HC Deb 03 May 1968 vol 763 cc1562-70

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fitch.]

4.5 p.m.

Mr. Victor Goodhew (St. Albans)

I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House for the opportunity this afternoon to raise the subject of the Royal Observer Corps. This force is a volunteer corps formed, I believe, in 1925, but certainly it rendered invaluable service during the last world war, particularly during the Battle of Britain.

It is remarkable to note that this year the Royal Air Force has celebrated its 50th anniversary, and the Government seem to be marking the occasion by abolishing Fighter Command and cutting in half the Royal Observer Corps, the two elements which were so successful during the Battle of Britain.

Anyone who served in Fighter Command will remember with great pride and gratitude the vital part played by the Royal Observer Corps. I remember only too well how the sector operations room relied heavily on the plotting and reporting of enemy aircraft once they had crossed our coast. This knowledge and experience of aircraft reporting and recognition has continued to be valuable to the country since the end of the war and it has been spread geographically across the country.

Since 1956, the principal rôle of this Corps has been the detection of nuclear bursts and fall out. Nearly 1,600 posts are spread throughout the British Isles, and I believe that most of them are 13 feet underground and built of solid concrete. They have instruments for measuring the size of nuclear bursts and their direction and position and for measuring the height of the explosion, and they have contacts with the sector operation room and also give warning by radio, land line, sirens and rockets. It is assumed that in the event of a major nuclear attack of this nature the public would be dependent on the information and warning from these posts.

I understand that from 1st April this year 686 posts are to be closed, leaving about 873. This means, certainly in the South of England, that we shall be cutting out alternate posts and therefore the distances between posts will be correspondingly increased. I am told that this means probably an increase in distances between posts from three miles to five miles.

What is the effect on the performance of these posts of halving their number in an area in this way and making them more widely spread? Can they cover these larger areas as effectively as they could cover the smaller areas in the past? What is to happen to the redundant posts? Answering a Written Question by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) on 10th April, who asked how many will he destroyed and how the remainder will be utilised or disposed of, the Under-Secretary of State said: 686 posts are being closed and their communications and equipment withdrawn. They will then be disposed of under the normal arrangements for surplus Government property".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th April, 1968; Vol. 762, c. 281.] I do not know whether by that he meant destroying them. The TSR.2 was regarded as surplus Government property, and not only the aircraft but the jigs and tools were destroyed.

On 1st May my right hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden) asked the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force: Is it a fact that in connection with the run-down of the Royal Observer Corps considerable public funds are to be spent on demolishing the substantial concrete structures in which they operate? If this is so, is it really sense? The Minister replied: I would require notice of that question. It is one that has not come my way".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st May, 1968; Vol. 763, c. 1095.] I hope that we shall get an answer to that question today. Are those 686 surplus posts to be destroyed? I can see no case for destroying them. If they are 13 feet underground covered with earth or grass, and with small entrances or exits, it seems absurd to waste money and resources on destroying them. In any event, I should have thought that they might be preserved for possible future use. It would only mean going into them later and pumping out water from time to time, since they are purely concrete block-houses under the ground. I should imagine that that is the sensible thing to do.

There is also the question of the personnel in the Corps. I understand that whereas we used to have 16 to 24 persons per post there is now to be a limit of 10, and I should like confirmation of that if it is true. If it is, it seems to me to be cutting things much too fine, because I should think that a post of this nature would require three watches of three persons as an absolute bare minimum. If they are to be restricted to 10, that leaves only one spare man, and I believe that to be a dangerous limitation.

What is happening about the commandant who used to be stationed at Stanmore, and was a regular Royal Air Force officer, now that Fighter Command has ceased to exist? Has he been persuaded to go to the Home Office, which was not popular when it was suggested before? I hope that we may also have an answer to that question today.

On 22nd February the Under-Secretary of State made the following statement: Parallel with and complementary to the emergency system of control,"— he was talking about civil defence— we have the United Kingdom Warning and Monitoring Organisation, which includes the Royal Observer Corps. The purpose of this organisation is to provide public warning of an actual attack, and afterwards to provide information about the location and power of the nuclear weapons exploded, and the distribution and level of radioactive fall-out. It is a vital part of our preparations, and it is complete. It can be brought to operational readiness very quickly."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd February, 1968; Vol. 759, c. 807.] Is it really complete today, if it is being reduced? Can it be brought into operational readiness very quickly? If so, how quickly? I understand that in my area of Hertfordshire the Watford centre—not just a post—is to be closed. What effect has that on the effectiveness of the whole system? It is difficult to know where to look for information. I have been quoting both the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence. On 29th February the Home Secretary, in a debate on civil defence, moved an Amendment to an Opposition Motion. The Amendment expressed the view that the House …expresses its appreciation to the members of the Civil Defence Corps and the Auxiliary Fire Service for their services to the cause of Civil Defence…—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th February, 1968; Vol. 759, c. 1792.] The right hon. Gentleman did not go on to mention the Royal Observer Corps and it was unfortunate that that body, which has served the country so well, was not mentioned on that occasion. I readily admit that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned it later in the debate, but it was regrettable that it was not mentioned in the wording of the Amendment.

There seems to be a complete lack of appreciation by the Government of the value of voluntary effort. During recent months we have had the announcement of the disbandment of the Civil Defence organisation, involving about 70,000 people, and the A.F.S., involving another 14,000 voluntary workers. The T.A.V.R.III, the Territorial Army, which too, was to have been disbanded has, as a result of much pressure from my hon. Friends and from the volunteers themselves—they offered to serve for nothing—had its disbandment placed in abeyance. Now the Royal Observer Corps is to be halved.

We are told that two factors were taken into account in deciding this reduction in our home defences; first, our financial circumstances; and, secondly, the risk of nuclear attack. In other words, it is thought that the risk is much lower than it ever has been. I do not think that the second excuse stands. Even if the risk of nuclear attack has lessened—and I still say that that depends more on the whims of politicians in other countries than on any firm facts—what about a conventional attack?

Are we certain that there will be no circumstances in which foreign aircraft will invade our air space? One part of the air in which we are vulnerable is called the "low air"—that is, the space in which aircraft flying at a low altitude—contour hugging as it is known—can penetrate because we do not have radar cover to disclose their presence. Are we not vulnerable in this area? If we have no airborne early warning system—we asked Questions about this the other day, but did not receive Answers to encourage us—then the Royal Observer Corps might be our only hope of having a report of such low-flying aircraft.

As to the first factor, our financial situation, it is absurd to suggest that, even under the present Government, Britain cannot afford these safeguards for its security. After all, the voluntary services represent the best value of all. The Government need provide very little by way of equipment and organisation and the people are there practically for nothing. I therefore hope that the Minister will say that second thoughts will be given to the Government's lamentable decision in this matter, that the posts will be preserved and that the volunteers who wish to stay on will be used in the remaining posts.

4.18 p.m.

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

I am grateful to the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew) for raising this subject because it gives me an opportunity, which I appreciate, to pay tribute to the Royal Observer Corps, to note the important part which the Corps has to play in home preparations and to pay tribute to the work it has done in the past, not only in peacetime but notably in the last war.

If I was not as fulsome in the tributes I paid in the two debates to which the hon. Gentleman referred, it was because, in a sense, we were saying goodbye to the Civil Defence Corps and the A.F.S., which were being disbanded. As I said then—and I will elaborate on this now—the Royal Observer Corps is not being disbanded. It has a great future.

The Royal Observer Corps is, of course, the reporting element of the United Kingdom Warning and Monitoring Organisation. It might be helpful if I briefly explain what this organisation is and the part the Corps plays in it. The Warning and Monitoring Organisation has been designed to ensure that the public can be given warning of air or missile attack and, afterwards, of the presence of radioactive fallout. It is also responsible for providing fall-out information to civilian and military authorities, including those of our neighbouring N.A.T.O. Allies.

The main tasks of the Corps within the Organisation are to detect and report nuclear explosions, to measure their strength, location and height, to measure the intensity of radioactive fall-out, and to collate and distribute all this information. The Corps is also responsible for displaying nuclear burst and fall-out information at a number of R.A.F. centres, and I am glad that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force is present this afternoon.

The Corps' last-war rôle of low-flying aircraft recognition and reporting is no longer a current operational requirement, although the traditional skills of aircraft recognition are being retained. It would be a pity if these skills were to be lost. Considerable enthusiasm is shown for it by the Corps, and the cost to the Government is negligible.

The Royal Observer Corps is a uniform civilian organisation which, by virtue of its long and outstanding service in the last war, has forged close ties with the Royal Air Force, although it is not a part of it. It is administered by the Air Department of the Ministry of Defence.

The Home Office is responsible for the Warning and Monitoring Organisation as a whole and for the operational policy and control of the Royal Observer Corps although, naturally, the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence work in close collaboration on matters affecting the Corps.

Earlier this year, as will be recalled, the Government decided to put civil defence on a care and maintenance basis. The hon. Gentleman challenged the reasons, but I will not now go into the lengthy arguments which we then had. I have explained on other occasions that the effect of this decision, broadly speaking, is that we are preserving the physical assets that have been built up for civil defence purposes, but are reducing civil defence activity in various fields, as well as ensuring that local authorities and other essential services maintain a core of knowledge and experience.

On some civil defence work it is possible to preserve this knowledge and experience with small numbers of people. But the Warning and Monitoring Organisation is more complex, and the techniques and skills needed for the rapid and accurate handling of information about nuclear bursts and fall-out have to be kept in constant practice. We therefore decided that notwithstanding the drastic changes we have felt obliged to make elsewhere, we should retain the United Kingdom Warning and Monitoring Organisation, including the Royal Observer Corps, more or less in its present form and almost with its present capabilities. Its buildings, communications and equipment are substantially complete. We considered, however, that some reduction should be made in running costs, and changes have been made which will reduce the current expenditure of £2.3 million by about £½ million annually by 1969–70.

It was essential that these economies should be achieved without impairing the Organisation's ability to give warning to the public, and first priority has been given to maintaining the attack and fallout systems and to improving and completing communications for this purpose. But we are making some economies on those parts of the system that provide a fall-out and monitoring service to civil and military authorities. We are aiming, as the hon. Gentleman has said, to reduce the number of Royal Observer Corps posts from 1,559 to 873.

The redundant posts will be disposed of, and in some cases, if there is a demand by Government authority or local authorities, they will be made available to them. Some of the areas of the posts will be required for agricultural purposes, and if there are any agricultural former owners they will receive priority if they wish to resume ownership of the land where the posts are established. Consideration is being given to the retention, in what one might call a cocooned state, of a number of posts that will come out of service, in addition to the 873 which we are retaining.

Group Headquarters will be cut from 29 to 27. One of the Group Headquarters being closed is at Watford, the other is Leeds. The Commandant will continue as an officer of the Royal Air Force. A further two Group Headquarters—Truro and Oban—will be reduced in status. The complement of the Corps is being reduced from approximately 25,000 to 12,500 members. The hon. Member said that it was being halved. It is, in terms of establishment, but since the strength is about 17,500, the actual number of existing volunteers who will become surplus is between 5,000 and 6,000.

I would like to make it quite clear that the reductions I have mentioned will not impair the warning system. They will, however, reduce to some extent the organisation's monitoring capability; but it is still adequate to provide the necessary fallout and monitoring information service, which will meet our obligations to the R.A.F. and to N.A.T.O. countries.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the question of the strength of posts. The figure of 10—that is, a chief observer, together with nine observers in three watches of three observers—is considered to be adequate to meet peacetime as well as wartime requirements. We are satisfied that this reduction will not undermine the capability of the teams of observers.

The future of the Royal Observer Corps lies with the Warning and Monitoring Organisation. Its current task of reporting nuclear explosions and fallout would be as vital to this country in the event of a nuclear war as was its traditional task of aircraft reporting 25 years ago. Today it occupies a special place in home defence. The Corps is well equipped to carry its increased responsibilities. It has its underground posts and controls, its equipment and communications. Improvements are continually being made: at the moment, Group Headquarters is being adapted to take tele-printer transmission, and radio is to be installed. There is, therefore, a substantial future not only for the Corps but for the volunteers who make it up.

I am naturally sorry that it has been found necessary to dispense with the services of some of the volunteers. The hon. Member rightly said that this country owes much to the service of volunteers in many types of organisation, both in wartime and peacetime. I would not accept the view that he expressed that this Government do not recognise the value of voluntary service. Except for the United States, this country has a wider network of voluntary organisaions, fulfilling peacetime functions, than any other country. Many of them are encouraged and assisted by the Government, and many hon. Members on this side of the House—such as are still here today; there are slightly more hon. Members on this side than on the opposite side—have spent a great deal of time in voluntary service.

I am sorry that it has been found necessary to dispense with the services of some volunteers because of the reduction of posts and Group Headquarters, and on behalf of my right hon. Friend and the Government I want to thank them for the services that they have rendered. The Corps has a most valuable contribution to make in the future as part of the United Kingdom Warning and Monitoring Organisation. Although we do not wish to see the skills of the Corps put to use, this is a form of preparation that I am sure we should be unwise to do without.

In conclusion, I thank the hon. Member for giving me this opportunity both of explaining the future rôle of the Corps and indicating the support that the Government give both to the importance of its rôle and the value of the individuals who help to make it up.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Four o'clock.