HC Deb 28 March 1968 vol 761 cc1811-36

7.45 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Millan)

I beg to move, That the Civil Defence (Fire Services) Regulations 1968, a draft of which was laid before this House on 29th February, be approved.

It would perhaps be convenient to discuss at the same time the second Motion, relating to Scotland, That the Civil Defence (Fire Services) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1968, a draft of which was laid before this House on 29th February, be approved.

The Scottish and English Regulations are basically the same. They amend the existing Regulations which were made in 1949 and which placed an obligation upon fire authorities to employ persons for the purpose of civil defence and in particular to enrol auxiliary firemen additional to the normal establishment of their fire brigades. The new Regulations remove this obligation from fire authorities, but enable them to employ additional persons for civil defence purposes when authorised to do so by the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Home Secretary in Scotland and England respectively.

This latter provision is necessary because there are now employed, under the existing Regulations, a number of regular fire service officers, and although most of, them have been employed on helping to recruit, train and organise the auxiliaries, some have been working on planning for a war emergency. Since planning is to continue, there will be a need to retain the services of some of these officers and the Regulations accordingly provide for the Secretary of State to authorise their continued employment.

It is not my right hon. Friend's intention to authorise the employment of auxiliaries after 31st March, and fire authorities will be required to cease to employ those who are now auxiliary members of their brigades on that date. The auxiliary fire service will thus be disbanded on 31st March.

I hope that there will be no misunderstanding of the term "employed". Auxiliaries, of course, have been recruited as members of individual fire brigades and as such have been, in legal terms, the employees of the fire authorities, but have, of course, received no payment other than the bounty and out-of-pocket expenses for which they can qualify: they are volunteers in the true sense of the term—

Sir Eric Errington (Aldershot)

Would the hon. Gentleman explain the last sentence of the Explanatory Note: This replaces the existing unrestricted power of a fire authority to employ additional persons and in particular auxiliary firemen. But they can still do so, as I understand it, if authorised by the Secretary of State.

Mr. Millan

I have just been trying, apparently not completely successfully, to explain the distinction between the Auxiliary Fire Service, which is to be disbanded, and the fire service officers, some of whom have a permanent rôle in planning for a war emergency. It is intended that these latter officers will continue to be employed, with the Secretary of State's approval. This does not, of course, give local authorities the power to continue to employ auxiliary firemen—

Sir E. Errington

May I try to get it clear? As I understand it, the Regulations give the Secretary of State authority to make such appointments as he may think fit. What he intends to do is one thing but what the Regulations give him power to do is another, that is, to appoint such people as he may think fit as firemen.

Mr. Millan

I do not think that there is any difficulty about this. I have explained the intention, which is to continue to employ those fire service officers who have been on planning duties, because there is a necessity for their continued employment. I think that the wording is accurate, legally and in every other way, to carry out the intention we have. My hon. Friend who will reply to any points raised by hon. Members will, if he considers that there is any ambiguity, no doubt comment on this later.

The regular officers whose job has been to look after the auxiliaries are employees of the fire authorities and their pay and emoluments have been accepted by the Home Office for civil defence grant at the rate of 75 per cent. The arrangement which has been made with fire authorities is that, should circumstances demand it—as they do now—the officers concerned, of whom there are about 25 in Scotland and perhaps 250 in England and Wales, would be absorbed into the normal establishment of the brigades, as soon as vacancies could be found for them. I hope that this will be possible in all instances, but should it not be practicable in an individual case, the arrangements which have been made for the compensation of other civil defence employees would apply to any displaced fire service staff. I hope that it will not come to this, although it may take a little time to find vacancies for everyone.

As hon. Members know, it is not the intention that all emergency fire preparations will now be abandoned. The regular peacetime fire service will continue to have an emergency rôle and planning and certain other peacetime preparations will continue, though at a reduced level. A review of emergency plans in the light of the new situation has now been put in hand in consultation with representatives of the fire service.

During the last few weeks there have been a number of occasions, both here and elsewhere, when tribute has been paid to the Auxiliary Fire Service. I would like to take this opportunity of expressing once again the sincere thanks of the Government for the generous way in which members of the Service have given of their time and energies in the past. The decision to disband this and the other civil defence volunteer services is not a welcome one nor one which the Government took lightly. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary explained to the House on 29th February, it was something which could not be avoided once it had been decided that substantial economies were necessary. In renewing our thanks to the service, I commend the Regulations to the House.

7.53 p.m.

Mr. Ian MacArthur (Perth and East Perthshire)

In the civil defence debate earlier today my hon. Friends called attention to the shocked despair which followed the Prime Minister's announcement earlier this year that the Civil Defence Corps was to be disbanded. The A.F.S. shares this dismay, and a feeling of shock and anger is spreading through the general public, who are coming to realise how the Government are stripping them all of the defence which is their right.

The extent to which this anger is being felt by the public is illustrated by my local experience that about 1,500 citizens of Edinburgh, realising what these Regulations mean to them, subscribed to a statement opposing the Government's intentions. There is a sense of shock about the brusque manner in which the Government are treating the 13,500 fire service volunteers who have given their time and devotion to the protection of us all.

As with civil defence, the Government argue that the cost of the A.F.S. cannot be met and that what they have described as the "insurance premium" is beyond the nation's capacity to pay. I have two comments on that argument. First, the fact that we are being asked to disband the A.F.S. to save a little over £1 million a year demonstrates the depths to which the Government's incompetence has brought us.

Secondly, we are losing this critical insurance cover to save a very small premium. To put it another way, it represents a one-thousandth part, not of Government expenditure in total, but of the increase in Government expenditure proposed for the coming year. Or, to put it yet another way, it represents substantially less than the daily average of £1,800,000 additional taxation which the Government have levied for every day since the Prime Minister took office in 1964—and the House will recall that at that time he promised that there would be no general increase in taxation.

I turn to the nature of the insurance cover which we are losing. First, we have already endangered the credibility of our total defence system, and these Regulations will erode that credibility still further. Secondly, we are removing from the public the life saving protection which the highly trained and skilled members of the A.F.S. would provide in time of war. The A.F.S. also has a peacetime rôle, and this is a continuing bonus which flows from the primary insurance cover. These men are trained by, and are working alongside, established fire service officers. They are skilled in the use of specialist equipment, and this is of particular help in civilian disasters. They have provided valuable assistance to fire brigades and the public in many emergencies involving fire or flood. Their work will be remembered by the people of Aberfan, by the people in the South-West whose livelihood was threatened by the Torrey Canyon disaster and, more recently, by the people of Glasgow, who suffered in the hurricane two months ago. This help will no longer be available because the A.F.S. will cease to exist.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington), when I first read the Regulations I, too, thought that a glimmer of hope remained. I again call attention to paragraph (1,a), which gives the Secretary of State power …to employ such additional persons, if any, as members of the fire brigade for the purposes of civil defence as may be authorised from time to time by the Secretary of State. The hope aroused in my mind was quickly dispelled because on 8th March the notorious circular went out from the Home Office, followed four days later by one to Scottish local authorities from the Scottish Home and Health Department. Both circulars referred to "such additional persons", but went on to state clearly: It is the intention of the Secretary of State to direct that, with effect from that date"— that is, 1st April— fire authorities should cease to employ auxiliary members of fire brigades. Nothing could have been more final, or more wounding to the morale of these men, many of whom are ready to go on serving their country without bounty or recompense but merely for the noble satisfaction of giving voluntary service.

The Under-Secretary thanked the members of the A.F.S. That was the least he could do. We also express our deep gratitude to them and add our deep sympathy for what is happening to them and for the way it is being done. If the Government were genuinely grateful for the work of the A.F.S.—if they really recognised the value of their work to the nation—they would be prepared to reconsider the position even now and allow these men to continue their service, as they have so generously offered to do.

Therefore, I ask the Under-Secretary in his reply to say that the Government will not discourage these volunteers from continuing their training and work on an informal basis, and secondly, that they will allow the fire authorities to provide reasonable facilities for the men to continue their training. After tonight it will be too late. These Regulations will take effect this weekend. Unless we have this clear undertaking now, next Monday will see the A.F.S. disbanded, the men dispersed, the protection lost, and yet another voluntary service suppressed with undignified and shameful haste.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. John Homer (Oldbury and Halesowen)

The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) spoke of the shock and dismay which swept through the Auxiliary Fire Service and extended from that service to the general public. I fully understand the disappointment that many Auxiliary Fire Service men and women must be feeling as they see the service to which they have devoted so much time now being put into a position which is almost incapable of being accurately defined. I understand and sympathise with their point of view, but I adhere to a view I expressed earlier. The Government, in so far as they have decided to run down the auxiliary fire service in this manner, are right. I persist in my view that they should have gone further.

I want to deal with one or two minor points and hope to get them cleared. With regard to the employment of those officers in respect of whom authority has been given by the Home Office for civil defence duties we have been given a number tonight by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State who moved the Motion. I should have thought that there was very little doubt that these few hundreds of officers would be absorbed in the fire service. I hope that nothing that has been said tonight will be taken by any local authority to suggest that there might be an alternative open to them. These are men who have been promoted and their promotions were agreed by the Home Office. I should have thought there was every possibility that in due course they could be absorbed in the regular fire service. I hope that the qualification my hon. Friend made will not be employed. I hope it will not, and I do not believe it will.

Many regular officers and men will be pleased at the release of resources which the run-down of the A.F.S. is now providing for peace-time purposes. The Home Office training school at Moretonin-the-Marsh, on which the Government have been ready to spend £2 million, much of which was for emergency services, is being released for peace-time services. The regular fire services are delighted that as a result of the winding down of the A.F.S. the number of courses needed to meet the ever-growing need for highly trained fire prevention officers in the peace-time fire service can be met. We are delighted with the expansion of the number of courses which should fill the gap caused by the run-down of the emergency services.

In the peace-time fire service there does not seem to be much of an echo of the shock and dismay which the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire said was felt in the A.F.S. I see no evidence of that. It would be placing a false construction on what I have heard about the decision of the Government to say that I have.

Mr. MacArthur

I could allow the hon. Member to see these papers containing 1,000 names of people in Edinburgh and 500 elsewhere.

Mr. Horner

I am not speaking about 1,000 citizens of Edinburgh. I am saying that in the regular peace-time fire service there is little echo of the shock and dismay evidenced by petitioners in Edinburgh or elsewhere. The decision of the Government is welcomed. At a time when every year the country loses nearly £100 million in direct fire losses, it is imperative to increase the number of trained officers in fire prevention. This facility is now open as a tresult of the decision taken by the Government.

If I may pursue a point which earlier it was suggested I could not then pursue as not being wholly relevant to the Motion before us, I think the decision in disbanding the A.F.S., based upon a reason which has been questioned by hon. Members opposite, nevertheless is facing the realities of the position. I have argued in this House earlier as to what would be the effect of nuclear war. The hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) suggested that because my first A.R.P. course was 34 years ago, my approach to these matters was somewhat old-fashioned and prewar. I try to keep myself abreast of modern development. I have attended these courses. I have been to Moreton-in-the-Marsh, and I say that the training in emergency fire-fighting is as totally irrelevant to the job of defending the country against the effects of nuclear war as most other aspects of civil defence.

I said that if a normal nuclear instrument of destruction—I do not call it a bomb—were to fall on Westminster, the area of total fire would exend over a diameter of 24 miles. The area of total fire would be something like 300 square miles. In such a situation we would see what has come to be known as a fire storm. We had some experience of fire storms on a miniature scale in the last war. In Hamburg and Dresden in 1946 I saw the effects of fire storms. These were miniature occasions compared with what we would be expecting of the men we have praised tonight for their devotion to public duty. I suggest that we are being totally unrealistic.

I will not occupy the time of the House with details of the sort of occasion that we would ask these men to face in dealing with the effect of a thermonuclear instrument of destruction which would cause such fire storms. Let us assume that my calculation of a diameter of 24 miles of total fire is based upon an instrument of destruction bursting at ground level. If it were to burst a mile above the earth's surface the radius of total fire destruction can be magnified many times. In Hamburg 12 sq. miles were involved in the fire storm, but the firemen could only penetrate up to 200 yards beyond the perimeter. It would be madness to plan to send fire fighting forces into a fire storm of the size I have indicated, with winds of hurrican force and radioactive dust settling at the same time, and I do not believe that the civil defence planners contemplate such an operation. That is why in the Civil Defence Instructors' Notes, which are still in circulation, note 11 says: The stirrup hand pump with its bucket of water can play a useful role in any future war. My criticism of the perpetuation of this myth that the civil defence and the auxiliary fire service can play an effective rôle is not merely based on what I claim. I may seem arrogant, but I have attempted to keep up-to-date with these issues, despite my early A.R.P. training. I think everyone will agree that for these small islands nuclear war would certainly produce an unimaginable disaster which might well lead to their evacuation.

If one instrument of destruction fell on London and another fell on Birmingham at the same time, the perimeter of those two incidents would overlap, and if we had an Auxiliary Fire Service at Northampton it would be difficult to know exactly in which direction to send it.

It is because of the inconceivable horror that nuclear war will bring in its train in terms of the effects of fire that I welcome the decision of the Government.

I sympathise with the feeling of auxiliary firemen. Among my whole time fire brigade associates, who are involved month by month, there is no echo of the dismay and shock which has been mentioned. There is an acceptance of the realisation that auxiliary fire fighting has no place and is irrelevant to nuclear war as we envisage it.

8.15 p.m.

Sir Eric Errington (Aldershot)

I have had an opportunity of listening not only to the present debate, but to the previous one. It appears that hon. Gentlemen opposite are denying those things which we on this side refuse to say. I mean by that statement that the discussion generally, almost without exception, has been on the basis of the horrors of nuclear war. That is beyond contravention. I submit that we have to deal with the position of those people—and there are many in my constituency, many in the county of Hampshire and many in the country generally—who are anxious to continue with the expertise which they have acquired during years of training and practical work in the elimination of fires and are members of the auxiliary fire service.

When we discussed civil defence it was open to anyone to say, "What will be the thing against which we shall have to defend ourselves?"

Fire which is always with us and is a great and growing danger in the country, and it is a wicked thing that the experience which has been gained over quite a number of years now by the auxiliary fire service should be wasted. I am appalled to think, if my reading of the Regulations is correct, that it is only for the purposes of some senior officers that the authority of the Secretary of State will be exercised. In my opinion, the Secretary of State ought to authorise the employment of those who are on the job as working firemen and are experience in fire fighting.

The question of equipment has already been raised. I understand that in many cases equipment has been taken away from where it was proposed to be used and stored elsewhere. It has been said that fire causes £100 million worth of damage annually. If that is correct, why should equipment, which has value in use by trained auxiliary fire service men, be moved to store?

I have made inquiries regarding the situation in Hampshire. There are 237 regular firemen. I was interested to read and hear about the 752 retained firemen. They are equivalent to 582 on full 24-hours work. I was told that 39 of the 47 stations are staffed by retained firemen, who are not fully employed, and that there are still available some 100 or so places for experienced firemen.

The Government do not like that kind of volunteer, and they dislike the idea of having a force organised in any way other than the way in which they want to organise it. This is very wrong. I have had an opportunity to speak to a number of auxiliary firemen. They have told me that emergency pumps were issued during this year, and they have been presented with uniforms. It was only after I had some information given in the House that I realised that those uniforms, which have only just become available for use, must not display any badge of rank. This is poor reward for good service.

The service we are discussing now is not like the Civil Defence Corps in the sense that there may be an argument—I do not agree with it, and I do not think on those lines—that civil defence is no use because nuclear warfare would be so terrible. This is not true of fire. Everyone who reads the newspapers knows that, day by day, one can read of little children being left in small houses on their owl and nothing can be done to save them when there is a fire.

I know one small town, or large village, to call it that, in Hampshire where people are desperately anxious to have someone to come and act as fireman. They are unable to get the men. The equipment is not being produced.

The man who spoke to me on these matters said that he was ready and anxious to work without any question of the annual bonus. The letter he sent me ended: Our eight-man crew has nearly 30 years of accumulated experience. Can the country afford to lose trained firemen like us, with national fire losses at an all-time high? The present Government think nothing of money and they think nothing of expertise, but any Government ought to ponder words like that from someone who is desperately anxious to serve his country. He told the story of how they put out a bad heath fire in an area close to where I live: To the public it was the Fire Brigade at work, even though the call had been answered by a green fire engine, the crew of which 24 hours before had included a butcher, a G.P.O. engineer, a motor mechanic, a computer programmer, a crane driver and a sales representative. I hope that the instruction given under the terms of the Order goes wider than has been suggested. If the terms are wide enough, it is of vital importance that the Secretary of State should consider whether he ought to authorise, in addition to the 250 men of superior rank, a considerable number of men of lower rank whose service is acknowledged and appreciated.

8.24 p.m.

Dr. M. P. Winstanley (Cheadle)

A few sentences should be sufficient to express my views on this melancholy Measure. If we must have the funeral, let us get it over quickly.

I agree with the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington) in saying that the subject of this Order is very different from civil defence generally, in regard to which there is arguable territory. I do not accept the view that all we can hope for is either total war or absolute peace, but I accept that there is arguable territory on the subject of civil defence. Here, however, we are dealing with an organisation, the Auxiliary Fire Service, which has a valuable and necessary civil rôle.

I am astonished that the Government have thought it necessary to take this step. We are not, as the hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Horner) suggested, arguing for the Auxiliary Fire Service to be allowed to continue precisely as it has always been, that it must have precisely the same functions as when originally set up. Listening to the hon. Gentleman one might have thought that we were recommending that we must find fires for the auxiliary firemen—in other words, that there must be a war in order to justify their existence. We are not saying that at all.

I accept that in many ways their training may need changing and the planning of the auxiliary fire service might be reconsidered. I should be willing to support the Government in any steps they wished to take to reshape or redirect this organisation so as to give it what the House might regard as more profitable functions. It cannot be said authoritatively that everything it now does is obsolete or ought to be changed, but I accept that some aspects need to be changed. However, having accepted that, we cannot go on to accept the hon. Gentleman's solution, which is to abolish it.

The hon. Gentleman said that there was cause for satisfaction in the Government's proposal because, in some curious way which I did not fully understand, the closing down of the Service would release resources. I must dispute that. Once they are lost, it seems to me that many of those people will never be found again.

Mr. Horner

The fact is that the Emergency Fire Service Training Centre at Moreton-in-Marsh has now, to an extent, been switched over to civil fire service purposes, and its resources are being used to train more fire prevention officers.

Dr. Winstanley

What the hon. Gentleman is now saying is that although it is claimed that money will be saved, there will be no saving and that the Minister will still be spending the money but in a different way. That is a totally different argument. The whole justification for the measure is, we are told, that we shall save so many pounds. Now the hon. Gentleman says that we shall still spend that money.

Mr. Horner

I am sure that when my hon. Friend winds up he will make the position clear. So that we do not become more confused, I should explain that Moreton-in-Marsh is the Emergency Fire Service Training Centre. At the same time, a limited part of it has been scheduled for peace-time services. The rundown of the A.F.S. means that that limited part can be extended, and that is a good thing.

Dr. Winstanley

This confusion is causing me to take rather more sentences than I had expected. At least it brings me to my point, that there is a clear civil rôle for the Auxiliary Fire Service. It is extraordinary that the Government are not planning for that. We should be listening to the Government's plans for the use they will make of the Auxiliary Fire Service to get better value for money, rather than hearing plans for not spending the money and not having the service.

I put the point to the hon. Gentleman in correspondence. I suggested to the Home Secretary that the Auxiliary Fire Service should be retained in order to be employed in a civil rôle to do valuable work for which there was a clear need. The interesting part of the reply sent to me by the hon. Gentleman on 29th February was: By agreement with the Fire Brigades Union and local authorities, auxiliaries are enrolled as members of brigades solely to train for a war emergency and their service in peacetime is limited to such duties as are desirable for their training. For this purpose, many fire authorities allow auxiliaries to obtain first hand experience by accompanying their regular colleagues to peacetime fires and to other incidents. Such attendances, however, are solely for training purposes and it would be quite wrong for a fire authority to allow auxiliaries to be used in substitution for whole-time or part-time firemen in providing peacetime fire cover. Why? When the hon. Gentleman says "solely for training purposes" is he saying that they are no use? He is not, because he has often said how useful they are. He has paid tribute to them for their valuable service. Saying "solely for training purposes" is misleading. They are useful, and have been useful in the past.

The hon. Gentleman's other point was that it would be quite wrong to allow them to be used in substitution for whole-time or part-time firemen … But they are not in substitution of anybody who exists, as the hon. Gentleman knows. Fire service establishments are below strength all over the country. The hon. Gentleman told me that in answer to a series of Questions not long ago. They are substituting for empty spaces which the Minister cannot fill.

Mr. Horner

We are moving away from the question of civil defence. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that it is practicable to employ Auxiliary Fire Service volunteers to make up deficiencies in the strength of whole-time firemen, he is attempting the impossible. That cannot be worked in the fire service.

Dr. Winstanley

The hon. Gentleman must not pretend that the debate is about anything other than the abolition of the Auxiliary Fire Service. I am saying that it is a mistake to abolish it, and unnecessarily to do away with very valuable work which is offered virtually free of cost. If its present use is not as valuable as it should be, the Minister should look for a new use for it, rather than abolishing it.

The reason for abolishing it is said to be cost. The hon. Gentleman said in his letter that in 1968–69 the total cost of the Auxiliary Fire Service would have been about £1.3 million. That does not seem to me to be very much. He went on: The main burden of expenditure arises from the need to provide staff within the regular fire service to undertake the training of auxiliaries (28%)"— But he told us that most of these people will be absorbed into the regular fire service, so he will not really make the savings— and the provision of buildings (23.4%)"— but they will have to work in the same buildings; the buildings will not be knocked down or sold— and equipment (22.3%)."— but that is equipment which already exists, or, if it does not, equipment which is needed.

This nation is suffering severely from fire damage. The problem has increased year by year for many years. The cost is now £10 million a month, not counting the losses due to loss of production. Here are involved a number of people who are capable at very small cost of assisting us in combating this problem, and the Government appear to be abandoning them. It seems to me a stupid measure and I am sorry that the Under-Secretary of State has had to come in and pay tribute to these people. I wonder who the Government are going to pay tribute to next, for tribute seems to be the prelude to abolition. Who is next? Perhaps it will be the Land Commission.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. Marcus Worsley (Chelsea)

In the arguments between the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) and the hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Horner) I find myself on the side of the hon. Member for Cheadle. The hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen had difficulty in describing the state of the A.F.S. when the Order is passed. He searched for a word. I find that strange. I can give him the word. It is the simple word "extinction".

The hon. Member wished that the Government had gone further. They could have gone very little further. They are removing the whole voluntary backing which the fire services enjoyed. How one can go further, I cannot imagine. The substance of the argument of the hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen was that there would be some release of resources which would be of positive benefit to the fire services. I believe that he is wrong. When questioned and needled by the hon. Member for Cheadle, he produced as a great achievement a school at Moreton-in-Marsh.

Mr. Horner

Far from being needled by the hon. Member for Cheadle, I gave, as an example of the release of resources, the Moreton-in-Marsh training school.

Mr. Worsley

Certainly and the hon. Member has now repeated it. But he produced no further evidence to suggest that there was a releasing of resources. The truth is the opposite. The truth is, as the Under-Secretary of State said in his letter, that these auxiliary firemen, in the course of training, have been at fires and have done a useful job in helping the regular brigades on these occasions.

They do a useful job not only at fires but at disaster scenes. At the rail disaster at Harrow Weald, for example, they did an exceedingly useful job. Of course, they did not do the most dangerous work. The regular forces must do that. But many things have to be done on such occasions which do not need the skill of regular firemen or involve the dangers which regular firemen as part of their training are equipped to tackle. There are also jobs to be done after the fire—for example, to watch against a recrudescence of the fire while the regular firemen can go elsewhere. Far from releasing resources, this proposal will limit the capacity of the regular fire brigades to do their jobs. That is clear.

We have been told that 250 officers are to continue to be employed on planning for wartime fire measures and will be gradually absorbed into the regular establishment of the fire services. If that is so and these men are still to work on planning for wartime eventualities, then by that number the establishment of the fire services will be effectively reduced. I understand that these men will be kept on the job that they are now doing as auxiliary firemen and moved, as and when it is possible, on to the establishments of the regular fire service. It must follow that, when they are doing the existing job on the existing establishment, they are keeping out someone else. If that is not logical, I do not know what is. If that is not so, why is the establishment not being increased by this number which would be the logical solution?

Sir E. Errington

Is not the position that the Secretary of State is not prepared to allow auxiliary firemen to be employed? Once this comes to an end, as it will do, the men will not be employed at all on fire work.

Mr. Worsley

We were told by the Under-Secretary that about 250 in England would continue to be employed, and that this was the reason for the phrase empowering the Secretary of State to exclude a certain number from the general extinction. This is quite a large number and we should know the answer to this question.

There is an overwhelming case for voluntary support for the regular fire service. My researches into the opinion of the regular firemen have had exactly the opposite result to those of the hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen. Rather to my astonishment—since I could understand it if regular firemen found volunteers rather a nuisance—I have found that they value these voluntary services and that their passing is much regretted. The hon. Member is perhaps thinking of old prejudices rather than the present situation.

There is an unanswerable case for this voluntary support, and it is difficult to understand why, if there is no question of abolishing the Special Constabulary, there is not an equally good case, on logical grounds alone, for maintaining a voluntary background to the fire service. This, of course, is not the only reason, although it is convincing enough. It is necessary, as part of our general civil defence precautions, to have a fire service which is expandable through voluntary effort.

I am sorry to quote the hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen so often, but he has laid himself open, and if he goes on one of those courses again, he should listen more carefully. Surely he realises that even if this unimaginable disaster were as bad as he described, there would still be areas where help could be given. To talk about sending the auxiliary firemen into the area of main damage is wholly to miss the point, since there will be areas outside those of main damage where thousands of lives could be saved.

This is only half the story, because the objective of nuclear weapons and civil defence is not to use them but to prevent their use. This has been understood by every party until this proposal. The fact of the matter is that one must have a convincing power at one's disposal which prevents the other side attacking. I realise that there are hon. Gentlemen—the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) is one—who have never accepted this argument, but until the Prime Minister came to the Box in January the official Labour Party had always accepted the facts, because these are the facts.

The fact is that, purely as a money saver and a political sop to the Left wing of the Labour Party, they are throwing this away. The Labour Party has built in to its ethos a profound dislike for voluntary effort. Therefore, when there is a chance to cut one thing or another, it is the element of voluntary effort that will be cut. This is a sad day for this country, because there is an absolutely unanswerable case, both as part of civil defence precautions against war and in terms of civil need, for the maintenance of the auxiliary fire service.

8.47 p.m.

Mr. John Farr (Harborough)

It is not very often that I find myself in this House so wholeheartedly in agreement with a spokesman of the Liberal Party and so wholeheartedly in disagreement with spokesmen of the Labour Party as I am with regard to what certain members of the Labour Party have said on this particular issue tonight. We have had some strange speeches from the opposite side today. The hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Homer) persisted in talking about fire storms. In the earlier debate we had a speech from the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins), who was advocating a national euthanasia corps to destroy us before we were all killed by a nuclear exchange. What is so tragic—and this has been displayed by Members on that side and by one or two others—is that they seem to accept the inevitable in a hangdog manner. When our nation gets to that state and when it has been knocked down and will not get up and dust itself off and sort itself out, which is what they advocate, we are really in a tragic position.

The hon. Members on the other side both made at least one major mistake in their estimates in that they both assumed without any question whatsoever that the only need for a Civil Defence Corps or an Auxiliary Fire Service would be at the time of a major nuclear exchange. That is a complete and utter fallacy. We on this side know full well what would be the work of an Auxiliary Fire Service if that tragic event ever occurred, but we know even better that there have been many cases in the past—and could well be many occasions in the future—when a useful, well trained Auxiliary Fire Service has been invaluable to this nation.

Who is to say that the next war, if there is one and if we are in it, is going to involve a major nuclear exchange? The Minister on the Front Bench in this debate today and the other Minister three weeks ago have stated, quite correctly in my opinion, that the world is perhaps moving towards a more tranquil state as regards the parts of it in which we dwell, but that is because the nuclear weapons which both sides possess in some terrifying balance have become so tremendous that no thinking man can believe for a moment that they will ever be used. If this process of evaluation continues we may well reach the stage in a few years time at which we are faced with an attack by conventional weapons, in which case the necessity to maintain the network of a good auxiliary fire service would be indisputable.

The hon. Member opposite who spoke a moment or two ago would not refer to the disbandment or, in the phrase used by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley), the extinction of the Auxiliary Fire Service. He tried to put it in honeyed words by saying it was a rundown. It is nothing of the sort. Do not take my word for it; take the word of the Home Secretary who, on 29th February, referred to the "disbandment" of the Civil Defence Corps. The Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office, in the same debate, referred to the "disbandment" of the Auxiliary Fire Service. This is not a rundown. It is a complete and utter disbandment of a valuable structure.

I had a rather dusty answer from the Minister at Question Time today about the cost of maintaining the Auxiliary Fire Service in which about 14,000 members are employed. He told me that the cost of running the service is about £1 million, or a little over. I put to him, as I put now, the fact that the Auxiliary Fire Service, through their secretary, have volunteered to work without any pay, bonuses, or subsistence and even to pay their own travelling expenses if they are allowed to stay together and maintain their camaraderie and perform their present useful service. That offer was declined by the Minister, who said that not a very big proportion of the total cost was devoted to pay.

There are, however, many other considerations upon which my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington) touched. The annual fire bill for this nation is getting on for £100 million. Last year it was just over £80 million. Last year the Auxiliary Fire Service rendered useful help on several occasions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea said, there were a number of national disasters—train crashes, the "Torrey Canyon" and various other occasions when the service played a very useful part.

We are talking of literally nothing compared with out natonal defence expenditure. We are spending about £2,000 million a year on defence. To maintain the auxiliary fire service in its present form would cost only about one-twentieth of 1 per cent. of the national defence bill. Earlier, we had a debate about the merits of the Civil Defence Corps and the valuable work it is doing. I should like to put a couple of questions to the Minister, repeating those sent to him by the secretary of the British Fire Services Association and to which he has not replied.

I have a letter from the secretary who makes it clear, notwithstanding what has been said by hon. Members opposite, that all the members of the Auxiliary Fire Service are dismayed at the Government's decision. They are all disturbed about it and wish it to be reconsidered. One question put by the secretary in a letter to the Home Secretary this month was whether he would give an undertaking that when the Government's financial position improved—and assuming that one day, perhaps in the not too distant future, it will improve and there will not be the necessity to cut down on every penny we spend—this trained and disciplined body of men and women will be reformed. Even if the Minister does not consider that a suggestion which he can accept, I ask him to reply to the secretary of the Association, who is still awaiting an answer to the letter which he sent to the Minister a month or so ago.

I hope that when my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) winds up he will give a pledge that when the Conservative Party returns to office in the fairly near future this valuable network of dedicated and unselfish people will be resuscitated and that they will be allowed to play again their very useful rôle.

8.55 p.m.

Mr. MacArthur

By leave of the House, perhaps I may make three points at the close of this debate. I will make one comment on the question just asked by my hon. Friend, will put one question to the Minister, and finally will make a point which may be helpful to hon. Members waiting to take part in the next business before the House. In replying to my hon. Friend I would remind him that, faced with this sudden and brusque decision by the Government to extinguish two major voluntary services in Britain, my right hon. Friends have set up a policy committee to study a framework for voluntary work of the kind which the Government are trying to abolish tonight.

I now ask the Minister a question and I shall be grateful if he can deal with it in his reply. I believe that the Government have expressed a hope that members of the Auxiliary Fire Service will become part-time firemen; but of course they can do so only if they can fill vacancies on the existing establishment. Perhaps the Minister can tell us how many vacancies there are and to what extent they can provide opportunities for the Auxiliary Fire Service. If there are no vacancies their services will not be used, their expert knowledge will be wasted, and their desire for voluntary service will be frustrated.

We have made our strong protest against the Government's intention to disband the Auxiliary Fire Service. We feel as strongly about this as we do about disbanding the Civil Defence Corps, but having voted so recently on that we will not take up time by asking the House to divide again now.

8.58 p.m.

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

I would have liked to conclude by saying that this had been a good debate, but I am afraid I cannot do so, for I do not think it has been. There has been a great deal of exaggeration and a build-up of feeling without much justification. The hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley) suggested that the attitude of the Government reflected their profound dislike of voluntary effort. He must himself know that that is nonsense. Certainly, I myself have been involved in voluntary service and voluntary organisations for most of my life, including civil defence work many years ago. But the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) spoke about shock and growing anger, as if the national were up in arms over this issue. I do not think he is right at all. I do not believe that he really thinks it is. That was really a political intervention.

I believe that the general public, first of all, recognise the service that has been rendered by the auxiliary fire service in a number of ways on which I want to touch; and secondly, they recognise that the national situation has, as the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire said, been gradually moving towards more tranquil times; and they recognise, therefore, that the danger is reduced. But the people also recognise the need for economy in public expenditure, and that this is one contribution to that. It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to say that it is only a small part but it will result, by 1971–72, in a total saving on emergency and fire services of about £2.3 million. Sums such as this cannot be brushed aside.

I welcome the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Horner), who has devoted most of his life to the fire service. Of all hon. Members, he knows what he is talking about, from the standpoint of a lifetime of experience.

The first question raised concerns the 250 regular members of fire brigades who are employed by fire authorities either full-time or part-time additional to the normal establishment of brigades. They are employed purely for civil defence purposes. Almost all of them perform duties concerned with the recruitment, training and organisation of the A.F.S. The additional cost of their pay and emoluments is accepted for payment of civil defence grant.

These 250 men will not in future be required for the functions that they have carried out. We hope that almost all of them will be absorbed by regular fire brigades as peacetime vacancies become available. I can assure my hon. Friend that our expectation is that there will be hardly any, if any at all, of the 250 officers who will find themselves redundant, though it may take some months before they are absorbed into the right places within peacetime fire brigades.

Only about 10 officers will be authorised to be employed full time on emergency planning. In part, this is an answer to the question raised by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington). They will assist regional fire commanders designate in planning operations.

The hon. Gentleman also raised the important matter of equipment. In general, A.F.S. appliances will be withdrawn to Home Office stores over the next few months. However, where a fire authority has some special reason for retaining an emergency appliance, we propose to give the authority an opportunity to acquire the appliance or possibly rent it for a limited time. The terms on which purchase or lease will be arranged are still under discussion with the local authority associations and, shortly, fire authorities will be invited to say whether they wish to retain any emergency appliances on these terms.

A good deal has been said by the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) and the hon. Member for Aldershot about the peace-time rôle of members of the A.F.S. It is apparent that there is some misunderstanding and confusion which I am anxious to get clear. A letter has been quoted. I stand by every word of it. The authority given to local authorities to recruit the A.F.S. and maintain it is in preparation for a wartime situation. The fact that they ride on fires on some occasions is not to fulfil the obligation to provide fire cover which lies with the local authority and the fire brigade. They are there for training purposes, though it is not suggested that they have not rendered useful service on many occasions. During the past year, auxiliaries in 99 out of 132 brigades performed standby duties; that is, they were on call at fire stations to accompany the regular brigade to fires and other incidents. The total number of auxiliaries who volunteered to make themselves available in that way was 2,515 out of a total strength of about 14,000.

Sir E. Errington

Has the hon. Gentleman any figures about retained men?

Mr. Ennals

I will come to retained men in a moment. I was about to say that I thought that the hon. Gentleman was confused about the rôle of auxiliaries and that of retained men. At the moment I am talking only about members of the A.F.S. and the fact that quite a small and useful proportion of them have accompanied regular fire brigades in dealing with fires.

In all instances, the appliance manned by the auxiliaries is in addition to and not in substitution for any part of the scheduled attendance by the regular brigade. It is recognised by all authorities that their responsibility for providing fire cover lies on the regular brigades. It would be wrong if anything said in his House should lead members of the public to think that the dangers of fire and the ability of fire brigades to cope with them had been lessened as a result of the ending of the A.F.S.

The hon. Members for Aldershot and for Perth and East Perthshire asked about retained men. A substantial number of firemen are on a retained basis. They are not full-time firemen. They are on immediate call to deal with fire situations, particularly in country areas, though not only in country areas. There are vacancies in some areas for retained men. It varies from local authority to local authority. Many of the retained men are either members of the A.F.S. in their voluntary capacity or have come in as retained men because of interest aroused through the A.F.S., or the other way round. Therefore, many of the A.F.S. men will have the opportunity, if they wish, of applying to become retained firemen. I emphasise that the standard of training for retained men is on a par exactly with the full-time firemen. This cannot be said of the A.F.S., who do not have anything like the stringent degree of training which applies to retained men.

Mr. MacArthur

Could the Under-Secretary tell us, if only approximately, how many vacancies there are? We shall then be able to judge to what extent this can provide satisfaction for the voluntary spirit of the 13,500 members of the A.F.S.

Mr. Ennals

I am sorry, but I cannot give the figure off the cuff. I will write to the hon. Gentleman and give him the figure. I will indicate the extent to which it varies in different parts of the country. The majority of firemen are full-time and not retained.

I want to deal briefly with the other aspects of peacetime work, namely, national disasters. Reference has been made to a contribution which has been made by the A.F.S. I want to put the facts and the country's indebtedness clearly on record. Help was given by the A.F.S. at Aberfan, where 106 auxiliaries from surrounding areas, and an unknown number from other areas such as Luton, Kent, Cornwall and Yorkshire, worked on the scene. Many others stood by in different parts of the country but were not called on to help. On the occasion of the loss of the "Torrey Canyon", 250 auxiliaries from Devon worked over two days of the Easter holiday. After the first three days, the regular fire service carried the burden, helped from time to time by 36 auxiliaries from Cornwall. At the scene of the aircraft crash at Stockport 24 auxiliaries gave assistance. At the rail crash at Hither Green 11 auxiliaries worked with the regular services. All this has been extremely useful service.

I do not think that we should get this matter out of proportion. I pay absolute tribute to the men who gave that service voluntarily at that time, but let no one imagine that somehow or other the job would not have been done and the service would not have been provided if it had not been for the A.F.S. It would be wrong to give that impression. This matter must be seen in proportion. The peacetime benefits which have accrued from the existence of the A.F.S. could not possibly by themselves justify the retention of the service in its present form, with the scale of expenditure that this would entail, particularly since the sole raison d'étre of the A.F.S., and the money provided for it derived from its wartime function.

I want to conclude by paying tribute to these men. They have given valuable service. I hope that some of them will find their way to become retained firemen and that some may become full-time firemen. Others may find the opportunity for service in other voluntary organisations. It is absurd to suggest that we do not recognise the importance of voluntary service.

The hon. Gentleman began a very over-heated speech by referring to "double talk". We have had a good deal of double talk during the course of the evening. It is double talk, first, to suggest that somehow or other the country will be left undefended as a result of the passing of these Regulations and of the ones which the House has just approved. That is an absurd exaggeration. More than that, it is an insult to the police, the regular Fire Service, the medical service, the Armed Forces, and other voluntary organisations: it is as if they do not exist in the sphere of the defence of Britain.

It is double talk to which we have all become accustomed. The Opposition make constant demands for savings on public expenditure, but every time there is a measure of saving they attack it. This is double talk of the first order. I believe that the country accepts the need for economy and the fact that the international situation makes this decision possible. I believe that the country as well as the House will accept the decision taken by the Government.

Mr. Farr

The hon. Gentleman has not replied to the point which I raised. If this country gets out of its present financial mess, will the A.F.S. be reestablished?

Mr. Ennals

It is always unwise to start making prophecies in unforeseen situations.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That the Civil Defence (Fire Services) Regulations 1968, a draft of which was laid before this House on 29th February, be approved.

Civil Defence (Fire Services) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1968 [draft laid before the House, 29th February], approved.—[Mr. Millan.]