HL Deb 14 June 1996 vol 572 cc2005-28

2 p.m.

Lord Bridges rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied that the procedure adopted to sell the former RAF base at Bentwaters in Suffolk is consistent with their environmental policy, and whether similar procedures will be followed for other redundant defence property.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Question standing in my name concerns a local matter which I believe raises issues of national importance. The one leads to the other and I shall start with a brief account of what happened at Bentwaters. Before doing so, I should perhaps explain that my wife and I have no personal interest at stake in the matter, beyond owning a house and garden five miles distant. We are also active members of the county branch of the CPRE, of which my wife is vice-chairman locally. She has local connections with the area going back to the period before the Second World War, and so has personal knowledge of the district before the airfield was built.

Bentwaters was built as an RAF base during the Second World War. It and its nearby sister base at Woodbridge developed into a major centre for USAF operations to meet the demands of the cold war. At its peak, there were some 13,000 US personnel and dependants on base. Following the collapse of the Soviet empire, the Americans withdrew and the Ministry of Defence announced that it had no further use for the base, which was declared redundant.

The base has two distinct parts flanking the A1152 which, despite its designation, is a narrow country road. The northern part is the domestic base, about 200 acres in extent. Here there are three separate areas of housing, perhaps 600 units in all, formerly leased to the Americans and now privately owned. Some of the houses are owner-occupied but many are on short-term leases through housing associations to tenants brought into the area because of housing need elsewhere, with a high rate of unemployment among them. Their plight has been made worse by the refusal of the Ministry of Defence to open up the central core of the domestic site which is for sale. The core area is intensely developed, with more houses and all the sophisticated commercial and social facilities of an American expatriate community. The new residents have had virtually no social facilities and difficult relations in the access between the several parts of the area. So there has been and will continue to be for some time a local, social problem of the Ministry's own making.

The larger southern site, known as the technical base, is 970 acres in extent and designated as an area of outstanding natural beauty. The area contains a runway, workshops, aircraft shelters and hardened ammunition stores as well as other support facilities.

Faced with the problem of what to do with this dubious asset, the Ministry's original proposal was for comprehensive development of (in effect) a new town with many more houses and extensive industrial growth, all in a rural area with poor communications. Mercifully, when that strategy was considered at county level, the ambition was thwarted. In January 1994, a panel of inspectors concluded that Bentwaters should not become a focus for major new development but should instead seek to re-use what could properly be re-used to create a balanced community with local job opportunities, while restoring, where possible, the land in the AONB so badly degraded by military use. The planning authority, the Suffolk Coastal District Council, then worked out a planning brief which is intended as a document of guidance, although it is perhaps capable of some manipulation.

In the summer of 1994, the Ministry of Defence started marketing the base. Bids had to be accompanied by a detailed business plan and there were several bids submitted and openly presented. But it was a surprise in February 1995 when the successful bidder turned out to be the Maharishi Foundation which had not submitted a detailed business plan and intended to create a university of natural law, based on the practice of fundamental meditation—a practice of which some of your Lordships may have first-hand experience, if not of the levitation to which it is supposed to give rise.

My first question to the noble Earl, of which I have given him notice, is: Why did the Ministry of Defence accept this offer without a properly researched plan, which was required from all bidders? In the event, the foundation found itself unable to produce a plan for the whole area and six months later it withdrew.

The Ministry then resumed negotiations with the under-bidder, the Chris Parker Group—not a nationally known company. In October 1995, the CPG's revised bid was accepted. It was widely reported that the sum—never officially declared—might be as high as £16 million, as high as or higher than that previously negotiated with the lapsed bidder. That high price obliged the CPG to propose extensive development of the site, which is contrary to government policy for the AONB. So my second question to the noble Earl is whether it is correct that the high price asked from the CPG was in truth based on that discussed with the Maharishi Foundation. If so, it was most unfortunate because it made the CPG proposals difficult for the district council to accommodate for environmental reasons.

The end of the long planning saga is now in sight. In April, the planning committee of the district council sensibly decided that the CPG plan for the domestic site raised few serious problems and agreed to it in principle. But it considered equally sensibly that the extensive development of the AONB could not be accepted as a justifiable exception to normal planning policy. The CPG responded promptly by removing the proposed holiday village of 750 chalets in the AONB, which had been described by them as providing funds for the removal of the runway and unwanted buildings, and by increasing the area zoned for industry. That was discussed yesterday by the planning committee at Woodbridge, which, while minded to approve, deferred a final decision for three weeks pending detailed agreement on some of the more important aspects.

My complaint about this story is that the Ministry of Defence, as owner of the site, regarded sale at the highest possible price as the determining factor.

No doubt the Treasury was egging it on. But I submit that the Government have wider responsibilities; for example, as regards the AONB, and on transport issues. The latter are a strong local concern. We are uncertain of the effect on county roads of the greatly increased traffic which the CPG's plan will entail, whether it be heavy goods vehicles, required for the removal of demolition material or bringing in construction goods, or the unknown increase in commuting into and out of the area.

There is also the absence of any input from central government on the environmental side. Who in this transaction was the guardian of the AONB? Evidently not the Ministry of Defence. So far as I know, we in Suffolk have had little support from the DoE, or from other government departments which could have exerted pressure on the MoD to observe environmental rules.

I have heard from English Nature, and the Suffolk Wildlife Trust, whose chairman and president respectively is the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, a local resident, who greatly regrets that he cannot be in the Chamber today. In a letter to me of 11th June, English Nature points out that it is a statutory consultee in the environmental process. If requested, English Nature must provide available information in the preparation of an environmental statement to the developer. No such request was received. The letter goes on: The lack of involvement of English Nature and other conservation organisations during the scoping and production of the Environmental Statement for RAF Bentwaters led to the production of a document which did not adequately cover ecological interests or issues. Consequently it was not possible to provide a definitive assessment of the impact of the proposed development on nature conservation interests. This formed one of the main grounds for objection to the proposals by English Nature".

The Suffolk Wildlife Trust, which is an important organisation locally, says that it is delighted that your Lordships are considering this matter today and can supply information which would seem to suggest: that the sale of RAF Bentwaters has not been consistent with the Government's environmental policy".

The trust makes seven points, which I shall not repeat seriatim. The burden of its message is that the AONB is an important acidic grassland in the Sandlings, particularly for the species associated with it, such as the woodlark, which is a rare breeding bird, and that this grassland has been identified in the Biodiversity Action Plan endorsed by the Government as a "key habitat" which should be protected by local planning policies. That important fact was not brought to the attention of the planning committee by any government department. It was left to individuals and NGOs, such as the Suffolk Wildlife Trust, to fill the gap. That is a serious failure by departments at the centre. It inevitably calls into question the seriousness of the Government's intentions regarding the environment, and suggests once again that they regard money as more important than anything else.

Regrettably, that fear is confirmed by a passage in the Government's rural White Paper which commits them to maximising the potential of redundant facilities for wealth creation and development. One of the reasons for the deferment of a decision by the district council's planning committee was the need to reach satisfactory arrangements with the purchaser for environmental protection. I am grateful to the council for getting the priorities right, despite the failure of government departments to do their duty.

I suggest that this tale illustrates the Government's failure to support our environmental policy in favour of short-term considerations. So much for the Government's support for the principle of sustainable development. I suggest it should be an essential precaution in property disposals of this size and complexity for a district council to have the benefit and support of an advisory council or group which could bring together NGOs, local authorities, landscape architects and other experts, so as to supervise and provide specialised knowledge as the development proceeds, all within the framework of a strict Section 106 procedure.

Bentwaters is now so far down the road that the council might not be able to help much at this stage. An alternative would be for the Ministry of Defence, given the pending disposal of so many important properties, to establish its own body for realising sales. It could include experts of the kind I mentioned and could work out a long-term strategy for disposal and further development of important sites. Such a scheme would also have the advantage of securing a better return to the taxpayer, who would receive a due share of the profits over time; whereas a one-off sale to the developer, as at present, means that it is he who creams off for his own benefit most of the value added.

My final question to the noble Earl arises from a passage in the report by the inspectors after the examination in public, which states: We have already indicated that the Ministry of Defence should accept some responsibility for restoration [of the AONB], albeit the issue may have broader implications for central Government". How does the Ministry of Defence intend to fulfil its obligations in that regard?

2.14 p.m.

Lord Marlesford

My Lords, we all owe a debt of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, for bringing before your Lordships a case that is not only important in itself in local terms but is of importance also because it relates to a much more general problem which some of us have perceived for some while.

I should start by declaring a non-interest. I do not own any land adjoining or have any interest whatever financially in this site or in any land connected with it. I say that because, as a result of some parliamentary Questions I tabled, I noticed that Mr. Chris Parker of the Chris Parker Group Ltd. referred to local people "who had vested interests". I felt that that might in some way be referring to me. I should also like to say that I have never, as far as I am aware, met Mr. Chris Parker or indeed ever seen him, so I know nothing personally about the gentleman.

However, I have a more general interest as the chairman of the Council for the Protection of Rural England and as a member of the Suffolk Preservation Society. I therefore mind a great deal about what happens in Suffolk and I mind a great deal about what happens in England as well. I should like, before I come on to the specific matters connected with Bentwaters, to speak a little about the general issues involved.

First, I do not believe that in general the Ministry of Defence has in the past been a good landlord. I should like to give one specific example—again a local one. Shortly before the National Trust took over Orford Ness, I went for a walk there. I have never seen a piece of land in a more deplorable, ill-kept condition. Had it been my land I would have sacked my agent or farm manager. It was covered with cag from years before. That, I fear, is typical of the standard of stewardship which the Ministry of Defence has shown on many occasions.

Secondly, following from that, I believe that we need to have a fresh audit on those lands in the possession of the Ministry of Defence; such an audit has not taken place for some 20 years, since the Nugent Committee. Also, the Government should give guidance on the important issue of the disposal of lands or properties belonging to the Ministry of Defence, particularly redundant airfields, rather in the way the Government have in the past given guidance on the disposal of redundant hospitals. I suggest that the present plans of the Department of the Environment for reviewing PPG7—due to be published in draft form in July of this year—may be a good occasion for such advice to be set out.

In support of the need for such guidance I cite a totally different case—nothing to do with the Ministry of Defence and nothing to do with Suffolk: the state of the Battersea Power Station. I was glad to have a Written Answer from my noble friend Lord Inglewood this week in which he said that, The present state of Battersea Power Station is most regrettable. Bearing in mind this and other cases … the Government issued a Guidance Note for Departments on the disposal of Surplus Historic Buildings".—[Official Report, 12/6/96; col. WA 170.] I suggest that similar guidance is needed in respect of Ministry of Defence lands. The Minister added—this will appear relevant to what I intend to say a little later—apropos Battersea, advice should, wherever possible, be taken on the financial soundness of the prospective purchaser".— [col. WA 170.] The Government have an obligation to take fully into account environmental factors in deciding who to sell defence lands to when they become redundant. So it is not necessarily the highest bidder who should receive the award of the contract for buying the land. The public interest is important. It is difficult to measure, but must not be neglected.

I should like to mention what is going to be one of the biggest national issues to be debated in this country over the coming years; that is, the huge pressure for more land for housing. The Government's prediction is that by 2016 there will be an additional 4.4 million households created due largely to demographic factors. This is going to put a very considerable pressure on rural areas. It is something that we must bear in mind in deciding how and whether it can be accommodated. Obviously, it follows that as much of the development as possible should be where man has already placed bricks and concrete—in other words, the so-called brown land. Certainly, we must consider this housing need when it comes to the disposal of bases. Therefore, it is relevant to this argument.

I would like now to come on to Bentwaters directly. First of all, I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, refer to the interest that English Nature has taken in it, but apparently it had not been consulted earlier on. I have been rather disappointed that the Countryside Commission, of which I was a member for 12 years, has not taken a greater interest. The most recent statement I can find is a letter I dug up from my file dated 12th October 1994 apropos Bentwaters, where it says: The thrust of our submission, and our continuing position, is that AONB policies were not receiving a high enough priority in planning consideration of the development proposals. There was therefore a danger that further development would be beyond that necessary and suitable for the site and the area. We asked that the balance to be struck … be tilted further towards the protection of the AONB, including some landscape restoration work on the airfield itself'. I am sorry that the Countryside Commission has not taken a greater role. It is the Government's watchdog on rural beauty. The whole idea of hiving off that responsibility to such an agency is that it should perform that task. I know that it feels overstretched and is withdrawing to some extent from being involved in planning issues. I regret that. I believe that if anyone is to advise government as the public interest it must be the Countryside Commission.

Finally, I would like to say a word or two about Bentwaters. I ask the Government two questions about the Chris Parker Group, of which I know very little indeed. First of all, I would like to know what track record it has in being able to manage as big a project as it appears it may be about to embark upon. Secondly, following up the comments made by the Government about Battersea, have they taken professional independent advice on the financial soundness of the group? I have no view on that issue. I am merely asking the Government for their view.

Local opinion has the feeling—and it may be wrong—that the main interest of the Chris Parker Group is in the exploitation of the concrete. Concrete and aggregate are valuable commodities, mined by people perfectly properly. There is a great deal of concrete at Bentwaters. There is a great deal of concrete at all airfields. Many of them were built in the early days of the war when contractors were paid for the amount of cement they used. Indeed, perhaps I may tell your Lordships that some years ago on my own land, which is some five or six miles away from Bentwaters, we were digging up some hard standings which used to have B 17s on them and selling the concrete ourselves. We have turned the area into wildlife ponds. We were fascinated to find tons and tons of cement still in hessian sacks. It had just been dumped in the bottom of the hard standings. No doubt the contractor of the day was one of those hard-faced men who did well out of the war!

At any rate, the value of the Bentwaters concrete is clearly important, but that is not the entire value of this site. It is a sensitive and important site and, whatever happens, we must make sure that there is a well-balanced development there. There has already been a tendency to decant people from local housing lists on to the site, and that does not necessarily make for a balanced community and may be storing up problems for the future. To some extent, the MoD has a responsibility, and I believe it has not handled that aspect cleverly. We have to make sure that whatever happens is well thought out and sustainable. I would remind the Government that it was some years ago, during a brief period when agriculture appeared to be having a less important priority for the nation—and it is a period which in my opinion is fast vanishing—when Nicholas Ridley, the late Environment Secretary, said in a memorable phrase that, apart from anything else, we have to preserve the countryside for its own sake. That very much applies to designated areas and it certainly applies to the Suffolk coast's AONB. I hope very much that that will be the kind of priority the Government give.

It is sometimes argued that economic interests and the creation of jobs are paramount. I would point out that the Bentwaters air base, in the Suffolk, coastal constituency of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment—I live in that constituency—is not an area where there are unemployment problems. The monthly brief which shows unemployment by constituency—the latest edition came out yesterday—showed that the unemployment rate in the area is 5.1 per cent. and in ranking by constituency it is 500th from the top. Let us satisfy ourselves that we give proper regard to the environmental aspects of this important development. I look forward to being reassured on this matter by my noble friend.

2.26 p.m.

Lord Bancroft

My Lords, I intervene as an almost disembodied voice from the past. The case has been put with such eloquence and passion by my noble friend Lord Bridges and by—I almost said my noble friend—the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, that I shall confine myself to the lessons to be learnt by two government departments. The wider lessons have already been drawn by my noble friend and by the noble Lord. I shall confine myself to narrower, workaday issues.

I have a regard—almost an affection—for the Ministry of Defence going back to the time when I was in the Treasury and for two periods in my duties there, in the then jargon, "looked after" the Ministry of Defence. It happened to coincide with two defence reviews—my Lords, what's new?—and also the withdrawal from east of Suez, and in these even harder times the Ministry must regard as one of its prime objectives minimising any adverse effects on the defence budget. We should again remind ourselves that in this case most of the remaining physical assets, however deplorable their condition, were funded by the US taxpayer and not the UK taxpayer. But the other department concerned, the Department of the Environment, to which I owe great affection, had specific duties laid to it in the founding White Paper Cmnd. 4506. I shall quote briefly from it: the new Department will be responsible for the whole range of functions which affect people's living environment. It will cover the planning of land—where people live, work, move and enjoy themselves. It will be responsible for the construction industries, including the housing programme, and for the transport industries, including public programmes of support and development for the means of transport. There is a need to associate with these functions responsibility for other major environmental matters: the preservation of amenity, the protection of the coast and countryside … It will also have the particular responsibility of ensuring that people's rights are adequately protected wherever they are affected by the proposals of their neighbours or of public authorities. Local authorities are profoundly involved in these fields". A bit of that—not a lot—is now out of date. But, as one of the authors of that White Paper and as a former Permanent Secretary of the department, I am a touch dismayed by the general role which the department appears to have played so far in this affair. I am not in the least underestimating its helpful intervention on at least one occasion or indeed the particular difficulty which it faces in this case. As we have been reminded, the area includes, however damaged the goods, an area of outstanding natural beauty and two designated wildlife sites, one of which is listed as an ancient woodland. It also includes people who, in the words of the White Paper, "live", meaning housing, schools, doctors; "work", meaning employment opportunities; "move", meaning transport, and "enjoy themselves", meaning some recreational facilities.

As the noble Earl is by now aware, I am an unreconstructed product of the days before the new commercial approach to public service—there is the beginnings of an oxymoron for you: rather like certain Ministers conducting charm offensives—before the decision to transform professional public servants into pale shadows of employees in the private sector, just on the cusp of the ending of Her Majesty's Permanent Civil Service and the creation of conditions in which to give unpopular advice is hazardous and certainly before competition for bonuses and the renewal of contracts replaced co-operation for the public good.

In those old days, frequently tempestuous and certainly not golden, with hideous memories, for example, of Crichel Down, it would have been recognised very early on that here was a hot issue affecting both the defence budget and the whole raison d'etre of the Department of the Environment. The two Secretaries of State and their senior advisers would, I fancy, have set up a small, joint task force in short order. It would have been tasked to report in a matter of weeks on a narrow range of options, which would have sought the optimum reconciliation between two conflicting aims, which my noble friend Lord Bridges described; namely, maximum money on the one hand and, on the other, the needs of the environment, including the local population. If necessary, heads would have been knocked together; local interests consulted; other interested bodies such as those mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, consulted; the Treasury squared away and a series of agreed options put to the two Secretaries of State. Their joint preferred option would then, I fancy, have been fed officially into the planning process as firm guidance and thereafter it would have been jointly followed up in the marketing phase. There would have been unofficial channels open as well.

Of course, I have grossly oversimplified. I have made it sound easy. As we all know, in practice it is complicated, difficult and rough. It takes a little time and deliberation; it takes a lot of willpower. I make no claims as to the quality of the final outcome, but it would have been reached at the end of a sensible process in which there would have been a collective government view from the start. Mutual co-operation and accommodation are the watchwords.

Echoing again what my noble friend Lord Bridges said, but in a rather narrower way, would it not be possible to set a pattern of the sort which I have very crudely sketched out for future large disposals? Echoing the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, what about a guidance note on the disposal of defence land? I do not know, but perhaps it has all happened in this particular case. If so, I have to say that the joint departmental reach has greatly exceeded its grasp.

Since there are so few of us here this afternoon, I take the liberty of using yet again Mr. Macmillan's favoured quotation: Quiet calm deliberation disentangles every knot".

2.35 p.m.

Viscount Bridgeman

My Lords, all land in this country forms part of the national heritage, and of course more specifically for the local community in which it is situated. The land for these airfields—I refer particularly to Bentwaters and to Upper Heyford in Oxfordshire—was taken out of the local community cheaply at a time of grave national emergency for the defence of the realm and it has served this country well through the First and Second World Wars and then the Cold War. It is surely not inequitable that those same communities should have at least a say in the use of those lands now that the requirement for their use in the national interest has passed.

In that respect, the situation in respect of the defence estate is basically different from that of a straightforward development of land, as my noble friend Lord Bridges reminded us. That was recognised first by the First Report on the Defence Estate from the Select Committee on Defence in another place. I should like to give three short quotations from that report. The first states: We would strongly deprecate central targets for reduction in the estate, including rigid targets from property sales, which puts undue emphasis on a once-off capital gain as against longer-term savings". The second states: A simple search for capital receipts does not in every case secure for the community the best long term return, however expressed: the rule requiring the best possible return must therefore be applied with due acknowledgement of potential non-cash gains to the community". The third states—and this is the nub: The defence estate is not the same as private land, in that it came into National stewardship for a very particular purpose". I have one more quotation. This comes from page 58 of the White Paper on rural England and relates to defence. It states: we will ensure that decisions on disposal and re-use take account of policies for regeneration and land use for the local area". We have had the benefit of a most expert account of the relationship of two departments, the Department of the Environment and the Ministry of Defence. There is a certain ambiguity in the light of that remark in the White Paper in that the same firm which advised the Secretary of State for the Environment is now advising the North Oxford Consortium.

The procedure for the subsequent development of defence lands is basically different from that of private lands where at least there is an established procedure for planning inquiries. In the case of the MoD lands, it appears to have been confined to little more than an advertisement by estate agents followed by awards of tenders. We have heard details of those so far.

Perhaps I may speak about Upper Heyford. I have to say with regret from these Benches that the experience of local interest groups, certainly in Oxfordshire, is that in dealing with the ministry they perceive that the somewhat authoritarian departmental ethos palpably so necessary in the national interest over the past 50 years—in the post-Soviet Union era—still persists in times when it is quite inappropriately, and I suggest improperly, insensitive to local views.

What are those local views? In the case of Upper Heyford, we find the hostility of no fewer than 23 parish councils adjacent to the property, representing the whole of the district councils of Cherwell and West Oxford. They are unanimous in their view that as against the 7,500 houses for 20,000 people proposed by the consortium, a maximum of 1,000 houses should be built. The Oxfordshire County Council is of the view that the roads infrastructure represents a truly horrendous problem and all seem to be united in the fear that the proposed development will lead to an urban ribbon development between Banbury and Bicester. What alternative suggestions will the local authorities seek to put forward? The first is a proposal for some sound and potentially profitable light industrial development, which is very much called for in that particular district. A car fleet maintenance company employing 500 people (most of whom were made redundant after the departure of the Americans) has a relationship with the local community that is a model of its kind. The company has made it clear that it is considering moving to France because of the refusal of the ministry to grant leases of more than five years.

I remind your Lordships that these airfields are by their very nature not totally brown sites. There are substantial amounts of green agricultural land lying between buildings which is extensively used for grazing. As I speak, a substantial crop of sileage is being taken off Upper Heyford. Imaginative light industrial development would lie well with this and it would, incidentally, provide huge benefits to the local community in that its commercial vehicles would be confined to designated routes as opposed to the unrestricted use by private cars from a town the size of Bicester.

I see the priorities as the following. Either these lands are developed to the maximum benefit of the national taxpayer or they are used for a purpose more sensitive to the local communities, from which they were taken in exceptional circumstances. Is it only to be the taxpayer and the developer who will benefit and not the local community? I suggest that the procedures for reaching the decision are and have been arbitrary in the extreme, and it is to this that I urge my noble friend the Minister to give the most urgent consideration.

2.41 p.m.

Lord Chorley

My Lords, all noble Lords will be grateful to my noble friend Lord Bridges for enabling the House to discuss the important issue of redundant defence property. I suggest that there is nothing like a practical case such as the RAF base at Bentwaters to sharpen one's focus on the general issues. It is not very satisfactory that one should have to debate an issue such as this on a Friday afternoon. It is not a trivial issue, not least because the Bentwaters case is not an isolated one. Like the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, most of my remarks will be directed to the remarkably similar case of the huge former American base at Upper Heyford near Banbury.

We have witnessed the extraordinary cases of the Royal Naval College, Greenwich, and the proposal to dispose of Admiralty Arch. For obvious reasons, those have evoked a huge public outcry. The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, referred to Orford Ness. I did not intend to refer to Orford Ness, but since it has been mentioned I should immediately declare an interest as chairman of the National Trust, which acquired it from the Ministry of Defence. What the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, says is absolutely correct. It was left in the most appalling condition. But the position is somewhat worse than that. It was sold to the National Trust, with a good deal of taxpayers' money from the Department of the Environment, on the basis that most of the pollutants—mainly asbestos—had been cleared up. Having received an, albeit oral, assurance that it had been cleaned up, I was told yesterday that the trust will have to spend approximately £100,000 to remove what still remains—not just asbestos but other rather dangerous and nasty toxic chemicals. I did not particularly want to deal with that case because I wish to keep off National Trust territory.

The cases involving large air force bases in the countryside are in their different ways just as worrying. There are common worrying features—an almost paranoid desire to push through sales with little or no public discussion or regard to local opinion and little consideration of the wider countryside, nature conservation, planning and the circumstances in which the sites were acquired and all, so far as I can tell, with the overt aim of extracting the highest possible cash value for private development with all the dangers to quality and design.

As the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, said, these places were acquired by compulsory purchase at a moment of grave national crisis. They tend to be on relatively open, high, desolate plateaux because, after all, that is what makes a good airfield. Why should we suppose that they are suitable for residential or light industrial development? There is no reason why that should be the case. Whether in landscape or general planning terms, they are not. The process by which it is being done reminds one of the Crichel Down case. I suggest that something of a moral issue is involved.

Since the war dozens of RAF airfields all over the country have been disposed of. However, in most cases they have reverted broadly to what they were, which is agriculture. Why suddenly this change of attitude? The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, suggested that it would be suitable for PPG7 to deal with the matter. He had some authoritative support from my noble friend Lord Bancroft, with which I agree.

One would like to know more of the genesis of the references in last autumn's White Paper on rural England. The noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, referred to page 58 but there are also references on page 131 to the use of land for housing. There are fine words about consulting the local community and so forth and it is easy to see that in the remote vastness of Marsham Street Towers it appeared to be so sensible. In the words of the White Paper: Before building on greenfield sites the full potential of derelict and degraded land should be exploited". "Exploit" is a rather emotive word. But what about the scale of development, the landscape and the planning context? One simply cannot generalise in this way. Moreover, what about the way in which the proposals are being tackled? It would appear that the maximum pressure is applied to the local authority to agree to dense and quite unsuitable development.

I turn to Upper Heyford. I shall try not to repeat what has been said. The MoD selected a consortium of well known housing developers. Their proposal was to build 7,500 houses and, for all I know, it still is. That is the equivalent of a small county town to be set on a treeless plateau. The consultation draft of the county structure plan suggested 5,000 houses. But even 1,000 houses, one-seventh of the original notion, is not really appropriate in this quiet Oxfordshire countryside of the Cherwell Valley, an area of local conservation.

In the case of Upper Heyford, there is an additional consideration because the base abuts on to one of the most important 18th century landscaped gardens in England; indeed, historically, in Europe. One of the greatest contributions this country has made to European civilisation is the 18th century development of the notion of the landscape garden. It was a unique concept and began at Rousham, where the work of William Kent reigns supreme. I believe that it is the only work of William Kent which has survived completely without being altered by Capability Brown. Historically, it is very important. Rousham was the forerunner of the great landscape gardens at Stowe, Fountains, Stourhead, Blenheim and so forth. That is not my personal opinion. It is the opinion of, for example, Sir Angus Stirling, the former director-general of the National Trust, and internationally of the International Council on Monuments and Sites. Moreover, Rousham remains one of the best preserved of those landscape gardens, thanks to the efforts of the family which owns it. Its setting is quite crucial. All that is to be put at risk.

So far as I can make out, there has been no environmental impact assessment—that is, there is no publicly available environmental impact assessment. There are other wider issues. For example, it has been estimated that the new town would involve no fewer than 55,000 vehicle movements per day in the quiet Cherwell Valley on small country roads.

The proponents of the development argue that that would not be the case; that the town would be, as it were, self-contained. On the other hand, a recent independent study of a housing estate in nearby Bicester showed that the average worker there travels 180 miles per week by car. In other words, he goes outside the development for his work. That is far and away above the average for a normal country town. That is without taking account of the lorries and heavy vehicles.

Where will it all end? I suggest that, if this proposal goes ahead, it will end by going beyond what the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman said. He said that it would create a corridor between Oxford and Bicester. I suggest that it would go all the way along the Cherwell Valley and create an urban sprawl all the way to Banbury. Is that what we want to see? How can it possibly be argued that that is consistent with the Government's policy of sustainable development or the spirit of the White Paper? In these cases, whether it be Bentwaters or Upper Heyford, we need a thorough and open process of consultation and study. Both the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, and my noble friend Lord Bancroft suggested something on similar lines.

Why is there this stampede? Why is there this hurry when we are about to make irreversible decisions in relation to important landscape? Is it only quick cash values which matter? We talk enthusiastically about the peace dividend. Is this how we wish to spend it? I hope not.

2.52 p.m.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley

My Lords, in speaking from these Benches on a subject which is part of my normal brief—the countryside and conservation—I am speaking also on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, who is very sorry that he cannot be here today because he had to go to Brussels on parliamentary business. But he is obviously greatly concerned, partly because of his defence responsibilities and partly because of the correspondence which we have received from the local Liberal Democrat group on the Suffolk Coastal District Council.

Also, I have been asked to say a few words about Upper Heyford by my noble friend Lady Robson who again is unfortunately unable to be here today. The whole question of Upper Heyford has been fairly well aired through the speeches of noble Lords. However, I believe that the points coming to light, which I wish to underline, are the same in both cases. It is clearly in respect of the Suffolk case that we are asking for a detailed response from the Government. Equally, the Question relates to similar procedures being followed for other redundant defence property.

In common with other noble Lords who have spoken, I suggest that there are two glaring issues which stand out. The first is the lack of consultation with local inhabitants, and the second is the lack of transparency in the procedures. The leader of the local Liberal Democrat Group in Suffolk, Councillor Christine Block, has written to say: It seems to us that this is a planning matter with far reaching implications. Under the circumstances we feel we should know more than the Ministry of Defence seems prepared to tell us". Then, she goes on to say: We understand that a new contract with the MoD has been exchanged; we do not know if the price has been reduced/re-negotiated. We do not know who the financial backers are for all or any of the proposed development … We have been able to discover almost nothing about the Chris Parker Group. I believe his last company went bankrupt. I believe he 'has done some work' for the MoD … No one in the demolition business in this country appears to know anything about him or his company". It is quite clear that the local authorities are finding it very difficult to deal with the problem, which very much affects both them and their electors, in a situation where the Ministry of Defence is not producing answers that are necessary; or, indeed, exposing the whole process, as it surely should be, to the same kind of examination which would happen if it was not coming from the Ministry of Defence and was a simple planning matter.

With regard to Upper Heyford, the situation is very much the same. The North Oxford Consortium (a combination of three housebuilders) has been chosen without any public consultation by the MoD, using the commercial property branch of Savills estate agency. As a result, plans have been produced which, as we heard today, have generated considerable opposition. We have heard about the local parishes which object; we have heard about the National Trust and English Heritage which have written, opposing the plans put forward by the consortium; and there is major county council opposition to the plan because of the absurd cost of providing an adequate transport network for a development of the size suggested.

We have to ask if land acquired in this particular way is really the property of the MoD to dispose of in the way that best suits it and the Treasury. The answer given by noble Lords in the various speeches which have been given today is surely, emphatically no. There is a much more general interest to be consulted. There are very real principles about how we treat our countryside and how we deal with matters like the area of outstanding natural beauty in Suffolk; or, indeed, the particular areas and pieces of land that were drawn to our attention by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley.

I feel that we are due to receive not only an answer from the Government as to the particular situation regarding both developments, but also, I hope—if we do not get it from them today, I suggest that we go on trying to get it—a commitment by the Ministry of Defence that, when dealing with disposals of land in the future, it will undertake a radically different attitude to such disposals than that which it has taken to date or as regards the two particular cases.

3 p.m.

Lord Judd

My Lords, I wish to start by paying a warm tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, and indeed to his wife, Lady Bridges, for their commitment on this matter and for their concern, which I am sure is shared throughout the House.

First, I underline the national context. The Department of the Environment estimates that there will be 4.4 million more households in England in 2016 than in 1991. If this estimate were to become a target, and building and planning policies remain unchanged, by 2016 an area of countryside larger than Greater London could be lost to urbanisation. This has huge implications for traffic growth. Rural traffic is already predicted to grow faster than urban traffic by at least 130 per cent., and perhaps by as much as 270 per cent. by 2025.

For any of us who cares about the quality of life within the British Isles this has all the potential of a nightmare as our all too limited remaining countryside is raped. Where will any of us have the space to relax, to walk, to regenerate, to write verse, to paint, to breathe or to think creatively? The abandonment of nature—one of our precious assets—could well be seen in history as national vandalism of the kind we deplore in the behaviour of lager louts and street hooligans. But against that we of course all have to consider carefully the significance of the need for homes and jobs—two other vital hallmarks of a decent society.

The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, has posed searching questions as regards Bentwaters. We shall want to hear convincing replies from the Minister. For my part I wish to emphasise what seem to me to be three key questions which have implications for national policy.

First, what relative weighting have the Government given to the need for employment, jobs, recreation, homes and environmental protection in this case, including the restoration of countryside of outstanding natural beauty? Secondly, how exactly, and why did the Government come to accept the subsequently abortive offer of the Maharishi Foundation? Was not the determining factor in reality that the land must go at all costs to the highest bidder? Thirdly, what has been the nature of the Government's relationship with the local authority? Have they been sensitively and co-operatively looking together at the various possibilities and how they could best help with the most sensible solution, or have they been somewhat domineering and manipulative, pressing their preferred options?

There are, of course, other significant questions arising from the Bentwaters sale which might usefully be underlined. How far are the Government satisfied that the current purchaser has the resources to see through his aspirations to their fulfilment, or how great is the danger of his selling on before fulfilment? That question quickly brings us to whether a sufficiently tight legal agreement has been formulated which would place firm conditions on the future use of the land. Is it remotely conceivable that, as things stand, the site could even end up as an airfield once again? What would be the environmental implications of that? We also need to know whether the MoD is contributing—as I understand was recommended by the inspector and agreed by it—to restoration of the technical site and, if not, why not?

As I say, to these and other questions posed by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, we need firm answers, free from prevarication or evasiveness. What is clear is that it has all been an unhappy, messy saga with tears, hopes, disappointments, frustrations, muddle, anxiety and general confusion. That is in no way an acceptable model for the future. It is a saga literally on the doorstep of the Secretary of State for the Environment; a fact which should, frankly, keep him awake at nights.

To return to the national dimensions, in its report on the defence estate, the Defence Committee in the other place recommended that the MoD and the Department of the Environment should press urgently ahead with general planning guidance on re-use of MoD sites. The Defence Committee drew attention to the strategic policy guidance which had been formulated on the sale of National Health Service estate and argued that MoD sites should be treated on at least an equal basis. The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, has of course referred to that. The Defence Committee also argued that there should be a formal obligation on the MoD to notify the appropriate authorities and major voluntary conservation bodies of possible disposal of sites of special scientific interest and other land of equivalent interest to facilitate environmental protection and that rights of first refusal should be given to those purchasers most evidently capable of preserving the natural heritage.

The sale of Bentwaters seems to me to have been a conspicuous illustration that little of this has happened. Why, my Lords, why? That is the question which must be addressed. We are dealing with what is in part an area of outstanding natural beauty, with two designated country wildlife sites, including ancient woodland. Why has the concern and guidance of the Department of the Environment been so sadly lacking?

My wife and I are glad to be subscribers to the Council for the Protection of Rural England, of which the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, is the respected chairman. We see the CPRE as in the frontline of the stand for a civilised nation. As regards the wider dimensions of the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, stretching way beyond Bentwaters to the MoD estate as a whole, the council makes several highly sensible recommendations, to which the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, has already referred but which bear repetition.

First, the redevelopment and re-use of redundant military bases should be consistent with wider land use and environmental policies such as reducing rural land-take for development and reducing the need to travel. Secondly, a comprehensive environmental audit should be undertaken of the defence estate to update that carried out by the Nugent Committee more than 20 years ago and provide a strategic context for considering individual development schemes. Thirdly, specific national planning guidance should be issued to guide the redevelopment of redundant military bases similar to that issued by the Department of the Environment in 1987 to guide the redevelopment of redundant hospitals in the green belt.

Fourthly, adequate procedures should be established for the disposal of military land to ensure that land of environmental value is not damaged if environmentally acceptable owners or uses can be identified. Fifthly, the sale of defence land should not necessarily be to the highest bidder and should reflect the wider public interest in the future use of the site, including environmental considerations.

The council goes on to suggest that, when considering options for reuse, it is essential to distinguish between military development that has only been allowed because it was in the national defence interest and that which might in other circumstances also have been in an acceptable location for other development. Much more restrictive planning criteria should apply to the former sites and a leading option should be their return to agricultural or another appropriate 'soft' end use". At times this afternoon I have wondered whether this was turning into a debate about Upper Heyford. Of course, Upper Heyford raises serious considerations. For a moment I should like to dwell on some of the wider issues arising from the remarks by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, and the noble Lords, Lord Chorley and Lord Beaumont of Whitley.

In relation to housing, the Council for the Protection of Rural England argues that the following questions should be addressed before considering redundant military bases as appropriate for new settlement. Is the level of housing development proposed in the structure plan as a whole acceptable, or is the government housing requirement set out in regional planning guidance too high? Is a new settlement being considered as an escape valve for a few thousand houses which cannot easily be located elsewhere, and, if so, should the option of reducing the overall housing requirement be considered? Is a new settlement the best practical environmental option for locating new housing development? What about the sites in urban areas or those in and around existing settlements? The Government's planning policy statement on housing states that new settlement should be considered only when, the alternative of expansion of towns or villages would represent a less satisfactory method of providing land for new housing that is needed". What evidence has the local authority produced to show that a new settlement is the best practical environmental option? Is there a strategic environmental impact assessment of the plan, its housing policies and the different locations where houses might be put?

What is the impact on the countryside of imposing an entirely new settlement pattern on an area where the existing settlements have grown organically through time? What guarantees are there that the pressure for housing development on green fields around existing towns and villages will be reduced just because a new settlement is proposed? PPG3 states that new settlements need to be considered alongside, policies of restraint to protect the rejected alternative locations from development pressure". What will stop the new settlement from becoming a growth poll, fuelling further development and in-migration? Are claims about the self-sufficiency of the new settlement really justified? For example, will the new residents really work and shop in the new settlement itself? Are the numbers of houses proposed likely significantly to have an impact on the overall housing requirements?

What guarantees are being provided that the development will be well designed and provide a wide range of community facilities, affordable housing and infrastructure? PPG3 states, the opportunity to start a new settlement will be rare and should not be wasted". In addition, there is also the evidence which indicates that commercial sites in the countryside too often result in people driving from towns to work in the country, thereby aggravating traffic problems, when there are suitable sites for the commercial development in the towns themselves. This is not to deny the need for more local employment opportunity in small enterprises in some traditional villages, allowing sensitively converted barns to be used for workshops rather than for second homes.

It would be helpful to know the Government's thinking on the principles enshrined in these questions, both in relation to Bentwaters and in terms of wider strategic thinking on the MoD estate or, indeed, other areas of Crown land that may become surplus and where wider public interests than profit alone should be taken into account.

The greatest challenge to government in a decent society is how they strike a dynamic and civilised compromise between the discipline and drive of the market and necessary intervention for the common good. If the common good in our crowded islands demands anything, it surely demands that the sordid clutter of urban jungles, concrete motorways and too often vulgar ribbon development spawned across the country is balanced by the joy and priceless value of well preserved open space. We must have room to breathe. We must make rational judgments that will stand the test of time. In surplus defence land there is an opportunity to work towards the right balance. The Minister is a very civilised man. We look to him for clear answers on the calamitous saga of Bentwaters and for reassurance on the MoD's general policy for the future.

Lessons must be learnt and applied to future sales. As Dryden so well put it: How blest is he who leads a country life Unvexed with anxious cares and void of strife! Who studying civil peace, and shunning civil rage, Enjoyed his youth, and now enjoys his age". Not a bad thought, my Lords, for the last business on a Friday afternoon.

3.12 p.m.

The Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe)

My Lords, this has been a useful short debate and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, and all noble Lords who have spoken on a matter which is naturally of great concern to those who live in the vicinity of Bentwaters.

As the size of our Armed Forces has reduced in the aftermath of the Cold War, so has the need for some of the establishments and installations which were required to accommodate and support them. The resulting disposals programme would have been substantial in its own right, but the decision of our American allies to follow a similar course of action has led to further significant properties being identified for disposal, of which Bentwaters is one. In many ways, Bentwaters typifies the difficulties which we face in disposing of surplus sites. The size of the site, at over 1,000 acres, would not be a problem if it were simply open land but an airforce base is far more than that. Bentwaters includes some 2 million square feet of technical buildings. It has 22 hardened aircraft shelters and associated runways. There are also some 68 married quarters on the site and, in common with other American bases, modern amenities including a community centre, theatre, health centre and shopping facilities. The base is served by its own private utilities, including water and sewerage.

The Americans' intention to withdraw from Bentwaters was announced on 26th August 1992, with the withdrawal to be completed by 30th September 1993. A working group was set up in September 1992 to consider the options for the future of the site. Bentwaters, together with its sister base at Woodbridge, was home to some 13,500 service personnel and civilian employees and their families. The effect of closure on the local community was expected to be significant and economic regeneration was one of the key considerations. While there are some 600 privately owned houses at Rendlesham Park and Watersfield Park adjoining the base, it is some way from any major conurbation. That inevitably also influenced decisions on the way ahead.

The working group comprised officials from my department, the Suffolk Coastal District Council as the local planning authority, Suffolk County Council and the Department of the Environment's regional office in Bedford. In September 1993, an examination in public was held to consider changes to the Suffolk County Council's structure plan. That was used as a public forum for the expression and crystallisation of the ideas formulated by the working group. The findings of the review, which became available on 25th January 1994, were the subject of further detailed liaison, and a revised draft planning brief was broadly agreed in June 1994. That was substantially ratified and formally incorporated within the local plan and county structure plan in September 1994.

From that, noble Lords will see that detailed consultation took place with a view to obtaining the broadest measure of agreement on the future of Bentwaters when it passed out of Government ownership. I make a point of saying that, because some noble Lords suggested that the MoD had been fairly indifferent to the future of the site and had not acted as responsibly as perhaps it should have done. I reject that.

I must add that environmental concerns, including the fact that much of the site lies in an area of outstanding natural beauty, are not strictly a matter for my department. They would be a matter for the local planning authority, which would no doubt take account of national planning guidance in considering what re-use might be acceptable. The AONB designation does not prevent development taking place. Rather, it requires that it be carried out in a sympathetic and acceptable way. The AONB is protected in the planning brief. It is worth noting that much of the existing infrastructure at Bentwaters was in place when the AONB designation was conferred.

The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, said that English Nature was not properly consulted. English Nature is a statutory consultee, and my advice is that it was consulted by the local authority.

The base was formally placed on the market in June 1994, with expressions of interest invited by 2nd September. Those expressions of interest were assessed on the basis of compatibility with the planning brief. They were assessed, too, on their overall viability and the availability of financial backing. As noble Lords will be aware, that process led to the selection of the Maharishi Foundation as the prospective purchaser, with its proposal to establish an educational facility with a related science and business park.

The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, asked why the offer from the Maharishi Foundation was accepted without our having seen a full business plan. In fact, there were detailed plans for the site. It is true that they were not in the form of a commercial business plan, but that is not particularly significant. The foundation is not a commercial organisation. What mattered was that it had proper ideas for the site which appeared viable and which were consistent with the planning brief, and that it had the means to pay at the end of the day.

The foundation's proposal was not welcomed in some quarters. But at the end of the day the deal was not finalised because it proved impossible to reach agreement on some elements of the sale. The exact nature of the unresolved issues is commercially confidential between my department and the foundation. I am sure that noble Lords will understand if I do not comment further.

It was accordingly decided, in July 1995, to discuss the possibility of sale with one of the underbidders. In September 1995, heads of terms were agreed with the Chris Parker Group of Companies. That provided for Mr. Parker to obtain planning permission for the site before completion of the contract. Again, I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, will understand why I cannot disclose details of the purchase consideration. What I can say is that the often quoted figure of £16 million is considerably wide of the mark.

My noble friend Lord Marlesford and the noble Lord, Lord Judd, asked whether we were satisfied that the Chris Parker Group was financially sound enough to carry through the transaction. The answer is that we have made thorough and extensive inquiries and are wholly satisfied—as satisfied as we can possibly be—that the necessary financial resources are available to complete the purchase.

The details of the planning application submitted by the Chris Parker Group are not a matter for my department. However, Mr. Parker was aware of the agreed planning brief and the environmental context in which any planning application would be considered. I understand that the planning application included 750 holiday chalets, subsequently reduced to 550, a business and technology park, a leisure park, golf course, gun club, water sports centre, equestrian centre and wildlife country park.

In rejecting the application on 18th April, the planning committee of the Suffolk Coastal District Council referred, among other things, to the scale of the leisure development, the possible environmental impact of the creation of the lakes and the potential impact of the loss of acid grassland on local wildlife. Quite clearly, the local authority has taken environmental issues into consideration in determining that planning application. Whether or not they have struck the right balance between those matters and the interests of the local communities in bringing the facilities back into use and creating new employment is open to debate. Local press reports suggest that some residents strongly supported the application and were unhappy with the outcome. Others expressed concern at the impact of the redevelopment proposals on the local road network and on nearby villages.

I understand that the Chris Parker Group submitted a revised application which was considered yesterday. I am advised that the planning committee resolved to defer the decision until a meeting of the full planning committee on 4th July. But I remain confident that Bentwaters will soon become the centre for a thriving community, while preserving the local environment. That is the kind of balance to which the noble Lord, Lord Judd, in particular referred.

A number of noble Lords suggested that the MoD had not acted responsibly in this matter. I believe, on the contrary, that the MoD has acted wholly responsibly. We placed the property on the market to see what price the market would be prepared to pay and on what conditions. We have not tried to drive the price up, as the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, seemed to suggest. We adhered totally to the planning process; we consulted widely; we agreed many conditions in the planning brief and we looked after the site for nearly three years at considerable cost.

In the end we have a duty to obtain the best price for the taxpayer. Of course, we must approach that objective in a responsible fashion. I have sought to demonstrate that we have done just that. To suggest, as the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, and my noble friend Lord Bridgeman appeared to do, that we should somehow subordinate the taxpayers' interests to a subjective set of considerations which might run contrary to the needs and wishes of local people or which might ultimately prove unviable, is quite wrong.

The noble Lord, Lord Judd, dwelt with some emphasis on his view that restoration and reclamation of land in AONBs should be a priority. As I understand it, the Chris Parker Group's proposals incorporate ideas for land reclamation. But the real point is that the MoD does not have a monopoly on good ideas. It does not and should not dictate the future uses of sites. That is the role of the local planning process.

Perhaps I can turn away for a moment from the specifics of Bentwaters. I should like to deal with the wider issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, in his Question.

Lord Marlesford

My Lords,—

Earl Howe

My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will forgive me. We are running up against the time deadline and, with respect to him, I cannot give way.

As I said earlier, environmental considerations are a matter for the local planning department. It would not be possible for my department to say how a site is used once we have sold it and have no further legal interest in it. However, for most larger sites it is normal either to sell the property with the benefit of a planning brief or to seek planning permission for redevelopment prior to the sale. That approach means not only that my department's financial interests are secured, but also that a purchaser has the best available information on what redevelopment may be permitted.

The noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, said that the future use of a site like Bentwaters should depend on liaison at the centre between the DoE and the Ministry of Defence. With respect, I wonder whether he realises the implications of that. It is worth making the point that the planning process is deliberately a local one. Local interests are protected by the local planning authority. What the noble Lord suggests is a centralisation of that process. I do not believe that that is helpful. The full planning advice is provided by the DoE through the Government Office for the Eastern Region in this instance, and what we seek to bring about and what is appropriate, I suggest, is local implementation of a national policy. That is what has happened and is happening at Bentwaters.

The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, and my noble friend Lord Bridgeman spoke specifically about RAF Upper Heyford. I have some material here which I would have given had we not been running up against the clock. I will write to them about that. It was suggested by my noble friend Lord Marlesford that the MoD was a poor steward of the land it occupies. I do not know how many defence sites my noble friend has knowledge of. I suspect it is quite a few in his role as head of the CPRE. I can only tell him that the care taken by the MoD in looking after its estate is the subject of constant praise from statutory bodies, voluntary bodies and individuals. I will put my noble friend on the mailing list of the MoD environmental magazine Sanctuary, which this year celebrates its 25th anniversary. It is almost true to say that wherever MoD training land is found there is a rare species of animal or a rare species of plant. With all respect to my noble friend, I believe that he was wholly wrong in what he said in delivering the strictures that he did about MoD stewardship of the land.

One other consideration is the possibility of contamination on sites which are to be sold. It is my department's long-standing policy to arrange for the removal of any unexploded ordnance and any contamination by radiological, bacteriological or microbiological materials. That is because the expertise to deal with these materials is not widely available. However, it is for a purchaser to resolve with the local planning authority what remediation may be required to permit the commercial use of a site.

In April of this year my department introduced a new policy requiring land quality statements for all properties passed for disposal after that date. I believe that this is a useful step forward.

Coming back full circle to Bentwaters, I am not aware that there is any suggestion that problems of contamination exist there. The problems are therefore the more straightforward ones of how to balance the economic needs of the community with the desire to preserve the beauty of the countryside. I would be tempted to refer to "unspoilt beauty", but that would be far from the truth, as the countryside of East Anglia as elsewhere has been changed by man over the millennia. In recent generations, defence needs led to the creation of a number of air bases, not all of which are now required. New uses must be found for these sites and I believe that in the interests of all concerned a satisfactory solution is now in prospect to secure the future of Bentwaters.

House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes past three o'clock.