HC Deb 14 December 1966 vol 738 cc458-63
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Roy Jenkins)

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement about civil defence, and particularly about the future of the Civil Defence Corps.

After consultation with the local authority associations, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I have decided that the Civil Defence Corps should be reorganised and substantially reduced in numbers.

The future rôle of the Corps will be to help the local authorities to man the control system, which is the system of government in emergency; and to provide limited numbers of specialists to help to organise the first aid and welfare resources of the community.

We are greatly indebted to the members of the Corps. Their new rôle will be of great importance, and there will be a continuing need to attract people of high calibre, with qualities of leadership.

The local authorities have expressed their general willingness to co-operate in reorganisation and we shall be issuing comprehensive guidance after further consultation with them and with the voluntary organisations. Under the new scheme, which will be adaptable to local circumstances, local authority employees and the voluntary organisations will be asked to play a bigger part. After a period of adjustment, the active strength of the Corps is likely to be 75,000 to 80,000, compared with about 122,000 at present.

As I said in a statement to the House on 2nd February, there is a limit to what we can afford by way of insurance against the risk of nuclear war. Exchequer expenditure on civil defence has been reduced to about £19.7 million during the current year and a further saving of over £1 million needs to be made in 1967–68. We shall be discussing with the local authority associations how this saving can best be obtained, both from reorganisation of the Corps and in the remainder of the civil defence field.

The Government believe that by carrying out the measures I have indicated they will retain on the most economical basis a pattern of civil defence preparations which, if there were a nuclear attack on this country, would enable many millions of lives to be saved.

Mr. Sharples

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has made an important statement, which civil defence workers have been awaiting ever since 29th July, 1965, when it was originally forecast by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence? Can the right hon. Gentleman say what arrangements will be made for repayment to local authorities in respect of work which local authority employees will now be called upon to do, and which was formerly undertaken by volunteers?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we shall probably wish to debate this matter, but, in the meantime, is he aware that, for a comparatively small saving, in the opinion of many civil defence workers he is virtually destroying an organisation which has rendered great service to the nation both in peace and war?

Mr. Jenkins

I totally reject the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's statement. I think that it is extremely important at the present time that we should reorganise and streamline the corps so that it does its job efficiently—it is bound to be a limited job—and that we get full value for money. I believe that that is precisely what we are doing and I am very glad—and I believe that we have the general support of the House in this—that we have made substantial reductions.

We have brought the budget down from £24–1 million in 1964–65 to £19–7 million for the current financial year, and we hope to get it down to £18.5 million in the future. I think that in the circumstances that is a right and proper thing to do from the point of view of allocation of national expenditure.

My reply to the specific first question which the hon. Gentleman asked me is that I am having consultations with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this matter, and guidance will be given to local authorities.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

Is my right hon. Friend aware that Scotland is now in the greatest danger because of the development of the Polaris base and the increased development and the possibilities of atomic attack? Does his statement mean that as the country gets more dangerous the less expenditure there will be on civil defence? Does it not show that the Government realise the futility of civil defence when there are bases like that in West Scotland?

Mr. Jenkins

I do not entirely agree with my hon. Friend's strategic appraisals, though I listened to them with great interest. What this means is that the Government believe in getting value for money, and I think that we are doing that. I think that it would be wrong to spend too much and that it would also be wrong to abolish completely an organisation which gives us some reinsurance if an improbable but horrible event were to occur.

Mr. Lubbock

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many people would disagree most emphatically with his assertion that millions of lives could be saved by the Civil Defence Corps in the event of a nuclear war, but that we on this bench nevertheless believe that it has a useful function to perform in assisting the authorities in civil disasters?

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the £1 million reduction in expenditure in 1967–68 is related to the strengtth of the Corps of 75,000 to 80,000, or is that merely an interim reduction which may be increased later?

Mr. Jenkins

That is an interim position. We shall cut the costs to £19–7 million in this financial year, but when we get the Corps reorganised on new lines we shall have a further saving of nearly £1 million.

Mr. Driberg

Does my right hon. Friend recall the Conservative Government's Defence White Paper in which it was stated that there could be no defence at all against a major nuclear attack, and does he intend to go on spending as much as £20 million a year on providing against what the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) called civil disasters?

Mr. Jenkins

We propose to spend somewhat less than £20 million a year. The civil disaster aspect of the matter cannot be ignored.

Mr. Driberg

Leave it to the W.V.S.

Mr. Jenkins

As I have told the House previously, there is no suggestion and no thought in my mind that civil defence can possibly protect the country against the main disaster of a nuclear attack. But should such an event occur it could limit the consequences, and I do not think that it would be right to provide no resources of this sort in the unlikely event of such a disaster occurring.

Sir D. Renton

Bearing in mind that the cost of civil defence has been reduced by the Government by about 20 per cent. over the last three financial years, and that another £1 million reduction is to take place at once, and that in answer to the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) the right hon. Gentleman has said that further reductions are to be made, how can the Home Secretary say that there has been no change in policy?

Secondly, bearing in mind the Government's immediate objective of saving nearly £1 million, why are the valuable services of 60,000 splendid volunteers to be dispensed with and wasted?

Mr. Jenkins

I have not said that there has been no change of policy. There has been a reappraisal, and we believe that the job can be done effectively by this very much more streamlined organisation. I do not accept the view that to decide that one can save manpower in this way means that one is wasting the services of people concerned. It is essential from all points of view that we do the jobs that can be done with the smallest number of men who can do them effectively.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman commented on my reply to the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock). I was not indicating a further continuing change. I had already said that we would come down to £19.7 million in 1966–67 and that as a result of the policy I have announced this afternoon we would come down to £18.5 million in the financial year beyond that.

Mr. W. Baxter

On what authority, scientific and otherwise, does my right hon. Friend base his assumptions that the Civil Defence Corps would in any way be useful in a nuclear war, because, as far as I can understand, and as far as most people are led to believe, it would be quite impossible to save any part of our community in the event of a nuclear war? I recognise, as, I hope, my right hon. Friend does, that the civil defence organisation can play a useful part in peace time, in a national emergency or disaster. But is this the type of organisation we want to establish for this particular purpose?

Mr. Jenkins

All the evidence before us suggests that a fairly small insurance premium of this sort is worth paying. It does not for a moment suggest that this means that we could contemplate a nuclear attack without the most horrific consequences. But by maintaining such an organisation we could somewhat limit those consequences. In these circumstances, I think that it would be wrong for a Government not to do this.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order.