HL Deb 25 March 1982 vol 428 cc1130-44

8.23 p.m.

Lord Brockway rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will reconsider their intention to establish a bunker at Naphill, Buckinghamshire, on National Trust land.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I make no apology for initiating this debate. The proposed bunker at Naphill—or "operations centre", as the Ministry prefers—is not an isolated or incidental nuclear project. The Ministry itself says that it is probably the most important construction for many years. It is part of a massive co-ordination at High Wycombe of the headquarters of not only British but American and NATO defence. Indeed, it is not too much to say that this picturesque town in the valley of the Chilterns will be the defence centre for Britain and a large part of Europe if war occurs.

High Wycombe already contains, first, the United States Air Force station at Daws Hill for programming cruise missiles in the United Kingdom and, secondly, the RAF headquarters of Strike Command for the United Kingdom. And now there is this project at Naphill, which will be the communications and command and control centre for all RAF forces in the United Kingdom and, in addition, the co-ordination centre for NATO air forces in Europe, except in West Germany. If one were concerned about one's own life, High Wycombe would be the last place in which to choose to live. The town would be the first object of a precision attack in a nuclear war, as was recognised by the recent Operation Square Leg, which described High Wycombe in its rehearsal of the war as the most devastated place in Britain.

I propose to criticise the construction of the bunker at Naphill on two grounds, the first environmental and the second political. On environmental grounds, I have received letters of support from the influential Chilterns Society, representing over 20,000 residents in the Chiltern Hills; from the Eastern Regional Council of the Youth Hostels Association, whose members particularly enjoy the Chilterns; and, on both environmental and political grounds, support from the very representative High Wycombe Peace Council.

I take, first, the environmental case. The bunker is to be on land, first, designated as an area of outstanding beauty; secondly, in the green belt; and, thirdly, on land owned by the National Trust, a three-fold protection. In a letter to Sir Ian Gilmour, MP, dated 23rd December, Mr. John Nott, Minister for Defence recognised: The National Trust has the primary duty to keep unspoilt for the benefit of the public the areas of the countryside which it has acquired". I believe that there is now some controversy between the National Trust and the Ministry of Defence about that priority of beauty, but I shall not disrupt the main purpose of my speech by dwelling on it.

Naphill lies in the Chilterns among the most beautiful wooded hills of beechwood in Britain, with rare trees of scientific value, and with historic sites. I want to acknowledge that the Government have endeavoured to minimise the disturbing effects of the construction of the bunker on the countryside. But having visited the area several times, spoken to many residents in the neighbourhood, and discussed the effects of the bunker with experts on natural preservation, I am convinced that the Government's efforts are not, and cannot be, enough. I have lived in the Chilterns. I love them—the beeches and the carpet of bluebells underneath. I feel hurt that the Chilterns are now being raped in the preparations for nuclear war: On the one side the deep shelter for higher civil servants; on the other side the project which we are discussing.

I do not want to generalise. I want the House to consider two facts which illustrate how the Chilterns will be spoiled. Take first the mountain of earth which will arch the bunker. The mound will be 150 metres square and 30 feet high. It will not be just a mound. It will have four large concrete entrances, four aluminium ventilators, and evaporative coolers covered by a grille. It will be an elabourate construction. It will be enclosed by 11 acres, surrounded by two security fences more than six feet high, with blazing security lights north and south. Such a construction would be a blot on any countryside; it would be a scar on this beauty spot in the Chilterns.

It is said that the bunker will not be visible. I have walked down a public footpath along the edge of the site and I have motored down Smalldene Lane beyond, and the site is clearly visible from both places. The security lights would be visible for miles around. This structural invasion of the quite countryside, the technique of concrete, brick and stone, will do something more than blacken beauty. May I say it?—it will be a blow to spiritual experience, destroying the withdrawn sanctity of the Chilterns, revered by many who seek their mystical retreat. The chalk and soil extracted to construct the bunker will be spread over meadows of 25 acres. The grass will be covered by the rubble which will be a metre high, obliterating the hedges. The excavation might last four years at a minimum, and even 10 years, and there will be ugly deformation all that time.

The second point that I want to make is that there is to be a road to the bunker. It was at first proposed that the 40 to 50 lorries should pass through the lovely village of Bradenham, but local protest was so strong that it was decided to construct a new road bursting through Parkwood on the hilltop, down the deep descent of green meadows to Saunderton in the valley. I have stood there and pictured both the deep excavation that the road would require and how, when completed, it would destroy the harmonious symmetry of the valley of Bradenham.

But more than that, my Lords. Cutting through the trees above the meadowland would mean the destruction of one of the best features of Chiltern beechwood, of that wonderful avenue of trees. To slash them would be not only to stab beauty, but to commit a biological crime. The beeches are described by the National Trust as forming a "site of special scientific interest". They are in several features quite unique.

There is a further scientific objection. The road will cut Grim's Dyke, a prehistoric earth work, an ancient monument of the Iron Age, which runs for several miles through the Chilterns. To burst it would be an historical outrage, equivalent to destroying the continuity of Hadrian's Wall in the North of England.

I have spoken at some length, but I must mention a newly-exposed danger to the woodland surrounding the bunker, of which I heard only this week. Anthropological experts have approached the National Trust in these last few days to alert them to this danger. The building of the bunker will involve a very deep excavation, open for several years while the installation is completed. The wide hole in the earth, 150 metres square, will have to be kept drained of water by pumping. Water will stream in from the surrounding land—chalk soil capped with clay. Inevitably, this will have a serious effect on the neighbouring woodland. The withdrawal of water from the roots of these unique beech trees over a long period—four years, perhaps 10 years—will kill tree after tree. I ask the Ministry of Defence to look seriously at this problem with the National Trust. The Chiltern beeches must not be destroyed.

My Lords, the National Trust has given provisional consent to the application of the Ministry—provisional because the negotiations are still continuing. Its officials have expressed surprise that the Ministry is already building approaches to the mound when no final agreement has been reached. Perhaps the Minister, in replying, will explain.

My Lords, that is the environmental case. Now the political. I can be brief, because the political objection, though controversial, is simple and clear, though fundamental. The political objection is that mankind cannot live with nuclear weapons which could destroy all life on earth. The proposed lease is for 99 years. By then we will all be dead, or nuclear weapons will be dead.

The Labour Party and the conference of the Liberal Party have declared against the retention of nuclear weapons and American bases in this country. At least 150 regional and local councils, including all of Wales, representing four-fifths of the population of Britain, have declared themselves nuclear-free zones. This attitude is sweeping the world. Canada, much of Latin America, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Spain, Greece and India have banned nuclear weapons on their soil. The Peace Movement in Europe, including West Germany, is stronger even than here. In America, the campaign to freeze armed forces has the support of 135 representatives in Congress, and a surprisingly large number of important towns as well as rural areas. The movement in the world is so strong, growing every day, that I am confident that the future, perhaps within a decade, will see the abolition of nuclear weapons.

I have already protested against the expenditure of millions on Trident when it is practically certain that there will be a majority in the next Parliament against its retention. I add a protest against the estimated expenditure of £300 million on the bunker at Naphill—the figure will almost certainly become greater—possible only by a NATO contribution for its participation. I should like to ask the Minister whether he can say how much the NATO contribution is to be. It will be wasted money if in the next Parliament we have a Labour Government supported by others from the present Opposition. On these grounds I appeal to the Government to reconsider their plan to build the bunker. I appeal to the National Trust, in accordance with its prime duty to preserve natural beauty, not to surrender this beloved heart of the Chilterns.

8.47 p.m.

Lord Gibson

My Lords, I propose to deal only with the environmental side of the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Brockway. If he is right in his belief that the Chilterns are being raped, for whatever purpose, then the National Trust would be derelict in its duty in not opposing to the utmost any proposal which would have that effect. There are three Members of your Lordships' House here tonight who are connected with the National Trust: Lord Esher, who is in his place and is down to speak, is chairman of the region of the National Trust in which this land lies; Lord Bishopston, who is a member of the executive committee; and myself, who am chairman of the National Trust.

I think it would be appropriate for me to leave the noble Viscount, Lord Esher, to describe to your Lordships the particular circumstances of this case, and the proposal. He, as it falls in his region, has dealt with it in detail and knows it well—much better than I do—and it would be merely duplicating matters if I were to deal with that aspect of it. I want only, therefore, to explain to your Lordships how the National Trust deals with applications in general for the use of inalienable land, because the implication here is that the National Trust is failing in its duty to protect what has been entrusted inalienably to its charge.

The question is being not unreasonably asked: Why does not the National Trust defend, at least by insisting on a public inquiry and, if necessary, by fighting all the way to Parliament, any attack on its inalienable land and any proposal to build on or in any way to change the character of the land it has undertaken to protect? As your Lordships know, the power to hold land for ever, subject only to the will of Parliament —that is to say, inalienability—is an asset uniquely conferred on the trust by Parliament, and it is an asset which gives confidence to donors and is the basis of the trust's whole existence. We therefore guard it most carefully.

It is inevitable that the trust, as the owner of some 450,000 acres, most of which have been declared inalienable, recieves a large number of requests to make bits of this land available for public purposes such as road widening, new roads, reservoirs, extensions to school buildings and hospital buildings, the erection of television masts, pylons, sewage works and so on. Our first reaction is always to say, No, and to insist on a search for another site, not on trust land, and indeed to find some other solution. If some major change is proposed, altering the whole character of the land, we have always resisted the proposal and, if need be, have fought it through a public inquiry all the way to Parliament.

That is precisely what the trust has done, for example, at Ennerdale and Wastwater, where we fought a proposal by British Nuclear Fuels and the North-West Water Authority to take water from both of those lakes and thus change the appearance of the shores and the valley. We fought it at a public inquiry, at great expense incidentally, and we won; and the Secretary of State accepted his inspector's recommendation which supported our stand. In Saltram, on the other hand, we fought a proposal to take the Plymouth by-pass through the park. We fought that all the way to Parliament and, to our regret, we lost. Some years ago we fought a proposal from Bristol University to take Rainbow Wood Farm on the edge of Bath, for playing fields—no harm in playing fields but it changed the character of the land and we took that to a public inquiry, and we won.

I give these examples to show that acquiescence in the use of our land for a purpose which will change its character is normally resisted to the utmost degree. But there must be occasions when either there is no alternative or when the alternative would have an even worse effect on the landscape than the use of the trust's land. In such a case, what does the trust do? What it does not do, and should not do and is not capable of doing, is to attempt to make a judgment about the public purpose for which the public body requires it. It simply considers the effect of the proposal on the landscape, its likely damage to architectural, historical or natural history interests and any other loss of public benefit. If it considers that such damage is either non-existent or minimal then it acquiesces; and one reason for doing so is that it can then often secure improvements to the proposals (from a landscape or other amenity aspect) which might not otherwise be achievable.

As an example of proposals that we have agreed to, I might cite, for instance, an extension to a state school at Cotehele, which is on inalienable land, and the building of a sewage works there. In both cases it was felt that building on trust land was the best solution and that no real public benefit would have been lost. Similarly, at Cliveden, we have on a number of occasions allowed the Canadian Red Cross Memorial Hospital to build extensions on our inalienable land where we have considered that such extensions would do no environmental harm.

I hope that I have said enough to show that the trust is far from being compliant when its inalienable land is wanted for a public purpose. But if it is satisfied either that there is no alternative solution or that the proposed solution is actually the least damaging one on environmental grounds, then provided that it is satisfied that the damage to the land would be minimal and the loss of public benefit is non-existent it will be prepared to grant a lease and to use its influence, as in this case, to try to improve the appearance of the development and to lessen the inconvenience to the public during the construction period. Such is our general approach to the protection of inalienable land; and I believe that any other would render the whole concept of inalienability unsustainable in a changing world.

I have not attempted to defend the trust myself against the charge of being wrong in this particular case. I will leave that to the noble Viscount, Lord Esher, who is closely familiar with it. What I have tried to do is to tell your Lordships how we normally operate and, against that background, I hope that the noble Viscount, Lord Esher, will tell us what he feels about Bradenham and Naphill.

8.54 p.m.

Viscount Esher

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, has explained, I have been closely involved with this proposal for the last two or three years. I have lived in the Chilterns all my life, I know the valley intimately and I think it is my duty to do what I can to reassure your Lordships. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has raised this matter in your Lordships' House. None of us likes it. It has been an extremely difficult exercise for those of us concerned and I need hardly say that we have only taken the position that we have in the National Trust for the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, has suggested—namely, that any alternative would almost certainly be worse.

Perhaps I may go hack over the history. Bradenham Manor was bequeathed to the Trust in 1956 with well over 1,000 acres of the valley in which it stands and the little hamlet around it. At that time, in 1956, the RAF High Wycombe headquarters had long since been established on the northern edge of the valley. It had been there since before the last war. The Bradenham Valley is on the north-west fringe of High Wycombe. It is a wide, straight, spacious valley, by no means without blemishes. Unquestionably, the most attractive thing about the valley is the hamlet of Bradenham on its wide green, with its generous 17th-century manor house overlooking it and with its backcloth of beeches and the farmland in which it lies.

Because of the backcloth of woods, no one in the Bradenham Valley could be aware of the very large RAF installation which lies on the plateau behind the beech woods and above the valley. You reach the RAF headquarters either along a suburban road out of High Wycombe, coming from the east, or you can climb through the little hamlet of Bradenham, up through the woods and arrive from the valley below.

When this proposal first reached us we all hoped the thing could be done on the Ministry of Defence land, adjacent to their existing installation. We have had to recognise that this could not be done. We have also had to recognise that there is, within the short distance in which we have to deal, no sensible alternative. The only physically possible alternative would have been to put the bunker a little further east on the far side of the road through Naphill through which most people reach the headquarters. The defence authorities were most reluctant to do this. Indeed, I doubt whether they would have considered it possible either physically or from the security point of view. But, even if they had agreed to move the bunker across the road to the east, it would, in the opinion of all who have been over the site, have been a worse solution from the point of view of the landscape. So, finally, we have been obliged to accept that, if it is to be built at all, it cannot be built elsewhere. The site is a flat field, screened by woods, with belts of trees on all sides. As I have already said, it is completely invisible from the landscape for which we are the trustees. On the built-up side of the site it sits back a considerable distance from the road. It can only be reached across Grim's Ditch.

The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, made a feature of Grim's Ditch. It was breached in a perfectly thoughtless way by the service authorities before the war, and in that area there is not an awful lot left of it. From that side the site sits way back and there must be few people who pass along the Naphill Road who are aware of its existence. Wherever it is necessary, the Ministry of Defence will thicken up the planting around the site. It is important that they should because the trees that exist, although very solid and substantial, will not live for ever and we have to take care of a future situation in which the woods might themselves begin to die back and new planting would be needed to take their place.

It is impossible for any of us to speak up in favour of this plateau about the Chilterns. It is a great pity that this great headquarters ever went there, but there they are. Our job, confronted with the realities of the situation, has been to see whether we can accept it and whether it will affect the landscape for which we are responsible. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, that the most difficult aspect of the problem has been how to reach the site, mainly with construction traffic. It is construction traffic which is going to dominate the scene for the next three or four years. It was the Ministry's original intention to use the little road that I mentioned earlier up through Bradenham. It was not just local opinion that caused us to reject this solution; it was the firm view of the trust that we could not accept this traffic through that quiet village, so we had to search for alternatives.

We have looked at six different roads up from the valley, and I have walked the length of all of them. Perhaps I should mention, incidentally, that what one might think the obvious access, which is from the back from the Naphill Road, is even more unacceptable. This is not only for reasons of gradients—there is a very steep rise out of Wycombe—but it would bring traffic right through the heart of High Wycombe and it would cause an immense amount of ill-feeling among residents of that area who would have to put up with it. That is why we felt that we must find a temporary route to enable the site to be reached which would avoid the village of Bradenham and disturbance and the real impracticability of reaching the site from the east.

The route which we think best and which the PSA, acting for the Ministry, have agreed to accept at considerable cost, will involve no excavation. It will go across a flat field, enter a wood on the line of an existing driftway and the whole of its woodland section will follow an existing track. Probably, the existing track is not wide enough everywhere. A certain number of trees will no doubt have to he felled to make it wide enough. It will be a useful road to us eventually, but not of course the kind of concrete track that construction traffic has to have. We have included among the conditions on which we have insisted that all the concrete will be removed, that the whole length of the road will be restored to its existing character and that any new planting that may be necessary to replace any trees that need to be felled, will of course be carried out. I can say without hesitation that at the end of the exercise—and we do not know when this will be; it may be 10 years—no one will know that that road ever existed, and no one from the Bradenham Valley will notice any difference in the landscape for which the National Trust is responsible.

The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, mentioned one or two other recent factors which have been brought to his notice on which I cannot comment with complete authority but with which I think I ought to deal as best I can. He mentioned lighting. It would be highly objectionable to the trust if this bunker were brilliantly lit all through the night, particularly as it stands so high above the landscape. We have been assured that there will be no lighting of the bunker except in an emergency—whatever that may mean. I hope that the noble Viscount, when he replies to this debate, will be able to confirm that assurance.

The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, also mentioned water and the possible effect of the deep hole on the trees around. The water table on the site I am told is 40 feet below the level of the ground. I am assured that there is no danger of any risk to the surrounding woodlands. I am glad that the noble Lord has brought this matter to the attention of your Lordships because we ought to look at it carefully before we finally agree to the proposals that I am describing. If there is any thought that this could affect the surrounding woodlands, then the trust would he most reluctant to accept the project.

I have mentioned Grim's Ditch, but I ought to make it clear, since the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, suggested that access to the site would involve the breaching of Grim's Ditch, that one of the purposes of the new access up from the valley was precisely to avoid doing that. Grim's Ditch is on the east of the site and the new road will come up from the west. There will he no question of any further damage to this prehistoric monument.

I think really I can only say that all of us who have been in the field of conservation all our lives would dearly love this project to go away. The National Trust depends totally on public goodwill, and we are not at all happy about the correspondence, the press reports and the criticism that we have received in connection with our willingness to negotiate on this project. But the fact is that one can very often secure better terms through negotiation than one can by out-and-out resistance.

Some of our friends—notably the Children's Society, which the noble Lord has mentioned, and of which I happen to be president—take the absolutist position that no project which involves a major land use should he permitted in an area of outstanding natural beauty, or in a green belt or indeed in the Chilterns. Of course, that has never been the understanding of most people of the use of these areas. Existing institutions, installations and uses have to change and grow, like the hospital mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, and this is simply the inevitable growth of a military installation.

I personally have never been particularly enthusiastic about the classification of our landscape in terms of its aesthetic beauty which has been so much the thing since the war. In Scotland where, so far as I know, nobody goes in for such classification, the conservation of the Scottish landscape has worked as well as, if not better than, our conservation of our English and Welsh landscapes. I believe personally that every acre of these islands is equally important and equally precious, and that what really matters is that we should do what has to be done as well as we can possibly do it. I have been involved in these discussions wholly with that end in view. I honestly believe that the solution we are going to reach will be a solution which the conservation interests, when they eventually see the result, will feel is right. Only if we do it in this way would I personally have anything to do with these negotiations.

9.11 p.m.

Lord Jenkins of Putney

My Lords, I should like, if I may, to add a postscript to what my noble friend has said and perhaps I might mention to my noble friend Lord Peart that although my name is not on the list it was given some time ahead, and I think it might be appropriate if I were to say what little I have to say before the two Front Bench speakers wind up.

I find myself in the position of having to begin with an apology. They say you should never do that, but must apologise to my noble friend for having missed the beginning of his remarks. I also feel a little reluctant to speak in a different sense from the two noble Lords who have just spoken, both of whom I warmly respect and at least one of whom I count as a friend, although I must not call him that in this Chamber—I and refer of course to the noble Lord, Lord Gibson. I find myself having to take a different view from that which they have so eloquently placed before your Lordships.

It would be idle to pretend that I would take the view quite so surely and certainly as I do were it not for the nature of what is proposed to be built in this place. For example, if it was proposed to erect a cathedral there I think I might find myself, although that might be a greater infringement on the landscape, better disposed towards it. But here we have something proposed which is offensive to many people.

There is one environmental point I should like to make before saying a few words about other matters: I do not think enough has been said about the time involved in this development. The period is somewhere between four and 10 years. If what we were concerned about here was something which could appear overnight, as it were, I think there would be less objection because the objection is not only to the final result but to the long process of disruption which will take place while the whole massive erection is being brought about. I understand there will be some 30 to 50 lorries a day trundling around these narrow roads. There will be a reservoir to be developed quite nearby in order to provide sufficient water; and there will be more disruption and upset with that development. So that if I were living there and if I were about 60—which I wish I was—it would be small consolation to me to know that in 10 years' time, when I would have reached 70, everything would be all right, especially when what would be "all right" would be the fact that my area had become a prime target in the event of nuclear war. I would find myself unable to survey this development with the kind of equanimity which seems to have overcome the National Trust.

Nevertheless, I should like to make it clear that the point I am making is not to the National Trust, but rather to the Government, because the Government's responsibilities spread wider than those of the National Trust. The National Trust is, of course, an admirable body carrying out the duties it discharges extraordinarily well, on the whole, looking after the beauteous land which we are privileged to inhabit. But the Government have greater responsibilities. Here they are concerned not only with that aspect of the matter but with what they are actually putting on the site.

It is rather remarkable that in that area the Government are proposing to spend £300 million on creating a safe retreat—I do not think it is safe, and I doubt whether anything is very safe, but it is supposedly safe—in the event of nuclear war for the Royal Air Force Strike Command, while, at the same time, the local district council is spending £300 on civil defence. This is the situation that we are getting into. More and more money is being spent to provide a spurious protection for fewer and fewer people. So far as most of the population are concerned, the Government do nothing whatever for them.

They admit that in a nuclear war no effective civil defence can be provided for the mass of the population. So while people outside are exposed to anything that may happen to them, those who are responsible for carrying out our part of a nuclear programme are themselves provided with some semblance of security. It seems to be a very peculiar situation, and I wonder whether the Government feel at all comfortable about it.

The other point that I want to make is that this area will become a prime target in the event of nuclear war. But ideas of nuclear war are changing things and I wonder whether the Government are wise to go in for capital development of this size. I can only doubt the efficacy of underground command centres. I have some slight knowledge of these, because I worked in one during the last war. I was for some time at the headquarters of 12 Group Fighter Command and we did not attempt to bury ourselves then. I gravely doubt whether it is more sensible for command headquarters to try to bury themselves in the nuclear age.

This is, therefore, a waste of money, in its own smaller way, of the same order as the colossal waste of money of the Government on Trident. These huge capital developments are likely to be overtaken by events—even, possibly, changed or disposed of by a future Government—and the Government should ask them-selves whether capital developments of this order are a sensible way of spending money, which could reasonably be spent much better on hospitals, schools, housing and even on the forces themselves, by the development of a reasonable conventional defence for this country, which is the only kind of defence that the people can survive. So I say that, altogether, this seems to me to be a thoroughly undesirable project, and I echo the words of my noble friend in hoping that, as a result of this debate, the Government may look again at the entire matter.

9.18 p.m.

Lord Peart

My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Brockway, who raised this Question. The subject is one of importance, and I well understand his views on the beauty of this area of land, which we know. As an agriculture Minister, I was naturally very much involved in this. I also felt rather nostalgic at the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, when he talked about Ennerdale in my old constituency, which is one of the most beautiful constituencies in the whole of the British Isles, even though it is called Workington.

But the subject is one of importance and my noble friend has very clearly given the reasons for his concern. The subject has several aspects. The noble Lord, Lord Gibson, who is chairman of the National Trust, has given the National Trust's view, as has the noble Viscount, Lord Esher. The factors of interest include the right of public access to the land. There are the conservation aspects which have been questioned. The National Trust, though, is a public body which cares for the land entrusted to it. That is an important factor when a decision has to be made. The noble Lord, Lord Gibson, and the noble Viscount, Lord Esher, have spoken for it.

My noble friend Lord Brockway has raised a number of defence aspects. I do not need to go over his case—he always puts it so well and so clearly—for the Ministry of Defence now to reconsider its policy. There is unanimity in the Chamber on this. The views of my party relating to the concern it feels about the effectiveness of Government defence policy are well known. The National Trust or any other body, though, must decide the merits of applications for the use of their land. It is for the Minister to put the Government's case for its use.

We are grateful to my noble friend for airing the subject at this time. I hope that my noble friend can have the assurances from the Minister which he now seeks. I hope we shall have a positive reply and that the Government will agree that my noble friend has proved his case for another look at this matter.

9.21 p.m.

Viscount Long

My Lords, I have listened with great interest to the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, and to the noble Viscount, Lord Esher, both from the National Trust, and also to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, and the noble Lord, Lord Brockway. In fact, the team is set. It is now for me, at this late hour, to try to put the situation together as best I can.

There is considerable misunderstanding about the plans of the Royal Air Force at RAF High Wycombe. I therefore propose to give noble Lords a full account of what we have in mind and to correct a number of the more glaring misconceptions which have been expressed this evening by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway.

RAF High Wycombe is the home of two headquarters: a national—that is, United Kingdom—headquarters which noble Lords will know as RAF Strike Command, and a NATO headquarters, Headquarters United Kingdom Air Forces. The Commander-in-Chief of RAF Strike Command wears two hats: he is both a national and a NATO commander. But in both capacities he has a single, prime responsibility: to command and control the air defences of the United Kingdom. This entails the command and control of a wide and complex range of air and ground forces, such as the air defence fighter squadrons (currently the Lightnings and Phantoms), airborne early warning aircraft and the chain of ground radar installations which would detect any enemy attack on the United Kingdom.

This demanding task is currently carried out from the underground operations centre at RAF High Wycombe. However, this centre, which was completed over 40 years ago (and was used, as noble Lords will remember, by "Bomber" Harris throughout the Second Word War), is now inadequate for modern operational needs. It is no longer capable of properly housing the service operational staffs—I stress "service operational staffs", as there appears to be some confusion about the personnel for whose protection the new operations centre is being built—and the complex communications and computer systems required to ensure efficient command and control of the forces available to the NATO Commander United Kingdom Air Forces.

It is essential that a new underground operations and communications centre should be built at the Holly-bush Farm site to replace the current outdated centre. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence is therefore convinced of the need for this important building project to go ahead. The new centre will be a crucial element in the air defence of the United Kingdom and there is no intention of cancelling it. The new centre will be built underground in order to enable it to continue to operate under war conditions.

There is nothing sinister about building this operations and communications centre underground. On the contrary, it is a sensible decision, which can only enhance the ability to defend ourselves from attack. It is the most practical and effective way of achieving protection for those who have to operate from the centre. The ability of those inside it to continue carrying out essential operational tasks which, as I have explained, are concerned with air defence of the United Kingdom, is of crucial importance to the overall defence of this country and thus to the NATO Alliance. It is quite wrong to suggest that because service operational staff are to be protected in this way, this is an indication of the Government's belief in the likelihood of nuclear war. We are determined to prevent all war—conventional or nuclear. We are determined to do that through a policy of deterrence. The credibility of deterrence depends to an important degree on the capacity of our servicemen to be able to operate effectively in an emergency, protected to the greatest extent possible from the effects of modern weapons. The operational reasons underlying our decisions are, of course, overriding. However, there has also been ill-informed speculation about the environmental impact of the proposals. I propose to set the record straight.

The new operations and communications centre will be built underground. This means that upon the completion of the construction of the new centre the surrounding land will be restored as closely as possible to its former state. The site of this underground building will be marked only a by grassed over mound of earth about 150 metres square at the base. The area will be landscaped and screens of trees will be planted to the north and west of the site. I would like to break off for a second and take your Lordships back to a time before the last war, to where I live in Wiltshire. I can name an airfield where all the hangars have turf and trees upon them. The barracks, the airfield and the living quarters were lined with trees in the 1930s, and they are the finest avenues of trees I have ever seen the Ministry of Defence put up. That is not far from where I live.

The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, went quite romantically through the bluebells and daffodils. I say to him that the Ministry of Defence will probably plant not only a lot of trees but also make sure that the bluebells and daffodils are replaced. The noble Lord was also worried about the mound, which he thought would spoil the countryside. When the trees are grown, the grass is replanted, and the soil is put back as it should be—not, as I believe the noble Lord said, mixed up with chalk but replaced in its proper layer—the countryside will look even better than it is now. That is the intention of the Ministry of Defence.

The National Trust's primary duty is to keep unspoilt the area of the countryside which they own. We discussed with the National Trust the best means of ensuring that the development would not intrude into the natural beauty of the area. I believe that the noble Viscount, Lord Esher, just described that in his very fine speech. Only after we had established that it would be possible for the centre to be built with only the minimum of disturbance to the environment did the trust agree provisionally—and I use the word "provisionally"—to lease the area we require for this project. I say again that it is provisional at this stage.

In order to minimise, so far as possible, the effects of construction traffic on the surrounding roads approaching the site during the building phase we have in mind also to licence for the period of construction only three adjacent fields for dumping the spoils from construction of the new centre, thus reducing the number of vehicles entering and leaving the site. The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, was right to worry about this, but this is the way in which the Ministry and the National Trust have looked at the problem in order not to damage the area while construction is going on. These fields will be returned to agricultural use afterwards. There was some feeling that they would be so damaged that they would not be able to be used, but they will be resoiled and then they will be all right again.

Finally, we are discussing with the National Trust the construction of a temporary road to the site which will considerably alleviate the impact of construction traffic on the nearby historic village of Bradenham. I gather that in regard to this there is no final decision on which way it will be taken. I have listened to the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, and the noble Viscount, Lord Esher, but there is nothing as yet decided. There is, however, no question of not having an operations centre there; the present one already exists and would not be relinquished if a new centre was not built.

My Lords, secondly, High Wycombe is no more of a target than many other installations in the United Kingdom. It is generally believed in the argument tonight by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, that only High Wycombe would be in the danger zone, but of course in the event of an attack all parts of the United Kingdom could expect to be affected to some degree. It is an unfortunate fact that because of its intrinsic geographical, political and industrial importance Britain is already a target for any attack on the West. Particular military centres do not alter that fact. By increasing the Alliance's defensive capability and its ability to deter attack, whether conventional or nuclear, the new operations and communications centre will contribute to preventing war and so help to continue the peace.

The improvements to the defence of the United Kingdom which our plans for High Wycombe entail must be viewed in the context of the Government's policy to prevent war and to do so through a policy of deterrence. The credibility of deterrence depends upon ensuring that our defences are strong and that our commitment to the collective security of NATO is maintained. But this is not to eschew our strong desire for reducing tension in the world through disarmament and arms control. The Government remain firmly committed to seeking realistic measures of multilateral disarmament. They will continue to work constructively towards that goal.

We fully support the American objective in the negotiation now in progress in Geneva on intermediate range nuclear forces, of a zero level for land based missiles. We look forward to the resumption of talks on strategic weapons. We are playing an active part in negotiations aimed at reducing conventional forces in Europe and have participated fully in the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe. In the Committee on Disarmament in Geneva we have recently tabled proposals designed to make progress towards a ban on chemical weapons, and other subjects are also under discussion. We shall take a full part in the United Nations Second Special Session on Disarmament in June which my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has announced she hopes to attend. The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, was worried about that, and that is why I added that paragraph to read to him tonight. Her Majesty's Government will continue as much as we can to seek disarmament at all levels.

To sum up, therefore, our plans for constructing a new underground operations and communications centre at High Wycombe will lead to a positive enhancement of the air defences of the United Kingdom and thus our ability to deter aggression. The new centre will be a vital element in the air defence of the United Kingdom. It would be misleading to view this development as other than a desirable enhancement of our conventional defences. Therefore, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence has no intention of cancelling the project.