Middlewick Ranges

Debate between Charles Walker and James Cartlidge

Tuesday 12th December 2023 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Defence Procurement (James Cartlidge)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. It is a particular pleasure to respond to my near neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince). I congratulate him on not only calling this debate, but particularly, on behalf of the Ministry of Defence, on commissioning out from Sandhurst as a captain in the Adjutant General’s Corps. That is a great achievement for a sitting, serving MP, and one who works so hard.

Let me also add a personal note, as my hon. Friend is standing down. No one knows what the future holds for any of us, but I was elected alongside him, and he has been the best of the best in this place. He was a brilliant Minister. I had the criminal Bar strikes as a Justice Minister, and I know how hard things were for him as a Health Minister. However, he has worked particularly hard as a constituency MP, and he has shown that again today. Above all, has always had compassion at the core of everything he has done. He is a credit to his constituents, and I wish him well, whatever happens.

Turning to the subject of today’s debate, my hon. Friend rightly said that Colchester has a long and proud military history. The town is the home of some of the most highly trained, high-readiness forces in the world. Our premier airborne forces have launched from Essex to respond to some of the most hostile environments in the world, all in the name of protecting our national security and upholding our commitments around the world.

We are here to discuss my hon. Friend’s valid concerns about the disposal of Middlewick Ranges, with a rebalancing of the defence estate to more modern and efficient facilities at Fingringhoe that will help to keep the forces in the east of England at their very best and most lethal and ready to defend our nation at a moment’s notice. We have proudly run ranges from the site for many years, but it no longer offers us the optimum environment for our training needs. We have, however, been committed to seeing the site released to support local need, and have therefore worked with the local authority since 2016, as my hon. Friend correctly pointed out.

First, it is important to stress that the Ministry of Defence’s reason for selling the site, in the simplest terms, is that it has become surplus to the requirements of a modern armed force. At a time when families across the nation are feeling the pinch, it is right that each Government Department looks at all its outgoings and ensures that, where we are spending large amounts of public money, we are delivering services in the most cost-efficient way. Bringing Middlewick Ranges up to a usable standard would require significant amounts of public money when we have similar and more efficient facilities literally down the road.

Value for money for the taxpayer and ordinary families across the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester is at the core of this decision. The enhanced facilities at Fingringhoe will offer modern, electronically operated targets that provide better training for our armed forces. They can also offer training for an additional 20,000 troops a year above what is currently available in the Colchester area. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has just departed, but I was about to address the point about mothballing and the hon. Member’s concern about the use of the site by the reserves. To be clear, we believe that we are more than supporting effective training in the area by using this new site.

The key point is that the world is becoming increasingly volatile. If we are asking our armed forces to respond to global crises, it is right that we, as the MOD, invest in their skills and the facilities we use to train them. Our service personnel make huge sacrifices to serve King and country, and it is our duty to make sure they are adequately prepared to respond to the most demanding circumstances. That is why these new facilities are part of a £5.1 billion investment in a more modern, green and sustainable defence estate that can meet the demands of our ever-busier armed forces.

It is commendable that my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester made positive alternative suggestions. From a practical perspective, we have found that the site is becoming difficult and increasingly impractical to use due to its proximity to residential properties and public footpaths. Incursions have been occurring and became a risk to those operating the ranges. There were simply too many people from the local community walking across live firing exercises—so much so that we were unable to conduct training safely. With no firing at the range since 2021, it would take a significant amount of public funds to make the perimeter safe for the people of Colchester and for our armed forces training there. My hon. Friend said the site should be mothballed and it is, in effect, currently mothballed.

That all being said, I recognise my hon. Friend’s concerns around any new development that could be proposed following the sale of this land. New housing causes great consternation to communities up and down the country, and particularly where it impacts on our beautiful habitat—I know that as an MP for a rural constituency near my hon. Friend’s. Equally, however, there will be people in my hon. Friend’s constituency who cannot afford to get on the housing ladder, and I am sure that is true in your constituency too, Sir Charles.

The release of this land can also be seen as a great opportunity for the local community, who can develop it to meet their needs and, at the same time, encourage the local authority to place suitable protections on any environmental considerations. My hon. Friend says that he is not a nimby, and I put on record that he absolutely is not. Colchester has seen huge growth, but the reality is that new housing has to be allocated somewhere.

I remind my hon. Friend that it is, of course, not the MOD that will decide the future use of the site. That decision is for the local authority, its planning department, the future owner, and the local community as part of any public consultation process that forms part of any ultimate planning process. Such a process will consider and balance the need for housing with the requirement to deliver biodiversity net gain measures that protect and enhance the fascinating ecology of the site.

Of course, in looking at those concerns, the local authority will also have to consider the transport issues my hon. Friend referred to, which are always a consideration with new developments. We have the same issues in my constituency of South Suffolk; where new developments are proposed, there are concerns about pressure on roads and so on. However, that is fundamentally for the local authority to consider.

My hon. Friend is rightly concerned and speaks passionately about the lowland acid grassland found at the site. That is precisely why the MOD has invested significant funds on ecology studies over a three-year period to inform our understanding before the disposal of the site and to inform the MOD concept plan on how the site could be developed sympathetically. The concept plan, or master plan—to give it the real name for those familiar with the matter—recommended that more than 63% of the allocated land for development is kept as green space, while the disposal area includes another 44 hectares of green open space for recreational use and ecological enrichment. The plan also suggested leaving the most ecologically valuable habitats untouched and advocated avoiding and protecting the woodland at Birch Brook. That is just one way any potential new development could be approached, and the future owner and the local authority will no doubt have other, equally exciting ideas that will bring new opportunities and enrichment to the area. However, there is one thing I know for certain: my hon. Friend, as a brilliant constituency MP, will hold them to account on that, as he clearly stated.

The Ministry of Defence is, and always has been, committed to seeing this land used in a way that benefits the local community and environment, and we make that clear to potential future bidders for the site as part of tours of the site and the marketing literature we have released. While we are, of course, not able to impose those conditions, we are doing our best to make them clear to the local authority and any interested bidders looking at the marketing materials for the site.

My hon. Friend’s commitment to the site, and indeed to his whole constituency, has been abundantly evident today, and I applaud him for raising this matter. I fully appreciate his need to ensure that the area is developed in a way that protects the site’s ecological value and, at the same time, benefits the community in a meaningful and sustainable way, such as in relation to transport and other matters. I hope that I have been able to set out the main drivers behind the MOD’s decision to sell the site, which are the public interest at a time of economic challenge, when public finances are under intense scrutiny, and the need to support our military requirements. It is vital that we can train our armed forces to the very best of our ability, so that they can protect and defend our national security. [Interruption.]

[Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

We conclude, as thunder crackles around us.

Question put and agreed to.

School Funding

Debate between Charles Walker and James Cartlidge

Thursday 5th November 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

James Cartlidge— back to education.

[James Cartlidge]

It is about education because this is about spending. The point I am making is that if Suffolk had superb trains that were well funded, instead of sending the premium on our railway revenues to other parts of the country, we might feel better about the poor educational funding. If the eastern region received more in terms of the overall Barnett formula, we might feel better. The population of Suffolk is the second-oldest of any county in the country after Norfolk, but our spending formula for health does not reflect that. If all of those were better, we might feel happier. Therefore, we want better spending on schools because our taxpayers are losing out overall. My constituents work hard and pay their taxes. They simply want a fair deal for them and their children.