HC Deb 08 November 1949 vol 469 cc1144-50

7.55 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Younger)

I beg to move, That the Draft Civil Defence (Fire Services) Regulations, 1949, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th July, be approved. This is the first of the rather more specialised draft regulations to which I referred when the House was discussing the general regulations in the summer. These and the succeeding regulations are part of a series. Members will recall that there were also under discussion last week rather similar specialised orders by other designated Ministers. The Fire Services Regulations are the exact counterpart to the Scottish regulations that were approved last week except for the usual alterations in terminology to suit the systems of the two countries and slight drafting rearrangements.

The purpose is to confer on local authorities responsibility for the organisation of their fire services for Civil Defence Services, and hon. Members will see set out very briefly the details of those purposes. They relate principally to the enrolment of auxiliaries, the training of those auxiliaries in general firemanship and subsequently training in the specialised work of Civil Defence. These have been fully discussed with the authorities concerned, and I think there is general agreement about them.

Question put, and agreed to.

Mr. Younger

I beg to move, That the Draft Civil Defence (Public Protection) Regulations, 1949, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th July, be approved. I think it may be for the convenience of the House if I also relate my few remarks to the next set of regulations, because they deal with precisely the same subject and only have to be put forward separately because different circumstances affect the London area owing to the existence of Metropolitan boroughs and the London County Council. There are differences in form between these regulations and the corresponding ones which were approved by the House in relation to Scotland last week, but they are differences in form only.

The functions which it is proposed to confer upon local authorities by these regulations have been selected partly because they are functions which have already been discussed and upon which a measure of agreement has been reached with the local authority associations, and partly because they are functions for which it would be appropriate that the Civil Defence Corps should be used. We have not so far included in the draft regulations functions which would not involve the use of the Civil Defence Corps. As far as the first set of these regulations is concerned, the functions will be found in the Second Schedule. As they are there briefly set out, I do not think I need recapitulate them.

Exactly the same functions are set out in the London regulations, but there they are set out in the body of the regulations instead of the Schedule because it has been necessary to make clear which of the functions fall to the London County Council and which to other authorities. The criterion adopted has been that the functions have been allotted to the authority which performs analogous functions in peace time. There has been no dispute with any of the authorities concerned about these functions, and I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the representatives of local authorities for their co-operation in obtaining agreement on this matter.

8.1 p.m.

Mr. Osbert Peake (Leeds, North)

These regulations, and the regulations dealing with the Fire Service, which we have already passed, deal only with the conferring of new functions upon local authorities. I think there will be general agreement in all quarters of the House that it is right to confer these functions on local authorities, and in that way to ensure that there is sound machinery for the creation of Civil Defence services. It is not our intention, on this occasion, to debate the questions of how far and to what extent these functions will become immediately operative. These regulations do not, I understand, become effective for a further period of about 14 days, and no doubt the Home Secretary and his advisers will later be able to tell us to what extent these functions are operative and what additional charges, if any, they will involve upon the Exchequer and the local authorities concerned. All we wish to say, at this stage, is that we approve the passage of these regulations.

8.3 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes (South Ayrshire)

I do not think these regulations should be passed without a Government spokesman answering what I believe to be some relevant questions. The regulations say that it shall be the function of the Common Council of the City of London and of every Metropolitan borough council to take measures for the protection of human beings against the toxic effects of atomic, biological or chemical warfare, other than measures for dealing with casualties and disease. Is not the House entitled to have a full explanation of these words, rather than the perfunctory statement that the regulations follow those which were approved in respect of Scotland? It is said that because certain regulations were approved for Scotland they should be automatically approved for England—rather a reversal of the usual procedure. Local authorities will be interested to know what they will be called upon to do, what steps they must take to protect human beings against the toxic effects of atomic, biological or chemical warfare.

What precisely is meant by the words "toxic effects of atomic, biological or chemical warfare"? Are these just incidental things which can be brushed aside, as though they were a small item in a sanitary inspector's monthly report? I think this is the first time in which the words "atomic warfare" have been used in regulations. Would the Minister say how much money will be spent on helping local authorities to prepare against the possible effects of atomic warfare? We know that very large sums of money are being spent on our preparations for dropping atom bombs on other cities. It amounts to millions of pounds. Can we have an estimate of how much will be spent on defending the citizens of this country if atomic warfare should come? I am sure that the treasurer of the London County Council would be eager to have this information. Do we intend to increase these sums, or are we out for economy?

I want to ask whether "biological" includes "bacteriological"? Recently I read a report of a conference at Geneva at which the President of the World Health Organisation said that atomic warfare fare had already been superseded, that the effects of bacteriological warfare were likely to make atomic warfare obsolete. This was not the statement of an irresponsible person. What effect will biological and bacteriological warfare have on the civil population of London? Is there any truth in the statements that in the event of bacteriological warfare hundreds of thousands of casualties will result? If we are to make preparations for this kind of warfare, surely we are entitled to know whether we intend to spend money on it; if we do not, then what is the use of talking about these regulations?

Could we be told what chemical warfare means, what sort of measures local authorities will be called upon to take in the event of such warfare? I believe that the Government have not the slightest idea of what they mean to do in the event of atomic, biological or chemical warfare, that they are merely "passing the buck," to the local authorities. That is not good enough. When we are spending £760 million on some kind of defence, we are entitled to know how much money we shall spend on defence against this form of attack.

I suspect that some of the scientists who are advising the Home Secretary on the defensive measures to be taken against this kind of warfare, are the same kind of scientists who are preparing devilish weapons for us to use against other nations in the event of war. We should have a fuller explanation than we have had so far of what all this means; let us have an indication of what local authorities will be called upon to do.

8.10 p.m.

Mr. James Hudson (Ealing, West)

I should not like it to go out that the interests of the citizens of London have been dealt with in this House only by an hon. Member for a Scottish Division. I am as deeply concerned as my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) about the question which he has raised. I am able to speak with some experience about Civil Defence in London, because I knew what were the arrangements made during the last war. I can recall the tremendous discussions on Civil Defence that took place on much more minor matters than those mentioned in the documents now before us. I can remember the discussions on deep shelters and so on. At least, the House got to know from the Government what their plans were.

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that we have very little information from the Government as to what steps it is proposed to take in the event of another war. I live in the borough of Lambeth, which has been mentioned in connection with these regulations. During the last war there was very little in the way of deep shelters or any other defence measures to provide some protection for the population. The best I ever found was to stand behind a wooden door under a concrete staircase throughout the night, because there was no other place to go. Such defence centres as existed, were already crowded with people. Great bodies of people in London can regard the fact that they have come through the war safely as an act of God, rather than an act of Government in providing the necessary defences.

What we know of atomic warfare, what we have been told about the attacks on Nagasaki and Hiroshima in the last war and the dreadful consequences that overtook the civilian population, lead us to believe that there ought to be a clear understanding of the situation, and a much clearer statement about what is intended than anything we have got up to the present moment. In London we seem to move forward in a sort of flux, and if ever such a calamity as another war befalls us, we must not be in the serious situation of having no adequate defences. It is pure humbug on the part of the House or the Government to talk now about adequate defences against the dreadful consequences of warfare. Something should be done.

I re-echo the protest that has been made by my hon. Friend, with a full memory of the ineffectiveness of Civil Defence which marked even the best of the arrangements which we were able to make during the last war. What will happen in the next war will make what happened in the last war seem merely a flea-bite, and I make my protest as my hon. Friend has done, in the hope that it will lead to something being done.

8.14 p.m.

Mr. Lipson (Cheltenham)

We all hope that there will not be another war, but we should be failing in our duty if we did not take such steps as we can to protect the civil population from war's effects. I did not rise to pursue that, however; I want to make one point about these regulations, particularly with reference to the first Schedule. I do not object to the boroughs included there, but I must express my sorrow that the borough which I have the honour to represent is not included. I have had some correspondence with the Home Secretary on this matter, and he sent me what I thought was an encouraging reply.

I should like to have an assurance that the list is not closed, and that it will be possible for other non-county boroughs which are not included in the Schedule at present, to be allowed to operate their own Civil Defence arrangements. I make this request with the greater confidence, because I remember the Home Secretary during the Coalition Government when he was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education. I can recall how helpful he was when Cheltenham made an application that it should become an excepted district, and he expressed confidence in the ability and efficiency of the local education authority in Cheltenham. I hope he is prepared to extend that to the field of Civil Defence.

I also believe that if he agrees to include Cheltenham—I make this appeal at the request of the local authority—he will be rendering a great service to Civil Defence, because we are an efficient authority. I do not think he is going to find it easy to get the volunteers that are required, but he will have much more success if the appeal is made locally. People are much more likely to respond to an appeal made by a local mayor than to the chairman to the county council, who is somewhat distant and has not the same appeal to the ordinary citizen. I should like to have the assurance that the list is not closed, and that Cheltenham may be included amongst the non-county boroughs which will be given powers under these regulations.

8.16 p.m.

Mr. Younger

If I have the leave of the House, I will deal with the remarks that have been made. With regard to the appeal made by the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) I can assure him that approval to these regulations with only the names of county boroughs in the first Schedule will not prejudice consideration of other cases which at the moment is going on. It would be wrong if I were to attempt to say anything about the individual case in which the hon. Member is interested, but I can assure him that the approval of the regulations would not prejudice consideration of that case.

Mr. Lipson

The decision will not be long delayed?

Mr. Younger

I cannot really say how long it will be. In reply to my hon. Friends the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) and the Member for West Ealing (Mr. J. Hudson) I think it would be inappropriate on these regulations to follow them into all the possibilities of attack by various modern forms of weapons. The short point, I think, is the one which I made in my opening remarks, that we have tried to pick out in these regulations those functions for the carrying out of which it would be necessary for local authorities to use the Civil Defence Corps. We have tried to give enough precision to those functions to enable local authorities to begin recruiting and training. The matter does not go beyond that, and I would suggest to the House that on these regulations no question of the future cost of defending London or the whole country against modern forms of warfare can possibly arise. We are only taking the step to enable local authorities to set up the necessary organisation.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved: That the Draft Civil Defence (Public Protection) Regulations, 1949, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th July, be approved.

Resolved: That the Draft Civil Defence (Public Protection) (London) Regulations, 1949, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th July, be approved."—[Mr. Younger.]