

Lord BROCKWAY

My Lords, is the noble Lord really saying that it was not shells from the British range which hit this burial site, which had been there since before Christ, and which was of great archeological value? How can he say it was not the Army which destroyed it?

Lord WINTERBOTTOM

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, is very strong in moral judgment. The moral judgment that he made was that there was an outrage by the Army. The moral outrage was committed by the Fascist forces in Europe, which imposed upon us the need to train troops to protect our society. Society is important, rather than one small village.

My Lords, turning to other details, the noble Lord, apart from raising the question of this burial ground, mentioned the closing of the coastal path. The coastal path is now going to be re-opened. It will be re-opened from Lulworth to Kimmeridge, and will be made available and safe to the public. The noble Lord pooh-poohed the danger; but in 1967 two small boys were killed by picking up live ammunition. The danger is always there. The function of the wardens of this coastal path is to prevent any accidents happening to the general public now that the actual coastal path is opened for so many days a year. The idea is that a path five metres wide should be cut and opened to the public; it should be patrolled daily by the wardens after firing. The wardens are being appointed. Their role will be to see that no live ammunition or other pieces of dangerous military hardware are lying on the paths when the public uses those paths. Wardens will also make certain that the rare flora, the rare shells and fossils to be found in this area will not be picked up by human vandals.

There is a phrase which I rather like which many of your Lordships may have heard; that is, military ecology. It is a fact that where there are military ranges a great deal of automatic preservation of the environment takes place, because the most damaging animal of all, the human animal, is denied regular access to these areas. As a matter of fact, the only place I have seen marsh harriers is on the Shoeburyness range. The same is true for many butterflies, birds and flowers.

My Lords, the protection of the coastal path costs money. The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, asked me how much Her Majesty's Government have spent for this purpose. The noble Lord was rather—I was going to say "conservative", which is probably the right word, but in point of fact the money to be expended is £100,000 capital and £100,000 a year thereafter in order to provide the facilities, first, to keep the whole of the range area safe, and, secondly, to improve its amenities. In my visit a fortnight ago, what impressed me was that the newly appointed rangers were clearing the beaches, burning the rubbish, oil sodden seaweed, plastic containers and driftwood. Large areas of these beaches will now become available to the public in a cleaner state than probably anywhere else on the South Coast.

If one turns to fencing, it has been agreed that fencing shall be kept to a minimum. There is one area along the road where a large number of phosphorous shells have been fired, and these can be extremely dangerous, whatever my noble friend says, because they retain their explosive and burning power for many years. May I take this opportunity to tell your Lordships about a case that the military authorities had to face at Lulworth. It is said that any foolproof mechanism is safe against anyone except fools. There was a gentleman last year who took the trouble to go out in a boat from Lulworth dressed in a skin diving suit to dive into the water off the ranges, pick up five shells in their shell cases, take them into the car park at Lulworth and then start opening them with a hammer and screwdriver. He really worked hard. They happened to be phosphorous shells. One went off, and he was severely burned and his car was damaged. That is the sort of folly we have to deal with. I do not know whether quoting German is in order in this House. I will refrain, but there is a statement in Goethe saying that against folly the Gods themselves fight in vain. I think that is very true.

I hope I have answered my noble friend Lord Brockway about the danger of the situation. He has pooh-poohed it. I am glad to say that he has come back, and I hope he will accept my explanation.

Lord BROCKWAY

Not a bit, my Lords. If I may interrupt for one moment, I never went out of hearing of the Minister.

Lord WINTERBOTTOM

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his courtesy. May I continue to answer some of his questions. It is not just a question of clearing all the shells, which would cost £30 million; what we are doing is making certain that the various pathways being opened up in this area are safe for the public to walk along. The fact that cattle and sheep inhabit this area is perhaps an indication that the dangers are not all that great, but whereas the national Press would not comment upon a sheep being killed by a ricocheting shell, some comment would be made if a visitor on foot of the human species were killed in that area. In point of fact Tyneham Manor was damaged by ricocheting shells. Although there is this parallel line of downs and although the tanks do fire into the first line of downs, nevertheless the very high velocity of the projectiles brings about ricochets, and the ricochets can do and have done damage in the Tyneham Valley area. These are facts. However much the noble Lord pooh-poohs it, he simply cannot argue that there is no danger to visitors, whom the Army authorities and the Countryside Commission and the rest all want to go there. We do not want to have unnecessary risks imposed upon them.

My noble friend mentioned the china clay. Of course, that is not a Ministry of Defence responsibility. Sometime or other a planning decision was reached to allow china clay mining in that particular area. If we are to have a flourishing economy we need to have access to raw materials, and it so happens that china clay is a raw material in which this country has a certain advantage.

Lord BROCKWAY

My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Army permitted excavation of china clay from this land long before any planning permission was given by the Dorset Council? It was the Army which was responsible for allowing this company to carry out this work which so destroyed that heath.

Lord WINTERBOTTOM

No, my Lords; I cannot agree. I have visited this area myself. It is an area of excavation for a raw material. Planning permission may or may not have been granted. Since this is now national property I believe that certain planning laws are not so rigidly applied. But in due course, as elsewhere, there is no doubt that this may become a large lake when the clay has been worked out and that it will add to the amenity of the area. We simply cannot sterilise the whole country because someone says that it is a blot on the landscape. Unfortunately, we must accept the fact that if we are to survive we have to use the resources we have, and the china clay of this area is one of them. I do not know when the noble Lord went out or when he came back, but may I make one point in addition to what I said on the original question of the coastal path. It will be fenced only where there is danger from phosphorous shells; otherwise it will be open.

There is one further point on the destruction of wildlife, in particular badgers. This again is another sensitive point. No one is fonder of badgers than I am. But the fact is that the badgers are suspected of carrying bovine tuberculosis. Some badgers in the military area have been taken for scientific purposes because it was thought that they could be carrying bovine tuberculosis to transfer to the cattle to transfer to our children. It is like everything else in life. We live in an imperfect world, and at the end of the day it is the human animal in this country whose interests must be considered. If badgers are transferring a crippling disease to our children, this fact must be established. That is what has been going on. The Army are not killing badgers just because they like killing.

Lord BROCKWAY

My Lords, of course I accept that.

Lord WINTERBOTTOM

So, my Lords, that is the main case. Noble Lords who have spoken have stated the case for not using Castlemartin, that the parish church at Tyneham is not directly essential, and the noble Lord, Lord Digby, has said that collaboration between the Army authorities and the local authorities is of the highest order. I do not propose to comment on the Purbeck National Park. It was not included in the Question, and I have no views. This is a long-term idea; it may be a good one, but it must be studied.

May I finally make one point which has been made by other noble Lords and which I think is valid. The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, the Tyneham Action Committee and the Friends of Tyneham may feel that they have wasted their time. This is not so. I thought this, in a sense, was an example of democratic process at its best. It is true that a wonderful stretch of countryside had been semi-sterilised by its military use. People who were concerned about this took action. They argued the case, they argued it to the Nugent Committee; they argued it in the Press; they used every channel available to them. At the end of the day the Government, having listened to what they had to say, reached a decision, and that was that the main purpose of the area was to continue.

However, compromise was reached. This stretch of countryside is now being opened to the active people of our country to a far greater degree than has been the case for many years. They can enter it every weekend except for six. The six weekends are those weekends which are required for training the Territorial Army. They can move about. The coastal foot-path is restored. It will be safe, and cleared by wardens. There are many additional walks being prepared. It will be signposted and, what is equally important is that the fact that more people are coming into the area will not, if everything goes well, affect the quite unique ecological, historical, and archaeological elements in this fascinating complex of countryside, because the wardens who are there to protect the public from unexploded ammunition and other hazards will also protect the wildlife and the ancient monuments within the area.

One of the points that I made to the commandant when I was there was that I expected that there would be a number of people deeply concerned with these problems who would volunteer for the post of warden, and this is the case. The quality of the people coming forward for employment—of whom 13 have now been engaged—is of a very high standard, and I suspect that the ecological base, the architectural base, and the whole general view of the countryside will be improved following upon their work, because, of course, they will be working during the whole week and not only at weekends. So while the country may continue to use the irreplaceable training grounds at Lulworth, the public in general will be able to enjoy them as an area of recreation to a much greater degree than has been possible so far.

6.42 p.m.

Lord BROCKWAY

My Lords, I think all of your Lordships will feel that this discussion has been worth while. Not for the first time I find myself in a minority against not only my own Front Bench and the Conservative Opposition, but the Established Church. I do not think that that makes me wrong. On the whole, I think that history shows that the minority of individuals who stand for principles and policies opposed by the political establishment and the Church establishment often finally prove to be right. If the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Salisbury will forgive me for saying this, I expected the attitude of our own Front Bench and that of the Opposition; I did not expect the attitude of the Church.

I am a Humanist, but nevertheless have a tremendous regard for the contribution which the Church is making today on inter-racial issues all over the world, and in the way in which it is increasingly applying the ethics of Jesus Christ to our social life. I am continually finding myself, as a Humanist, agreeing with what is said from the Benches of the right reverend Prelates. If I have been disappointed tonight it is not by my own Front Bench, it is not by the Tory Opposition; it is by the fact that the Church should have joined with them in opposing the argument that I have urged this evening.

The LORD BISHOP of SALISBURY

My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me for intervening, because obviously I cannot stay seated. I hope he will forgive me for saying that, as I understand it, Jesus Christ was concerned with people, and it is the people rather than the ecological and archeological considerations of historic buildings that naturally concern me.

Lord BROCKWAY

My Lords, I appreciate that, and I shall not make a further comment. The first speech was by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, who was chairman of the Defence Lands Committee. When I spoke earlier I thought it unnecessary to say how deeply I appreciate the work of the members of that Committee and of the noble Lord himself. I know members of that Committee, and I know the great sincerity and great depth with which they examined the problems which came before them. I appreciate that immensely. The Government cannot fail to take notice of a plea that was made from the noble Lord, as well as from myself, that they should not regard what has happened in Tyneham as final, and that they should look for alternatives at the new proposals now being made, particularly in relation to the transference of one of the activities from Kirkcudbright to Shoeburyness.

I am a little reluctant, after what I have already said, to make a further reference to the right reverend Prelate. He expressed some surprise that I described the church at Tyneham as exquisite. I was referring to the beauty of that church. It is very small, but there on a little green mound there are big Army posters saying, "You must not enter". I did. Even if it is true that that church is now redundant from the point of view of attracting a congregation—and, after all, there were only 300 tenants in the village—the beauty of that church and of its clerical surroundings is such that they should be retained, not from the point of view of ministering to a congregation but as a memento of the beauty which has come from even small Gothic architecture.

The noble Lord, Lord Digby, a member of the Dorset County Council, criticised the National Park on grounds which seemed to me rather irrelevant; on the grounds that there are not now sufficient roads, a sufficient staff, or that there might be an invasion from outside if the area were made a National Park. I want to suggest to him that when we are thinking of these big ideas, of a great area being preserved for the beauty of the whole nation in the form of a National Park, that really should not deter us from so acting. I want to thank the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, for his very important endorsement of the proposal which the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, made following my own suggestion that the possibility of alternatives to the Tyneham and Lulworth area should be considered. Coming from the Front Opposition Bench, after what the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, has said, the Government can hardly ignore that proposal.

I find it difficult to comment on the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom. I want first to apologise for the fact that I disappeared from my place on this Bench. I carefully kept myself within the House so that I might listen to all his words. I do not think that I missed any of them. I become more amazed every time I listen to the noble Lord. We have had this extraordinary argument that the retention of the Army in the Tyneham, South Dorset, area is justified today for the same reason that there was an iron fort there against the Roman invasion. He actually used the phrase that "it is necessary to retain the Army there against modern barbarians".

Lord WINTERBOTTOM

My Lords, I too am frequently surprised by my noble friend's attitude. Is he saying that we are living in a safe world in which our society is not threatened in any quarter?

Lord BROCKWAY

My Lords, that intervention emphasises the very point I was trying to make. Is the noble Lord really suggesting that this country is, at this moment, in danger from any barbarian invasion? Where?

Lord WINTERBOTTOM

I would sooner not state where, but the noble Lord should know it!

Lord BROCKWAY

Exactly, my Lords, and it is quite evident what the noble Lord has in mind. The noble Lord has this obsession that this country is in danger from the Soviet Union at this moment. What utter nonsense! I do not believe that any of his officials at his Ministry of Defence believes that for one moment. Communism, yes, is a danger to the world in representing totalitarian repression of individual liberty; but it is moonshine to think that, in practical terms at this moment, the Soviet Union will be a barbarian invader of this country. It is that obsession which affects so much of the noble Lord's reasoning.

Nevertheless I welcome his concluding remarks. He said that the activities of the Action Group and of the Friends of Tyneham have not been in vain. I have been a member of both groups. I have rarely been among any individuals who are more dedicated to high purposes than the members of those groups. They are thinking of the beauty of the territory in which they live. Their concern has not been so much to get the Army out as to get the opportunity for the development of that beauty. I ask the Minister to consider whether these people, who are living in, and are all dedicated to the beauty of, their own area, should be allowed to join the Advisory Committee from which at present they are excluded, a, Committee which is thinking of the future of their area.

Lord HALE

My Lords, before the noble Lord concludes will he permit one brief interruption? I suggest that he made one mistake in what he said in reply. He said he was in a minority. As one who lived in Dorset and knew the county intimately for many years—admittedly its Western half, and not its Eastern half near the Chesil Beach and of Admiral Hardy—I venture to say he was completely wrong when he said he was being supported by a minority.

The right of distinguished men of Dorset to put their names down in this debate and partake in a brief discussion was obviously pre-emptive, and properly so. We like to hear the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Salisbury, the chairman of Dorset County Council and the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, who reported. But the able case that the noble Lord deployed, and one or two moral points in it too (which have not been answered in detail, although I know they have been raised before when replies have been given) convinces me that he is not addressing an unresponsive body and that he has made a deep impression in what he said.

Lord BROCKWAY

My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.